Regarding DSD which Im a fan of, it begs the question by how much has the M=
R-2 improved vs the MR-1? And if theres DSD to PCM conversion going on via =
e.g Audio Gate is there noticeable difference compared to a recorder with g=
ood pre-amps, Sony D1, D50 territory. (maybe a D50 line vs MR1 line in tes=
t would show this?)
For me its 24bit /48Khz with the Sony D50 90% of the time.
--- In Jeremiah Moore <> wrote:
>
> I've been involved in a few sample-rate shootouts and comparison sessions=
.
> Those several experiences showed, to my ears, some subjective merit to
> recording at 96K.
>
> Another listening test was between DSD and a PCM-decimated version of the
> same recording. These were exquisitely recorded acoustic music sessions,
> presented at a mastering studio called Airshow in Boulder CO. The DSD
> sounded better. But it's not the same signal path. To listen to the PCM=
,
> you have to listen through a PCM converter. (a DSD D-A converter is simp=
ly
> a lowpass filter, very simple electronically). So there's a variable --
> which PCM converter?
>
> At any rate, I record at 48/24 except I record 96K for some FX work. I w=
ork
> in film and video. Material rarely if ever goes to CD. I would second t=
he
> earlier comment about conversion time; this can be significant and is a
> reason to choose your sample rate carefully.
>
> 24 bit makes a big difference when you're boosting quiet material. Even
> capturing the noise of the recorder with more bits is good.
>
> -jeremiah
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Paul Jacobson <> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19/05/2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Dugan wrote:
> >
> > > John is a good friend, but he also is in the business of selling
> > higher-sample-rate recorders...note the weasely "appear to reconstitute=
." No
> > real data to support the claim.
> >
> > There is an interesting paper from a manufacturer at the other end of t=
he
> > chain - dcs http://www.dcsltd.co.uk - entitled "A Suggested Explanation
> > For (Some Of) The Audible Differences Between High Sample Rate And
> > Conventional Sample Rate Audio Material" This appears to have been pres=
ented
> > to the AES NY in 1997.
> >
> > www.cirlinca.com/include/aes97ny.pdf
> >
> > Again no real data to support the claims, but at least this paper explo=
res
> > some possible mechanisms which might explain the improvements in sound
> > quality many people claim to hear with "hi-res" recordings.
> >
> > cheers
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> jeremiah moore | SOUND |
> http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/
>
>
>
|