I agree with Dan, just because it is naturally easy for playback if
they are balanced, as opposed to highly modulated... In digital, even
just turning down the volume can be a destructive act. (not to start a
theory argument...)
Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689
On Sep 8, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Danny Meltzer wrote:
> Dan it's somewhat subjective I suppose,
>
> But you are shedding some light on just how deeply internalized some
> of the 'rules' of analog recording become.
>
> Danny
>
>
> --- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>>
>> david briggs, you wrote:
>>
>>> Im not too sure about the comment " Your S channel
>>> isn't under-recorded; it should be lower."
>>> Your digital recording is limited then. If you ever want to increase
>>> the volume of the lower track the quality will decrease.
>>
>> Not in the real world. Even recording 10-20dB low, the natural
>> ambience is likely to be way above the noise level of even a 16-bit
>> system.
>>
>>> If you have recorded at the optimum level then you can always lower
>>> the volume.
>>
>> What is optimum? A level that produces a theoretically better
>> signal-to-noise ratio but no improvement in practice, or a level that
>> plays back in a natural balance without adjustment? My argument is
>> that turning up the S channel for better saturation might have had
>> some meaning in analog tape days, but isn't necessary with the
>> available dynamic range of digital.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|