Jump to content
IGNORED

New Comparing 24/96 wav vs 24/96 flac vs 16/44.1 wav vs 320 mp3 (working link )


oso

Recommended Posts

The link to these compare files has been changed. These work; Free Compare Formats or Sound Liaison Music Shop.

 

 

 

These free downloads are interesting, can anybody hear the difference? And what do you think of this;

When you compare the files start with the lowest resolution: D (MP3 320 kbps) and move on up through example C and B ending with A.

Be careful: If you start with A, and move down through B and C ending with D, your mind will remember the ''Blueprint'' of the higher resolution file, making it difficult to hear the difference even when finally listening to the MP3 file. Don't be frustrated if you can't hear a difference at first. Hearing is as individual as taste but hearing is also something which can be acquired, like the taste of good wine.

So they do not recommend a blindfold comparison.

CompareFormats300Shadowv2.png

 

 

download link;Sound Liaison Music Shop

 

 

[TABLE=class: cms_table_mymusetable, width: 686]

[TR]

[TD]Free Tracks Format Comparison

Here is a zip file containing samples of 2 tracks in 4 different formats.

A: 96/24 WAV

B: 96/24 FLAC

C: 16/44 WAV (CD)

D: 320kbps MP3

All the different formats have the same source file 96/24 WAV (Studio Master).

We used WAVELAB for the conversion.

When you compare the files start with the lowest resolution: D (MP3 320 kbps) and move on up through example C and B ending with A.

Be careful: If you start with A, and move down through B and C ending with D, your mind will remember the ''Blueprint'' of the higher resolution file, making it difficult to hear the difference even when finally listening to the MP3 file. Don't be frustrated if you can't hear a difference at first. Hearing is as individual as taste but hearing is also something which can be acquired, like the taste of good wine.

1. BATIK - The Defeat

A: 96/24 WAV

B: 96/24 FLAC

C: 16/44 WAV (CD)

D: 320kbps MP3

2. Carmen Gomes Inc - A Thousand Shades of Blue

A: 96/24 WAV

B: 96/24 FLAC

C: 16/44 WAV (CD)

D: 320kbps MP3[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

Link to comment

Hi Oso,

 

In my opinion, technically impossibly comparing different audio resolutions due:

 

1. We don't know how was created comparing samples (here we compare audio converters or different capturing/mixing/mastering equipment)

 

2. Different resolutions played back via different audio ways (here we comparing software and hardware + audio converters).

 

Best regards,

Yuri

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
Hi Oso,

 

In my opinion, technically impossibly comparing different audio resolutions due:

 

1. We don't know how was created comparing samples (here we compare audio converters or different capturing/mixing/mastering equipment)

 

2. Different resolutions played back via different audio ways (here we comparing software and hardware + audio converters).

 

Best regards,

Yuri

 

On the website it says;

A: 96/24 WAVB: 96/24 FLAC

C: 16/44 WAV (CD)

D: 320kbps MP3

All the different formats have the same source file 96/24 WAV (Studio Master).

 

We used WAVELAB 8.5 for the conversion.

source;Sound Liaison Music Shop
Link to comment

Wavelab may not have that great a SRC algorithm.

 

SRC Comparisons

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Wavelab may not have that great a SRC algorithm.

 

SRC Comparisons

 

There is matter playback software/hardware. Different audio signal ways for different resolution.

 

And each SRC algorithm has own "sound" too. With other SRC processing we can get other results too.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
I believe wavelab is one of the must used mastering workstations in the prof. studios or is that no longer so?

 

Does not change anything about what I said. Wavelab's SRC if you look at the test info in the link I posted is not among the better SRC's technically. Would not matter if 90% of all studios use it. I don't work in that business. I would venture Pro Tools is most common and Wavelab is certainly a big player though I don't know how they rank overall.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
No, except that that means that the majority of the recordings that we listen to probably has been mastered in wavelab.

But looking at your test it seems like the audio industry has to shape up.

