This is turning into a fabulous OT thread... - (audio)Phil
On 14:35, AG Schnozz wrote:
>This cat learned his way around the test
>gear and analizers and proved things opposite. 96/24 is
>definitely better, that's for sure, but anything less is "just
>good enough".
Hope there is decent digital recording gear now at those resolutions and
above... I was hoping to identify something I could eventually use to record
French texts with local native French speakers for student/teacher use, (just
hyped: the Tascam DVRA1000). I might sign up for basic audio classes at the
local community college first, if that kind of training is worth a damn.
>By this point
>all satellite uplink systems for network broadcast had been
>converted over to digital and almost without exception the
>"Joint" mode was used. A change was made to the "official"
>algorithm shortly after, but to this day, most of the major
>networks are still using the old gear and settings.
So the broadcasting world is foisting artifacts on us from incorrect algorithms
embedded in their chips? It reminds me of those Xmas and New Year concerts from
Europe -- I find the sound out of the cable box unlistenable here in Austin.
And a lot of what goes through the car speakers when playing a CD seems to hurt
my ears.
>Anybody who has been in the audio
>facilities at WGBH knows what a VERY GOOD environment is like.
>I'm pretty anal about acoustics and speaker positioning. Even a
>cr*ppy speaker can sound ok if the position and acoustics are
>right.
I hope our Austin guys at KLRU (TV) and KUT and KMFA (NPR radio and classical)
are at least halfway there...
>When a song is "Mastered",
>it is polished and glossed up to sound right for the following
>purposes: Radio, Album, On-Line, TV/Video, Dance. Each of these
>receives different types of processing and eq'ing. The music is
>mastered not for the "ideal" audio system, but for the normal
>system in normal listening environments.
Is that why I feel uneasy when I read a hifi gear review based on three
pop/rock recordings? I run into this kind of stuff all the time and just don't
know how the reviewers can use such material for their critical listening on
$$$ or ¥¥¥ or £££ components. A guy called Ken Kessler comes to mind and he's
far from the only one...
>If you want to save a FORTUNE on speakers and amplifiers and get
>what is nearly perfect for critical listening, get yourself a
>set of Genelec self-powered studio monitors. Too ritzy? Then
>the absolute bargain, which is what the people in the know,
>know, is the Mackie HR824 self-powered studio monitors. These
>are relatively affordable and "speak the truth".
Hey, we'd say yes to studio gear if it will do justice to great recordings at
an affordable price! What do you think of the likes of Lipinsky Sound
(monitors, subs, amps) or Grace Design (headphone amp + DAC) on the 'ritzy'
side? They get talked up both in the audio pro and the audiophile press.
>
>Oh, if you are into absolutely the cat's meow in gear, check
>into Earthworks. Truely time-aligned speakers mean nothing
>until you've checked their stuff out.
I've been looking at them because of their microphones. Phonetics mavens rely
on full-range, very flat mics for their work and I want to mimic that approach
for spoken voice work. I love what Earthworks say about their 'high definition'
mics and I'm just discovering their speakers based on your advice.
>
>Oh, and what about "Monster Cable"? The unbiased scientific
>tests don't lie, but marketeers and home-audio geeks...
So you would tend to agree with the curmudgeons who just don't trust the
'audiophile' world? To much money for the actual engineering out there? I
certainly feel the coincidence of big bucks and major confusion in that market
to be, well, jarring...
==
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|