[LAU] another linux audio bashing thread on slashdot
jh at brainiac.com
Tue Nov 5 18:57:16 UTC 2013
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:55:49 -0800
Ken Restivo <ken at restivo.org> wrote:
> I saw a mastering video with a guy who charges US$1k/song or something, and his "secret weapon" was a 2-track 1/4" deck. He'd dump the master mix from ProTools to the 1/4" deck at like 30ips, resample it back, and that got him the sweet lucrative loving he wanted from his customers.
Because mmmmm, tape compression. You can fake it in digital, but it's not
> I thought, wow. You take a medium in which even cheap consumer crap has effectively perfect resolution, and dump it to a medium with basically 12-bits resolution (analog tape), and then A/D it back, and that's "the sound" they wanted.
Bob Katz begs to differ:
"I believe that a finely-tuned 30 IPS 1/2" tape recorder is more accurate,
better resolved, has better space, depth, purity of tone and transparency
than many digital systems available today. Empirical observations have
shown that you need a nominal "24-bit" A/D to capture the low-level
resolution of 1/2" 30 IPS (if truth be told, the best converters only
approach about 19-20 bit resolution in practice). It can also be argued
that 1/2" tape has a greater bandwidth than 44.1 KHz or 48 KHz digital
audio, requiring even higher sample rates to properly convert to digital.
Listening tests corroborate this. 30 IPS analog tape has useable frequency
response to beyond 30 KHz and a gentle (gradual) filter rolls off the
frequency response. This translates to more open, transparent sound
than any 44.1 kHz/16 bit digital recording I've heard. 1/2" 30 IPS
analog tape has lots of information, like high resolution 35 mm film.
16-bit 44.1 KHz digital is like low-resolution video."
Assuming the mastering guy's gear is well-maintained, his price may well
be worth what he charges.
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh at brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
More information about the Linux-audio-user