 

Mastering contains several stages. Resampling, as one of all mastering stages, can be performed in other tool.

 

Master recommend create in resolution of the project. Before release to CD or stream, or for online store/download site performed resampling.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
I would venture Pro Tools is most common and Wavelab is certainly a big player though I don't know how they rank overall.

 

I believe protools is mac and wavelab is pc. But probably there are more contenders.

What does Blue Coast or Reference Recordings use?

Link to comment
I believe protools is mac and wavelab is pc. But probably there are more contenders.

What does Blue Coast or Reference Recordings use?

 

Hi oso,

 

While those applications were originally Mac and PC, respectively, both are now available for either platform.

ProTools is generally used for multitracking, not for mastering. Wavelab is Steinberg's mastering application.

 

To my knowledge, Reference Recordings are mastered by Paul Stubblebine, who I believe uses soundBlade as his main mastering application (at least he used to, if I recall correctly).

 

Sample rate conversion can be applied via third-party software such as iZotope's 64-bit SRC, or via our own Yuri's (audiventory's) AuI ConverteR, or any of countless other means. These will usually beat the built-in SRC in many apps. (Of course, some apps license their SRC and/or dither algorithms from the third parties.)

 

That said, while I have my own favorites and my own feelings about many SRC algorithms (I'm always listening to and comparing them) it is important to realize that how a tool is used can be much more important than the particular tool, so criticizing the tool is, in my opinion, silly at best. Ultimately, it is the chef that makes the meal, not the pots in which it is cooked. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
No, except that that means that the majority of the recordings that we listen to probably has been mastered in wavelab.

But looking at your test it seems like the audio industry has to shape up.

 

Hi PAP,

 

I would say the majority of recordings we listen to were mastered with soundBlade, by a good margin.

Some others like Pyramix are becoming widely used to. There are dozens of others but most will be found more in semi-pro or musician-owned studios than in the big mastering rooms.

 

Often, you'll find more than one application in the better mastering rooms, simply because each tends to do something the others do not. (I have four or five dedicated mastering applications, plus a number of other apps that I might call upon when mastering an album.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Often, you'll find more than one application in the better mastering rooms, simply because each tends to do something the others do not. (I have four or five dedicated mastering applications, plus a number of other apps that I might call upon when mastering an album.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Barry, would love to hear as much as you care to say about the mastering and other software you often use, and what jobs each does.

 

Another thing I'm curious about is to what extent these commonly used applications have characteristic sounds, and whether you might point us to any popular or classic recordings that have passages exemplifying these sounds. (If that's the subject of a separate thread, please feel free to start one!)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Barry, would love to hear as much as you care to say about the mastering and other software you often use, and what jobs each does.

 

Another thing I'm curious about is to what extent these commonly used applications have characteristic sounds, and whether you might point us to any popular or classic recordings that have passages exemplifying these sounds. (If that's the subject of a separate thread, please feel free to start one!)

 

Hi Jud,

 

There is definitely a characteristic sound to each of the applications. I don't know that you would hear such on any given recording because so many other factors outweigh the sound of the mastering apps by far. (You would need to hear the same master passed through the different apps in order to discern what the mastering apps are doing.)

 

While the playback in each app is slightly different from the others, the discrepancies really come into play when you start to use the full capabilities of each of the "engines." I ran some tests a while back, using one of my own recordings to analyze the sound of several mastering apps. The tests consisted of loading the original recording into each of the apps and applying the same process in each.

 

One of the things I need to do when mastering my own recordings is set the final level with the mastering application. I record with lots of headroom and besides, every monolithic A-D converter I know of will exhibit its lowest distortion when the maximum peak is no greater than -6 dBFS. The performance might be even better at -10, -12 or lower. For the final master, however, the level will generally be raised--in the digital domain--to use up all of the available resolution. This is particularly important for the 16-bit release because resolution is already compromised and throwing bits away is just silly. I have often remarked that folks tend to confuse CD's signal-to-noise ratio with its dynamic range. To my ears, the undistorted dynamic range of CD is nothing at all like the 96 dB of the noise spec, being more like 30 or 40 dB before the harmonics and low-level info turn to mush.

