Jump to content

glancy

  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, A musical waveform is neither a sine or square wave, but that is form we use to test the electronic performance to quantify how it will performe musically. So in music we have the rise time of a square wave created by something percussive. If a system cannot reproduce a square wave well, then it will sudjectively sound dull and lifeless. We want to reproduce the musical wave, exactly as it was created. The two most meaningful engineering performance test for musicality are impulse response and frequency band width.
  2. In the studio, I fined I need to replace AD"s and DA"s every few years. They are makeing that many inprovments in technology. DO NOT save money there.
  3. We need in this forum, to keep in mind, that the Neumann SX-70 disk mastering systems, had square wave response to 45Khz. That is why we loved the sound of vinyl. I have direct to disk stuff that is still awesome to listen to. I put the FFT analyser on the output of the Lynx 16e and DAC, guess what. The RR 176.4 masters contain information up to 45Khz, and they sound very analogue. Do you think we are on to something?
  4. http://www.digitalaudio.dk/technical_papers/axion/dxd%20Resolution%20v3.5.pdf This is the science behind the inprovement we hear. I am loving it. It makes recorded music come alive in my home! The serious musicians I have played it for, are absolutly amazed at the improvement in detail and instrumental harmonics and resonance.
  5. Great question--- The way I look at recording is a blend of art and science, to create the illusion of the performance. You must always keep in mind the limitations of the medium, analogue tape, vinyl, 16/44, 24/88, 24/176 example; a outstanding analogue tape did not necessarly make a outstanding vinyl record, because of the limitations of the cutting process. I don't have time to go into that. ALL mediums and electronics have limitations. Knowing what they are, is crucial to the project's success. I have been so blessed to work with fine musicians. In the Mel Torme, Buddy Rich sessions we had the booth ready hours before start time. We knew they were going to arrive ready to make the magic happen in the studio. As a engineering team you better know exactly where you want to go. I hate layered recordings "multitrack", you can never get it back together the way you laid it down. Therefore those sessions were direct to two track. The album was "together again for the first time" Still in demand. My skill as a musician and engineer have paid off well in my career. Being a musician first is to me the most inportant, it's easier to learn the science stuff. Knowing what the musicians want and interpreting that into engineering terms for them makes you a hero. I hope that helps
  6. You are right on. The method of recording does not have as much do with the sonic outcome as how skillfully it is engineered. A really fine recording is a really fine recording even at 16/44. I would rather listen to higher bit rates if available and the engineering and performance make it worthy. It's all about the music!
  7. Thanks for your comments; I think he is hopeless! I have no desire to listen to his speakers, are they 16 bit?
  8. Ashley what are you smoken!!!! You can hug your science all you want. It is so obvious that you have not had first hand experience with Digital Master recording Your statement about 24 to 16 bit not being audible is absurd! Please go listen. If you are happy with 16 bits, have at it. You must the be delighted with Itunes. Don't try to convience me, by you limited experience. I just feel sorry for you that you are missing out on the best recorded musical experience 24/176.4. Cheers
  9. Also keep in mind that I use an external clock. Your experience may be different. The sonic difference in my set-up was rather profound. Like I had no desire to continue listen to the 16. Their are too may variables between set-ups. Trust your ears! In this forum you better, some of these folks are def! 16/44 is all you need! get real--- The Duke was right "If it sounds good, it is."
  10. No, they would coflict with each other. We listen with the 16e changed cards and drivers and listem to the 16, then went back to the 16e. The 16e won hands down, infact a very short listen.
  11. I got the fastest duel core, XP, Dell with 1.5 TB drive. RR 176.4 source thru custom cables to Esoteric 32 bit DAC external clock. I installed each board with proper drivers. I use WaveLab software. The playback system is worth $70k
  12. Chris, I have now done a A/B test of the 16 and 16e with windows XP The 16e is sonically superior. Better sound stage, more air around the instruments. I was a quick listen
  13. I did not mean to mislead. I am new here. No one else had been putting their system in perspective. I appreciate where you are comming from
  14. I could set-up a blind test that would confirm 16 bits is enough. I could set up a blind test that would establish 24 bits is a lot better. I have set up a test that esablishes the 24/176 is modestly better sounding the 24/88 But I don't build equipment. I just enjoy recording and listening to the best representation of the proformance. The industry has been recording for a decade at 24 bits. Ashley I notice you build an SACD player and you do not hear a difference? A lot of people are happy with Itunes, but I do not have to be. long word lenghts and high sample rates are here to stay. rejoice!
  15. I ask the same question of Amarra. They are only selling the complete system, software and hardware for $10K you supply the Mac.<br /> I remote control my server with the compact bluetooth keyboard/mouse from the sofa. It is working great.
×
×
  • Create New...