I have a matched pair of NT5 used for stereo field recording and if these TF5 are as much better/accurate sounding as the user reviews state they must be something to behold as the NT5 is no slouch.
As soon as my life straightens back from building our house I plan on getting back into that aspect of the hobby.....guess I’ll start saving now as the TF5 are a bit more $$ than the NT5 !
Edit.....for the math junkies! Wavelet Transform
Last edited:
Since the first days of recording conductors have been excited about creating a 'better' performance than actually existed. Furtwangler was an exception.
I understand that, but had never actually thought of it from the point of view of compensating for missing visual information. I suppose artificially widening the sound stage could be one way, and EQ to add depth.
Then add reverb to bring it back to life
Still not what I'd think of as "enhancing the original sound"
Still not what I'd think of as "enhancing the original sound"
Last edited:
yup. The results can be very nice. And some people even like decca phase 4! But for me there was something about Mr and Mrs Fine and their 3 omni setup for the mercury living presence recordings that, despite the limitations of the tech at the time sounds correct spacially.
The two I've mentioned were just kind of placeholders for the multitude of different approaches.
When talking about the first experiments with stereophonic broadcasting in the USA, I've mentioned afair already the conductor Stokowski who already back then was very much interested to create something "better than life (means bigger than life)" at the receiving end of the chain.
If you look through the lecturing notes from university courses (Jürg Jeckling for example) you'll find some information about the different point of views.
When talking about the first experiments with stereophonic broadcasting in the USA, I've mentioned afair already the conductor Stokowski who already back then was very much interested to create something "better than life (means bigger than life)" at the receiving end of the chain.
If you look through the lecturing notes from university courses (Jürg Jeckling for example) you'll find some information about the different point of views.
For me there is a kind of realism delivered by this recording method, that seems to be hardly achievable with multimiked ones.
A favorite tech!! NB, I didn't say to place the mics there, just that that wouldbe a good place to recreate 🙂
//
Bruce Jackson of Apogee used to call back in the 80's. He was making phase correcting analog brick wall filters with op-amps. The business was doing well at the time. Quite a guy he was. Bruce Jackson (audio engineer - Wikipedia)
Last edited:
24'/'192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) | Hacker News
Dimitri Mitropoulos never befriended the idea that he would conduct just for recording. I don’t think there is a single “studio” recording of his. His recordings were from live performances (and technically of not a good quality).
YouTube
George
Dimitri Mitropoulos never befriended the idea that he would conduct just for recording. I don’t think there is a single “studio” recording of his. His recordings were from live performances (and technically of not a good quality).
YouTube
George
Attachments
Indeed! Since the CD-A titles shared identical production workflow to CD-ROMs which of course had to be bit-perfect, they gained that benefit as well.
900!?!?! I guess people can't get enough of that album! And your comment prompted a recollection. We did all Doug Sax's Sheffield (and other) CDs and I believe he may have been the one who told Alan he trusted our mastering...and the timeline sounds right. Do you have a reference to the Harvest (or other label) part number for that 1994 release?
Cheers!
Howie
Here are a couple of pictures of those
Apogee Innovation - Digital audio recording products timeline
Thank you George. I will have a listen. I found a photo earlier from one of the mono Mercury releases. A lone U47 dangling over Dorati. Recording does not get much more pure than that!
DSoTM
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon (1994, CD) | Discogs
This states CDP 0777 7 46001 2 5 but all bar that last digit are the same for other releases. Confusingly there was also a 1992 remastered box set.
In hunting for the number I stumbled into the steve hoffman argument over the best issue and seems on there the 2011 Guthrie remix is preferred. Some people have a dozen versions! And I thought I was odd...
Edit : Shine On (Pink Floyd box set - Wikipedia)
This states
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon (1994, CD) | Discogs
This states CDP 0777 7 46001 2 5 but all bar that last digit are the same for other releases. Confusingly there was also a 1992 remastered box set.
In hunting for the number I stumbled into the steve hoffman argument over the best issue and seems on there the 2011 Guthrie remix is preferred. Some people have a dozen versions! And I thought I was odd...
Edit : Shine On (Pink Floyd box set - Wikipedia)
This states
- Alan Parsons – assistant remastering on the included release of The Dark Side of the Moon
Last edited:
Here's an alternative database of DSotM releases, much smaller. Includes comments and level analysis.
Album list - Dynamic Range Database
Album list - Dynamic Range Database