 

So, I took the original which had a max peak on that particular track of about -12 dBFS and changed the gain in each of the mastering apps by a little over 11 dB. Then I brought the results of all four apps in the test into a multitrack application and synchronized them. This made switching between pairs of tracks (i.e., each version) easy and seamless. The differences were plain as day, primarily in how low level information and spatial cues were preserved (or not).

 

Of course, there are many operations that might be required when mastering an album, depending on the source. I'll generally use third-party "plug-ins" for sample rate conversion and dither/noise shaping. While my own recordings are essentially raw and unprocessed (by design), most of what comes in for mastering, due to how it was recorded and mixed, needs help. It might be EQ or any of several other things, including altering the mix -- even when I only have a stereo source. (We have ways. ;-})

 

When EQ is needed, I find the Metric Halo software (the ChannelStrip plug-in or the built-in MHStrip) unmatched for its ability to do the job and still stay out of the way. I've done similar tests where I applied the same EQ using different plug-ins. The MH EQ made the others sound broken--"crunchy" isn't a bad descriptor either for the results in certain parts of the range. Other tests used different dither algorithms, noise shaping algorithms, and all sorts of other processors - again all used the same way on multiple copies of the same source. Using trusted recordings and comparison against the unprocessed originals has been something I've found invaluable in helping me select the tools to use. (My criterion is if you can hear the process, the tool fails.)

 

Another tool that has saved some folks' mixes is iZotope's RX. With it, I can remove spurious noises without disturbing the rest of the mix. If I'm not mistaken, it was designed by Alexey Lukin, who also designed iZotope's 64-bit SRC and their MBIT+ dither/noise shaping algorithms.

 

Reaper is a wonderful application that can be used for recording and mixing (and some editing). I find it to sonically outperform much of its competition at a small fraction of the price. Other apps in the toolbox are soundBlade, Peak Pro XT (discontinued but still my favorite editor), Triumph, Wave Editor, DSP Quattro, Sample Manager (a wonderful batch processor), SoundSoap, and the amazing SpectraFoo (for analysis). There are probably others on the main drive too but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment

Barry, that was fascinating, and very generous. Much appreciated!

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
I believe protools is mac and wavelab is pc. But probably there are more contenders.

What does Blue Coast or Reference Recordings use?

 

No Pro Tools and Wavelab are available for both platforms. You can even buy dedicated audio specific PC's made for Protools use running your choice of Win 7 or Win 8.

 

I don't know what Blue Coast uses. I suppose from their descrition they do most work in analog, and likely use one of the DSD specific DAWs otherwise.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
When EQ is needed, I find the Metric Halo software (the ChannelStrip plug-in or the built-in MHStrip) unmatched for its ability to do the job and still stay out of the way. I've done similar tests where I applied the same EQ using different plug-ins.

 

Hi Barry, it would be interesting to know your thoughts about Acustica Audio's Nebula if you've tried it. It made me become uninterested in other plugins just like when I got my analogue synths that made me lose interest in Virtual Instruments. It sounds really good to me, doesn't sound digital at all, sounds analogue even though it works with PCM.

 

Reaper is a wonderful application that can be used for recording and mixing (and some editing). I find it to sonically outperform much of its competition at a small fraction of the price.

 

As a Pro Tools owner, I became disappointed with their odd updates, odd update paths which look more like extortion and general lack of stability. It does sound very good... when it works. After my disappointment a few years back, I set up Reaper, with the Imperial skin. Looks great, sounds great, has all the features needed and rock-solid MD and Audio stability.

