Just a semantic thing, but the disc format was actually called DVD-Audio, most people shorten it to DVD-A. If you're talking sound recorded on a DVD, they you should say DVD audio, no hyphen, no capital A.
Well, we're actually talking about sound data stored
on dvd, because, unless someone comes up with a proprietary device to store and deliver the data that is un-hack-able, we are heading for data distribution directly via download/streaming onto media servers and media playback devices.
But once again ClubNeon, you are correct.
So why put it on tape, with its inherent weaknesses before handing it to the ADC (Analog to Digital Converter)? (DACs go the other way.)
I use tape mainly to track drums (natural transient squash), or to do just basic tracking with (and that's when the budget allows) before conversion, mainly for the sound tape imparts. A kind of euphonic glue that sounds pleasing and "analog". Tape has become more of an effect (and most young rock bands like that sound better than straight digital, as digital can sounds too sterile and flat sometimes) than as an actual straight recording medium.
It's sorta how microphone bleed use to be the bane of recording engineers in the late 70's. Isolation was all the rage. Now we find out, that for rock, jazz and sometimes pop, a bit of bleed can be a good thing. Gives a better overall picture of the sound of actual musicians playing together in a "space" and has more of a "vibe" that you can sometimes lose when you build tracks clinically, via overdubbing a track at a time. But of course, this is an aesthetic choice.
We're in agreement, it does take a high bit-depth and sampling rate in order to accurately represent the original air pressure levels. But I believe that 96 kHz, and definitely 192 kHz with 24-bits for playback is enough
Yes, 24/96 is easier to live with for us analog guys. I can live with that kind of digital playback. It's a bit harder to discern 24/192 as being that much better, though it sure eats up drive space a bit faster! I see 24/192 mainly being used for classical and jazz audiophile two channel location recording.
The designers who worked on the CD technology were no dummies (the engineers who only use the top two bits, by mixing for loudness are).
Lmao! Preach on brother. That statement should be on a t-shirt. The lack of headroom and squashed dynamics of modern recording (the loudness wars) are a terrible trend that I hope ends soon.
Do you know of the newest debate about mixing ITB (in the box) vs. OTB (out the box)? I bet you have an interesting take on that current trend. So funny to see studios that got rid of their analog mixing consoles to go with a HUI and a full blown ProTools HD system only to now, once again, start using an analog mix (summing) bus (mainly for stem mixing at mixdown) before digitizing the sound once again.
I have a confession to make. I use a Dangerous Music summing bus myself for two channel mix down and monitoring. It sounds better to my ears too.
But I do all surround mixing ITB.
Despite my love of vinyl, my favorite music format now is high definition multichannel digital audio. So I'm not that
Oh, in case you were wondering. I was a double major in Mathematics, and Computer Science. I've studied recording engineering, one of my friends owns a small recording studio. I've written digital signal processing routines to handle both 2D and 3D data sets (think audio and pictures).
(Slurring drunkenly) "Oh, we got us a college boy here with all his fancy book learnin's! What, you think you're better
than me?" (stumbles and falls into a pool of his own hubris)
But high quality converters can be had for $3k for 16 channels of 24-bit/192 kHz ADC/DACs.
Well, some would argue that you can barely get two channels of high quality conversion for that much $. And while my converters are higher end (Apogee/Prism) than most home studio set-ups, I'm in agreement with you on that one. It's unbelievable how much bang for the buck can be had nowadays.
Add to that good master clock for $1500..
True dat. Walter Sears uses a crystal clock in an oven kept at a constant temp to provide perfect clocking.
If you don't know about Walter Sears (Sears Studio), you really should check him out. He is a guru to a lot of us audio guys. He forgets more in a day than most of us learn in a lifetime.http://www.searsound.com/index.html
That's not out of the reach of anyone making money doing this stuff.
Making money in music? (laughs so hard, pees on self a little bit), now I know you are full of it!!!
This is where we disagree. Maybe you're so used to hearing distortion, harmonics, and hiss that you think it's pleasing.
