Where I see the usage of latest gear is in Hollywood. They have the budget for it. Pop, Indy, jazz, not so much. Maybe some classical recordist.
Many of the folks I come into contact with that work on scores in LA have access to excellent and newest equipment as well as working on sound stages that can support that kind of work. This includes mics that are extended bandwidth, such as the MKH8x series from Sennheiser. Also new ribbon designs such as the Samar 65 that extends flat to beyond 25khz (don't have data beyond that point)
They are out there, just not that much in the daily trenches of production. Most work is done on the standard set of mics people have been using for years. Its a world that doesn't change fast.
Cheers
Alan
Many of the folks I come into contact with that work on scores in LA have access to excellent and newest equipment as well as working on sound stages that can support that kind of work. This includes mics that are extended bandwidth, such as the MKH8x series from Sennheiser. Also new ribbon designs such as the Samar 65 that extends flat to beyond 25khz (don't have data beyond that point)
They are out there, just not that much in the daily trenches of production. Most work is done on the standard set of mics people have been using for years. Its a world that doesn't change fast.
Cheers
Alan
Virtually all recording mics that studios offer for use/rent are 48V phantom power. B&K with their unique 200V polarization would be extremely rare in any recording studio in fact Harvey Gerst (very well known with >50yrs. experience) considers them boring for actual musical recording. You see recording engineers in general don't want accuracy but consider each mic to have it's own "voice".
I missed that part.......Does anyone really understand it?
I mean....other than the people who just dismiss it and see it as ‘another money grab’ with any benefits being out of the audible range.
Is there anyone/any literature that has/can break it down to its inner workings ?
There has to be a lot of people involved.....they’re talking about streaming live MQA performances has that happened yet?
Stereophile did a couple of articles looking at the techology BUT they might be a bit chewy reading for you. The issues with MQA a lot of us have is that
a)it contains DRM.
b)its lossy compression.
c) MQA insist to get certification that you implement THEIR filters in your DAC.
d) Bob Stuart isn't really trusted after the whole DVD-audio thing.
But some people get a warm and fuzzy from a special blue led on their DAC lighting up.
Https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers will give you a bit to read, but not the article I was thinking of.
Post-shannon sampling theory... Hmmm
a)it contains DRM.
b)its lossy compression.
c) MQA insist to get certification that you implement THEIR filters in your DAC.
d) Bob Stuart isn't really trusted after the whole DVD-audio thing.
But some people get a warm and fuzzy from a special blue led on their DAC lighting up.
Https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers will give you a bit to read, but not the article I was thinking of.
Post-shannon sampling theory... Hmmm
Bob (and planet10) have a look at this, a pretty simple explanation me thinkst? Time resolution of digital audio – Troll Audio
A lot of people get confused by it apparently like thinking time resolution is related to frequency response which you appeared to imply earlier?
Last edited:
We used the 'boring' 4133 B&K mike capsules for the Grateful Dead Wall of Sound as differential mikes, but we used a Nagra mike preamplifier with each capsule, because they were simpler in construction and used only a single lower voltage supply, except for the added 200V polarization supply. We have always found that phantom powering to be an inferior compromise, but sometimes it is useful. To do it 'right' is expensive on both ends of the mike cable. But then I am always trying to get rid of small audio transformers and electrolytic caps. '-) It is kind of like passenger car rated tires, OK to go to the store, and even to work, but don't use them in a sports car race. I design and work with the equivalent quality as performance sports cars for the majority of my designs, including audio mastering.
“It is also doubtful that such small time differences are in any way audible.“
Doubt? Did he say doubt, a jury of peers could hardly condemn with doubt involved.
There have been plenty of studies into it, try calculating it and work it out for yourself, all the formula are there, or just ignore it all, whatever“It is also doubtful that such small time differences are in any way audible.“
Doubt? Did he say doubt, a jury of peers could hardly condemn with doubt involved.
You almost seem to be biased, but I know that's impossible
Last edited:
It doesn't work that way and because the "Bob" makes such claims I feel free to ignore the lot.