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment
Hi Barry, it would be interesting to know your thoughts about Acustica Audio's Nebula if you've tried it. It made me become uninterested in other plugins just like when I got my analogue synths that made me lose interest in Virtual Instruments. It sounds really good to me, doesn't sound digital at all, sounds analogue even though it works with PCM.

 

 

 

As a Pro Tools owner, I became disappointed with their odd updates, odd update paths which look more like extortion and general lack of stability. It does sound very good... when it works. After my disappointment a few years back, I set up Reaper, with the Imperial skin. Looks great, sounds great, has all the features needed and rock-solid MD and Audio stability.

 

+1 on the Reaper. Surprisingly great software at a very reasonable price.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Hi Jud,

 

There is definitely a characteristic sound to each of the applications. I don't know that you would hear such on any given recording because so many other factors outweigh the sound of the mastering apps by far. (You would need to hear the same master passed through the different apps in order to discern what the mastering apps are doing.)

 

While the playback in each app is slightly different from the others, the discrepancies really come into play when you start to use the full capabilities of each of the "engines." I ran some tests a while back, using one of my own recordings to analyze the sound of several mastering apps. The tests consisted of loading the original recording into each of the apps and applying the same process in each.

 

One of the things I need to do when mastering my own recordings is set the final level with the mastering application. I record with lots of headroom and besides, every monolithic A-D converter I know of will exhibit its lowest distortion when the maximum peak is no greater than -6 dBFS. The performance might be even better at -10, -12 or lower. For the final master, however, the level will generally be raised--in the digital domain--to use up all of the available resolution. This is particularly important for the 16-bit release because resolution is already compromised and throwing bits away is just silly. I have often remarked that folks tend to confuse CD's signal-to-noise ratio with its dynamic range. To my ears, the undistorted dynamic range of CD is nothing at all like the 96 dB of the noise spec, being more like 30 or 40 dB before the harmonics and low-level info turn to mush.

 

So, I took the original which had a max peak on that particular track of about -12 dBFS and changed the gain in each of the mastering apps by a little over 11 dB. Then I brought the results of all four apps in the test into a multitrack application and synchronized them. This made switching between pairs of tracks (i.e., each version) easy and seamless. The differences were plain as day, primarily in how low level information and spatial cues were preserved (or not).

 

Of course, there are many operations that might be required when mastering an album, depending on the source. I'll generally use third-party "plug-ins" for sample rate conversion and dither/noise shaping. While my own recordings are essentially raw and unprocessed (by design), most of what comes in for mastering, due to how it was recorded and mixed, needs help. It might be EQ or any of several other things, including altering the mix -- even when I only have a stereo source. (We have ways. ;-})

 

When EQ is needed, I find the Metric Halo software (the ChannelStrip plug-in or the built-in MHStrip) unmatched for its ability to do the job and still stay out of the way. I've done similar tests where I applied the same EQ using different plug-ins. The MH EQ made the others sound broken--"crunchy" isn't a bad descriptor either for the results in certain parts of the range. Other tests used different dither algorithms, noise shaping algorithms, and all sorts of other processors - again all used the same way on multiple copies of the same source. Using trusted recordings and comparison against the unprocessed originals has been something I've found invaluable in helping me select the tools to use. (My criterion is if you can hear the process, the tool fails.)

 

Another tool that has saved some folks' mixes is iZotope's RX. With it, I can remove spurious noises without disturbing the rest of the mix. If I'm not mistaken, it was designed by Alexey Lukin, who also designed iZotope's 64-bit SRC and their MBIT+ dither/noise shaping algorithms.

 

Reaper is a wonderful application that can be used for recording and mixing (and some editing). I find it to sonically outperform much of its competition at a small fraction of the price. Other apps in the toolbox are soundBlade, Peak Pro XT (discontinued but still my favorite editor), Triumph, Wave Editor, DSP Quattro, Sample Manager (a wonderful batch processor), SoundSoap, and the amazing SpectraFoo (for analysis). There are probably others on the main drive too but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

That was awesome reading Barry! Thanks a lot for your post. BTW, you've said that in the process of comparing the tools you listen to low level cues, could you tell us what specifically we should listen to judge the mastering quality or recording? I mean, should we rather focus on spatiality, low bass extension, how the particular interments are placed as pseudo sources or rather something on the high frequencies like timbre, tone, granularity?

