 |
 |
Hi Phillip: A good book to read until you understand it -- and it shouldn't take more than one read because it's well-written -- is Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio." He explains how the whole bit-depth thing works. If you don't go digi-tools crazy, 24-bit is plenty for standard conservative cleanup or EQ tweaking and then peak-level normalization. You start getting into trouble with multiple chains of effects and dynamics processing. Also, some digi-tools are better than others. And I think a lot of people get a rig full of digi-tools and just start using them like crazy without understanding what is being done to the signal. Finally, I still think some of the worst sins of digi-processing were back in the early days of Sonic Solutions and CEDAR when they were over-used by people not listening carefully or unable or unwilling to hear the awful digital artifacts. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "phillip holmes" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Shopping for AD/DA >I know you weren't. That was merely an "amen" for Bob. Most decent ADCs can give good results, if >they are used correctly. That's why I don't like those "restorations". They "put lipstick on the >pig" and the result is unacceptable for me and the pig. > There was a great article about Pro-tools a while back. It explained how all that manipulation in > the digital domain gives such a bad sounding product because every manipulation of the original > signal looses bit depth (or something like that---I'm an idiot about digital). > Phillip > > Tom Fine wrote: >> I'm not arguing for bad digital sound -- I don't know who would. >> >> I am saying that a top-line converter like the Benchmark is a real stretch for some >> funding-limited organizations and I'd much rather see limited budgets spent on excellent >> quality -- and the maintenance thereof -- ANALOG gear so you don't need a "by the light of the >> virgin moon" kind of digital chain but rather the very good and relatively inexpensive stuff that >> is out there if not plentiful. There are probably some who have more faith in digital processing >> than I do -- I say make it sound good before it goes into the box. So under this philosophy, one >> wouldn't even try extreme digital processing since you can't put lipstick on a pig and most >> people I know find digital artifacts super-annoying compared to minor analog imperfections. >> >> I still think the CardDeluxe is the best DAC device for under $1000 but some are very insistent >> on keeping all the audio circuitry outside of a PC/Mac box, for understandable reasons. There are >> a variety of external devices of excellent quality out there for well sound of the Benchmark's >> prices, although if your budget is rich and your tastes are toward the excellent only, that >> equipment has a sterling reputation. I can't recommend a specific external box because I don't >> have any. I will note that some of these devices seem to devote a lot of the development and >> marketing budget to mic preamps and/or built-in analog stuff like tube "warmers" or compressors >> of various flavors which may or may not be desired in a transfer chain. >> >> Even more important that what digi-toy you happen to have is your practices -- are you presenting >> undistorted, in-azimuth audio to the analog-to-digital converter? Is polarity and phase constant >> in your chain? Did you chase down and eliminate grounding and hum issues? For that matter, have >> you scientifically measured your equipment and do you have the equipment to measure it and keep >> it running to spec? If you're doing disks, have you cleaned them properly and played them with >> the proper stylus? Is your tape machine aligned to the proper standard? Do you keep the tape >> heads cleaned and degaussed (sp?)? Are you converting at 96/24 and leaving plenty of headroom so >> your processing won't present digital clipping? Do you have a proper storage and backup system? >> To my thinking, all of this is much more important than what brand of DAC you use as long as you >> find something in your budget that can produce digital copies that come out sounding like what >> was fed into the digital system, minus whatever digital processing you choose to do (and I would >> choose to be as conservative as possible with that). >> >> Just to be clear one more time, I'm not advocating a bad-sounding anything -- EVER! >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "phillip holmes" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:27 PM >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Shopping for AD/DA >> >> >>> Amen. Bad analog sound, plus bad digital sound, equals junk. Many "restorations" of old 78s >>> sound worse to me because I can still hear the limitations of the 78, and then, they add a layer >>> of mediocre digital processing. Obviously, there are guys who do good "restorations". I say >>> "restorations" because you can't restore what's not there. You can only take away ticks and >>> pops, and in the process, some of the music you'd like to keep. That's why I'm a record >>> collector. >>> Phillip >>> >>> Bob Olhsson wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >From Tom Fine: "...I would argue that these would be great overkill >>>> for such >>>> things as cassette field recordings, almost any spoken word, private recordings, old non-hifi >>>> media, etc." >>>> >>>> If the recordings are worth cleaning up, I'd argue they are worth the best >>>> converters one can afford. Digital artifacts are not covered up by analog >>>> recording artifacts. It comes down to the actual value of the recordings vs. >>>> the cost. High quality converters create audio that can accept a lot more >>>> signal processing before turning crunchy. >>>> >>>> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN >>>> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control >>>> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! >>>> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com >>>> >>>> >>> >> >