Date:         Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:33:26 -0600
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         phillip holmes <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Shopping for AD/DA
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <001301c7c350$c84c44b0$6b01a8c0@TOMOFFICE>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I know you weren't.  That was merely an "amen" for Bob.  Most decent 
ADCs can give good results, if they are used correctly.  That's why I 
don't like those "restorations".  They "put lipstick on the pig" and the 
result is unacceptable for me and the pig. 

There was a great article about Pro-tools a while back.  It explained 
how all that manipulation in the digital domain gives such a bad 
sounding product because every manipulation of the original signal 
looses bit depth (or something like that---I'm an idiot about digital).
Phillip

Tom Fine wrote:
> I'm not arguing for bad digital sound -- I don't know who would.
>
> I am saying that a top-line converter like the Benchmark is a real 
> stretch for some funding-limited organizations and I'd much rather see 
> limited budgets spent on excellent quality -- and the maintenance 
> thereof -- ANALOG gear so you don't need a "by the light of the virgin 
> moon" kind of digital chain but rather the very good and relatively 
> inexpensive stuff that is out there if not plentiful. There are 
> probably some who have more faith in digital processing than I do -- I 
> say make it sound good before it goes into the box. So under this 
> philosophy, one wouldn't even try extreme digital processing since you 
> can't put lipstick on a pig and most people I know find digital 
> artifacts super-annoying compared to minor analog imperfections.
>
> I still think the CardDeluxe is the best DAC device for under $1000 
> but some are very insistent on keeping all the audio circuitry outside 
> of a PC/Mac box, for understandable reasons. There are a variety of 
> external devices of excellent quality out there for well sound of the 
> Benchmark's prices, although if your budget is rich and your tastes 
> are toward the excellent only, that equipment has a sterling 
> reputation. I can't recommend a specific external box because I don't 
> have any. I will note that some of these devices seem to devote a lot 
> of the development and marketing budget to mic preamps and/or built-in 
> analog stuff like tube "warmers" or compressors of various flavors 
> which may or may not be desired in a transfer chain.
>
> Even more important that what digi-toy you happen to have is your 
> practices -- are you presenting undistorted, in-azimuth audio to the 
> analog-to-digital converter? Is polarity and phase constant in your 
> chain? Did you chase down and eliminate grounding and hum issues? For 
> that matter, have you scientifically measured your equipment and do 
> you have the equipment to measure it and keep it running to spec? If 
> you're doing disks, have you cleaned them properly and played them 
> with the proper stylus? Is your tape machine aligned to the proper 
> standard? Do you keep the tape heads cleaned and degaussed (sp?)? Are 
> you converting at 96/24 and leaving plenty of headroom so your 
> processing won't present digital clipping? Do you have a proper 
> storage and backup system? To my thinking, all of this is much more 
> important than what brand of DAC you use as long as you find something 
> in your budget that can produce digital copies that come out sounding 
> like what was fed into the digital system, minus whatever digital 
> processing you choose to do (and I would choose to be as conservative 
> as possible with that).
>
> Just to be clear one more time, I'm not advocating a bad-sounding 
> anything -- EVER!
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "phillip holmes" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Shopping for AD/DA
>
>
>> Amen.  Bad analog sound, plus bad digital sound, equals junk.  Many 
>> "restorations" of old 78s sound worse to me because I can still hear 
>> the limitations of the 78, and then, they add a layer of mediocre 
>> digital processing.  Obviously, there are guys who do good 
>> "restorations".  I say "restorations" because you can't restore 
>> what's not there.  You can only take away ticks and pops, and in the 
>> process, some of the music you'd like to keep.  That's why I'm a 
>> record collector.
>> Phillip
>>
>> Bob Olhsson wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >From Tom Fine: "...I would argue that these would be great overkill 
>>> for such
>>> things as cassette field recordings, almost any spoken word, private 
>>> recordings, old non-hifi media, etc."
>>>
>>> If the recordings are worth cleaning up, I'd argue they are worth 
>>> the best
>>> converters one can afford. Digital artifacts are not covered up by 
>>> analog
>>> recording artifacts. It comes down to the actual value of the 
>>> recordings vs.
>>> the cost. High quality converters create audio that can accept a lot 
>>> more
>>> signal processing before turning crunchy.
>>>
>>> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
>>> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
>>> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
>>> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>