--

Krzysztof Maj

http://mkrzych.wordpress.com/

"Music is the highest form of art. It is also the most noble. It is human emotion, captured, crystallised, encased… and then passed on to others." - By Ken Ishiwata

Link to comment
Hi Barry, it would be interesting to know your thoughts about Acustica Audio's Nebula if you've tried it. It made me become uninterested in other plugins just like when I got my analogue synths that made me lose interest in Virtual Instruments. It sounds really good to me, doesn't sound digital at all, sounds analogue even though it works with PCM...

 

Hi YashN,

 

I have not tried Nebula (yet). Personally, I would hope it does *not* sound "analog" as I would consider this just as much a distortion as sounding "digital" or even sounding "great." The reason I love ChannelStrip and MHStrip (and MHEQ) as equalizers is because to my ears, they don't "sound" at all. I want the colors to come from the music, not the gear used to make recordings.

 

Of course that is just me. I understand that many seek certain "flavors" in the gear they use to make recordings and I think that is fine. There are obviously many ways to make a record. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
That was awesome reading Barry! Thanks a lot for your post. BTW, you've said that in the process of comparing the tools you listen to low level cues, could you tell us what specifically we should listen to judge the mastering quality or recording? I mean, should we rather focus on spatiality, low bass extension, how the particular interments are placed as pseudo sources or rather something on the high frequencies like timbre, tone, granularity?

 

Hi Krzysztof,

 

I mentioned that some of the differences I hear between the mastering applications manifest themselves in the area of low level information. It isn't necessarily that I'm listening for this, just that these are the areas that caught my ear when doing direct comparisons of the apps.

 

My experience has been that we all hear differently and probably all listen differently too. With this in mind, I can only speak for myself of course. When I'm evaluating mastering or a recording, the only thing I'm focusing on is the sound of the music including the space in which it occurs, whether real or synthetic. (By the way, the only way I know of to evaluate mastering is to either have the source on hand or have a different mastering. Obviously the first is the optimal way but often one mastering can reveal some things about another mastering.)

 

If the recording (and mastering) exhibits high quality, I find I'm better able to get into the music and the artistic message it contains. To my mind, it is really flaws in one or more stages of the process of record making that will raise issues about specific characteristics like frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstage, imaging, harmonic complexity, etc. In other words, I tend to notice these things when something is wrong-- which unfortunately with most records is most of the time.

 

By way of example, not too long ago I was listening to John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" album and though I've heard it many times over the years, on this particular occasion I sat in awe of the players (once again) and the energy they were creating. I even said out loud to my wife "The studio must have been on fire when these guys did this!" Such was the "heat" in the music. At the same time, I was frustrated by aspects of the recording that kept getting in the way. Elvin's drums were clipping. All the engineer had to do was turn down the record level. But he didn't. McCoy's piano swung forward for his solos, as if on a trapeze. And the sound, as heard from inside (!), under the lid (!), just above the hammers (!), captured by mics with significant treble peaks, was as if the instrument was made of aluminum instead of wood. And saxophones just don't sound like that! Dynamic compression was applied liberally--I would guess both in the original recording and again during the mastering. (Note, this is only a guess. I could be mistaken.) All this to say, if the recording was better, I'd have gotten more completely lost in the music. It would have taken less effort and less fatigue to get to the music. And if the recording was better, I wouldn't have noticed the microphones, the record level, or the processing. There would be only the music.

 

The same occurs at a good live performance (not those with "sound men" whose work should, in my view, be punishable). We hear the music, not the treble extension or the imaging. So, I would say the thing to listen for is the music. Characteristics of the sound will only come up if something is wrong. Granted, there may be something in every recording but some surely get out of the way much better than others.

