Dan wrote:
>
>But different A/D converters, yes?
Thanks Dan, this is a debate which I think is more interesting than the ATR=
AC.
5 years ago I had the opportunity to sit in a listening room and make
a,b,c,d, etc tests of different A/D and D/A converters and I must say they
performed very differently.
During listening, you could switch from digital to analog by bypassing the
digital processing. It was truly enlightening.
Even if all of them were described as professional converters, some of them
were audibly "scratchy". Others just sounded "unpleasant", compared to the
analog.
What about the A/D converters used in MD's and DAT's today?? And worst,
perhaps - what about A/D converters used with PC sound cards?? Are they all
perfect?
Klas.
=20
>
>>For ambient recordings or those of a
>>number of sound sources at a distance (not one, foregrounded call)
>>there seems to be some acoustic detail that's lost with MD/ATRAC
>>scheme. For example, long reverb tails that aren't there on the MD
>>recording. When I try to coax more out of the low level MD recordings
>>with careful eq, its evident there's more garbage than on the DAT.
>
>I would suspect converter differences for symptoms like this. Lower
>level stuff is easier for ATRAC, harder for converters.
>
>-Dan
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|