|
Pro Audio Asylum Pro studio recording equipment and music production/industry. |
|
|
|
Pro Audio Asylum Pro studio recording equipment and music production/industry. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Manley vs. Focusrite posted by Kurt Morgan on June 27, 2001 at 11:19:17:
Interesting theory about analog premastering. I agree that until recently digital audio was more of a convenience than a luxury. But I find nothing unrevealing about the audio quality of today's creative digital recordings. In spite of the average gain
war waged by pop music premastering, the 16 bit/44.1 kHz compact disc is capable of excellent sonic performance in terms of response, depth, and dimension. But now that the consumer-marketed sampling frequency for digital releases has more than
doubled (DVD-Video/Audio and Super Audio Compact Disc) to the 24 bit/96 kHz standard, the remarkable and superior record making quality of the digital format has put the conservatives' protests to rest. A saying comes to mind: "Be not the first
on whom the new is tried, nor be the last to cast the old aside." ( :
A fascinating article on human hearing and Frequency domain processing pointed out that we hear in a fashion more like unto the digital realm than the analog. Little hairs in our ear resonate at unique frequencies. If we hear a frequency that lies
between the resonant frequencies of two adjacent filia, our own brain's software senses that they are both resonating at a certain intensity and informs us that the pitch must be somewhere between the two input frequencies. So,
there's nothing unnatural about digital-style signal processing. It's actually more "natural" than that which is called "analogous."
So, provided that the signal path is good, the Word Clock, stable (ideally less than .01 ns timing error), the D/A converters, "audiophile," and the loudspeakers, very precise, the dynamic range of digital recordings, especially 24 bit ones, far surpasses that achievable with magnetic tape, and without the need for (that type of) noise reduction. The depth and clarity achievable by the informed splining of the samples done by state-of-the-art D/A converters can be breathtaking, indeed. Furthermore, since most
recordings are destined for cd mastering, then, unless downsampling is required, such as preparing an 88.2 kHz (16 bit fixed-64 bit float)-through-2.8 MHz (1 bit (SACD)) F/s recording to the Red Book protocol, then reconverting to analog is generally
considered bad voodoo.Here's an edited quote from Bob Katz taken from his web site: http://www.digido.com/. :
"Analog versus Digital Processing in Mastering"Earlier in this article, I cautioned against returning to the analog domain once you've converted to digital. Ideally, you only want one of these conversions, once in the original recording, and once in the CD player playback.
"There is always a loss in transparency when passing through analog stages, particularly A/D/A. Anyone who has patched processors in their Consoles is aware of these tradeoffs. In other words, you have to carefully weigh the veil and fogginess that
results from patching the DAT via analog versus the changes the processor can give versus bringing the DAT into a high resolution Digital editing and mastering system and performing the processing in the digital domain." ...some mastering engineers claim that analog processors sound better than digital processors. I'm not one of them; I won't make that blanket statement. But I agree that analog processing is the "bees knees" for many musical productions.
"Even without going through the analog tape, I have always maintained that A/D and D/A conversion processes are the most degrading processes that can be done. When we think about using an analog process on a digital tape, the first thing I ask the producer is "why didn't you mix to analog tape in the first place?" Then there would be less questioning
about which route to take."Most of the time, I personally have found the digital process to be the most transparent of the two options. Perhaps this is because I am very comfortable in both the analog and digital domains. Other mastering engineers agree or disagree with me on this point, and
our choice of processing depends a lot on personal taste, habits developed over the years, ignorance (or knowledge) of the power of good digital processors, the quality andtransparency of their monitoring system (if it doesn't show the degradation, then maybe
it isn't there?), and so on. I have many clients with excellent ears who cannot believe that these results were obtained with (god forbid!) digital EQ and processing."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Digital Mastering - balUns 16:42:46 06/27/01 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