 

As always, just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Hi Krzysztof,

 

I mentioned that some of the differences I hear between the mastering applications manifest themselves in the area of low level information. It isn't necessarily that I'm listening for this, just that these are the areas that caught my ear when doing direct comparisons of the apps.

 

My experience has been that we all hear differently and probably all listen differently too. With this in mind, I can only speak for myself of course. When I'm evaluating mastering or a recording, the only thing I'm focusing on is the sound of the music including the space in which it occurs, whether real or synthetic. (By the way, the only way I know of to evaluate mastering is to either have the source on hand or have a different mastering. Obviously the first is the optimal way but often one mastering can reveal some things about another mastering.)

 

If the recording (and mastering) exhibits high quality, I find I'm better able to get into the music and the artistic message it contains. To my mind, it is really flaws in one or more stages of the process of record making that will raise issues about specific characteristics like frequency extension, dynamic range, soundstage, imaging, harmonic complexity, etc. In other words, I tend to notice these things when something is wrong-- which unfortunately with most records is most of the time.

 

By way of example, not too long ago I was listening to John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" album and though I've heard it many times over the years, on this particular occasion I sat in awe of the players (once again) and the energy they were creating. I even said out loud to my wife "The studio must have been on fire when these guys did this!" Such was the "heat" in the music. At the same time, I was frustrated by aspects of the recording that kept getting in the way. Elvin's drums were clipping. All the engineer had to do was turn down the record level. But he didn't. McCoy's piano swung forward for his solos, as if on a trapeze. And the sound, as heard from inside (!), under the lid (!), just above the hammers (!), captured by mics with significant treble peaks, was as if the instrument was made of aluminum instead of wood. And saxophones just don't sound like that! Dynamic compression was applied liberally--I would guess both in the original recording and again during the mastering. (Note, this is only a guess. I could be mistaken.) All this to say, if the recording was better, I'd have gotten more completely lost in the music. It would have taken less effort and less fatigue to get to the music. And if the recording was better, I wouldn't have noticed the microphones, the record level, or the processing. There would be only the music.

 

The same occurs at a good live performance (not those with "sound men" whose work should, in my view, be punishable). We hear the music, not the treble extension or the imaging. So, I would say the thing to listen for is the music. Characteristics of the sound will only come up if something is wrong. Granted, there may be something in every recording but some surely get out of the way much better than others.

 

As always, just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Thank you Barry. It was again pleasure to read the whole story. Certainly, once when I had time I decided to go again for my music library and picked up some of the albums I did not listen so often. That was including some old Chesky Records or remasters of great jazz 50s XRCD rips. Some of them where just so fluid that I forgotten about my cans on head - it was indeed, just music. It happens quite rare for recent recordings.

--

Krzysztof Maj

http://mkrzych.wordpress.com/

"Music is the highest form of art. It is also the most noble. It is human emotion, captured, crystallised, encased… and then passed on to others." - By Ken Ishiwata

Link to comment
+1 on the Reaper. Surprisingly great software at a very reasonable price.

 

It's rather mind-boggling at that price, I agree.

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment
Hi YashN,

 

I have not tried Nebula (yet). Personally, I would hope it does *not* sound "analog" as I would consider this just as much a distortion as sounding "digital" or even sounding "great." The reason I love ChannelStrip and MHStrip (and MHEQ) as equalizers is because to my ears, they don't "sound" at all. I want the colors to come from the music, not the gear used to make recordings.

 

Totally agree, if we're looking for lack of too much artificial coloration. It can do that too, provided the equipment's model you're using does that. It can also provide the coloration liked by some if that's what they want.

 

Another thing I've noticed with it is that when you're changing parameters, it feels like the sound changes just like when you change a parameter on analogue gear, i.e. it feels very smooth, as opposed to feeling 'discrete' or in little steps with a digital fader or digital plugin.

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...