In Reply to: In which Dr. Sardonicus stirs the pot... posted by David W. Robinson on July 10, 2006 at 20:10:44:
I mostly agree with the comments, esp. that it's highly unlikely that a non-classical recording will be "Pure DSD"but what some people don't realise is that, a typical non-classical recording is not "Pure PCM" either, even when an all digital console and recorder is used.
Most bands have guitars and keyboards that are highly processed, with banks of effects units. Guess what happens on each and every one of these effects units? Yep, the sound is converted from analog to digital, processed, then converted to analog again.
Same deal for any insert effects used during mixing.
Same deal for any limiters placed in the mic chain.
So by the time the signal has reached the console, it has undergone numerous A-D and D-A conversions. And any outboard effects during mixing add a few extra iterations.
Given that, there is still an advantage to DSD because it avoids an extra decimation stage in the final mastering and a modulation stage in the playback. It may not seem much given the above, but it seems to make a difference, based on my listening experiences in a studio comparing the final master on DSD vs PCM (resampled to delivery format resolution).
PS - I don't agree with the practice of liberal processing and EQ during mixing. In my experience, the band is already applying lots of processing anyway to get the sound they want, so why add extra? And liberal use of EQ to "position" instruments so that they "punch through" in the mix can be avoided if you set levels very carefully. Put this this way, very carefully balancing the mix levels can achieve in most cases the same effect as EQing, so EQ should be rarely used, and only to correct an obvious "boom" problem in the sound.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I resisted the urge to post a reply but failed :-) - Christine Tham 16:54:12 07/11/06 (0)