From: "Graham M Smith" <>
>
> Bruce,
>
>
>>> Short answer: the quality of the analog section and the accuracy of the
>>> digital one.
>
>
>
> So I might get away with the lower cost option for what I am doing. It
> certainly seems worth trying out a couple of options before deciding whic=
h
> to use. Bearing in mind that I am going to need up to 20 of them.
I work on the concept of "good enough". It's all fine and dandy to waste
lots of money chasing perfect if it amuses you, but what really counts
is "good enough". If it will get the job done well, why spend extra?
This seems to be something that is all too frequently ignored. People
agonize over fluff and trivia. Make huge tempests in teapots. They spend
huge sums of money on it. And they try to drag others into the game.
It's well worth being practical and asking what level is "good enough"
In recording perfect is unobtainable, in fact compared to the original
sound at the mic the very best is very crude. And each person's opinion
about what they hear if at the mic location would be different. I work
on "good enough".
Think about all the folks making that so called perfect recording. Just
so someone can play it on a boombox with speakers half dead from being
played too loud. Or $5 headphones. Or make a crude sonogram of it. Or
play it on what passes for a good home stereo these days. "good enough"
for your audience has a certain meaning.
Now, I've found that my "good enough" or "barely acceptable" magically
turns into things like "excellent" when handed off to the listeners.
Should I spend the money or time to get it to where I call it
"excellent"? Something I'll probably never do about my stuff no matter
how much I like it.
This is particularly true in science, where funds are always limited.
"good enough" is what you are after. At least according to this scientist.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|