CORRECTION.  When I said "catching a whole octave above 48 kHz in
frequency," I meant "catching a whole octave in frequency above what is
captured by a 48 kHz sampling rate."  Sorry about that.

Best,
John


On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:38 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks for posting the NY Times Boulez article, Tom, which could have been
> entitled "A bunch of famous musicians sitting around kissing up to Pierre
> Boulez."  They remark how "influential" (i.e, famous) he is.  That he is.
> Does that make him a great conductor? Nope.  I loved the Gunther Schiller
> quote.  Obviously, Boulez has occasionally succeeded with a piece of
> music.  Like they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  And many
> great orchestras could occasionally deliver a great performance even while
> ignoring a monkey on the podium.
>
> If DGG digital recordings had max resolution of 48 kHz, as you know that
> is not an appreciable difference from 44.1 kHz.  The difference in
> frequencies (pitches) those sampling rates will capture is the difference
> between 22,500 and 24,000 Hz.  Way up there, that is a difference of only a
> note or two (think extended piano keyboard).  I have never been able to
> hear the slightest difference between a recording at 44.1 kHz and one at 48
> kHz.  Recording at 96 kHz is a whole 'nother thing, catching a whole octave
> above 48 kHz in frequency, but also seemingly able to capture more detail
> based on double the number of samples.  Or maybe I should say capture the
> detail with greater accuracy.
>
> Since we routinely make hi-def dubs (at least 96/24) from analog master
> tapes these days that can sound really great, I have to wonder if, all else
> being equal, those results will outshine an original digital recording made
> at only 48 kHz.
>
> I am another one who has never felt that your average DGG orchestral
> recording captured a lot of the sheer excitement of the sound of a great
> symphony orchestra.
>
> Best,
> John
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark:
>>
>> So from what you're saying, I gather that the maximum resolution of that
>> Boulez/CSO master would be 48/24?
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Donahue" <[log in to unmask]
>> >
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 6:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
>>
>>
>>  On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I can't recall if it was Yamaha or Studer digital consoles, but I think
>>>> you are correct in your descriptions of "4D". being a true DDD system in
>>>> that the last time anything was analog was when the mic plugged into the
>>>> console and the mic preamp went to a ADC.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>> The DG 4D system was comprised of a stagebox containing custom remote mic
>>> preamps and Yamaha converters that connected digitally at 24
>>> bits/44.1/48k
>>> to an RTW bit splitter that allowed them to record 24 bit 16 track on a
>>> Sony3324. The signal was also distributed to the input of a pair of
>>> Yamaha
>>> DMC-1000 digital consoles.  The normal orchestral kit that I would see
>>> here
>>> in the states was a pair or three stage boxes with a pair of machines for
>>> 32 track recording. It was basically modular and could be scaled for the
>>> job.
>>> All the best,
>>> -mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>