Well, I don't know about hiss, but yeah, I do like (some) harmonic distortion. Rock music is based on distortion!!!
But when I listen to anything live, it's not there.
Unless you listen to just classical and (clean) jazz, you hear all kinds of distortion, done on purpose.
Why should it be in the recording of live instruments? I want my recordings to be as pristine as possible. That's what sounds natural to me.
Ok, now you
sound like the purist! Are you just talking about live performances? And of what type?
You see, I think of audio recording as two, very distinct types of things (sometimes combined of course), one is the recording of live musical events with little or no overdubbing, editing, effects or compression and the other type being "produced" music (eg. Pet Sounds, Sgt. Peppers, NIN, Radiohead, etc.) where the studio is used as an instrument, with compression, effects, editing and various forms of audio manipulation using the wonderful tools that science has brought us. And yes, that includes distortion(s).
You said it, DSD is a great archival format of analog tapes. It's limitation of a slew rate (it can't go from 0 to max in one sample, neither can anything analog), and that it can't be processed (no EQing, no filtering, no nothing, but time alignment between channels) is perfect for taking something which is in the analog domain, and isn't going to be changing anymore.
Yes, that was what I was talking about. Archiving older, analog recordings. But you said it more articulately and eloquently than I did. Damn you!
All big budget films have CG effects, that's where the budget goes.
Well, not all
big budget films. I have worked on a few and some would argue that a lot of the budgets are spent on stars salaries and craft services...
But there's plenty of smaller indie films being shot on digital too.
I know, and the holy grail of low budget HD indie productions has been to be able to emulate film quality (24 fps) with digital cameras. I am one of those who have been waiting for this very thing.
How about this, Peter Jackson shot Lord of the Rings on film, and in the process of adding the CG and effects built the second-largest effects house in the world (Weta, just behind ILM). So one might assume he likes the look of film, he used film again when shooting King Kong. But upon seeing the output of a prototype of the new camera maker, Red, he took two of them, prototypes which only had Rec/Stop functions, to shoot a 15 minute short film called Crossing the Line with Neill Blomkamp.
That camera is the $hit man!
That's why District 9 then used the production version of the same camera.
Cool! I've been wanting to see that movie. Bumping it up to the top of my Netflix, yo!
Go watch Che, maybe that'll be more in line with what you were wanting to see. It was shot with the same cameras as District 9.
I will. Have you seen Inland Empire by David Lynch? He shot it with an off the shelf consumer HD camera and it looks fantastic. Very inspiring to those of us who want to make "films". Although I didn't see it in the theater, blown up screen size.
I really loved 28 Days Later, which was shot on earlier digital technology. I did not see that in a theater either, but I heard some say it had a lot of digital artifacts blown up and projected. But on an HD display it looked pretty cool.
But, when it comes to the old school masters (Kubrick, Welles, Bava, Fellini etc.) you say:
Again, while their films were beautifully shot, that doesn't have anything to do with their image quality.
Really? I think film stock/speed and lenses have everything
to do with image quality.
Do you think that Kubrick or Welles didn't use the sharpest, most advanced technology available...?
Most certainly! They would be using only the best available, which some still feel is film. But digital is catching up and fast.
...when shooting 2001, or War of the Worlds and Citizen Cane?
Orson Welles didn't direct the first War Of The Worlds, he did the radio play (that caused a panic!). I know that is nit-picking guys, but I gotta take any win I can get with ClubNeon, as he is a formidable opponent!!!
Again, my eyes don't have a grain sheen on them, detail is not lost in shadows, bright lights don't bloom. Film has a look, but it isn't natural. Digital gets closer to how things really appear, and that's what I like...and I guess you don't.
I think that this is our one major area of disagreement (misunderstanding?) in audio and visuals.
You say that HD video, in all of it's life-like glory, is the truth. But for what?
Straight 1080p HD looks good for sports, reality shows and nature documentaries. Movies (and produced music) is all about creating an illusion. Who wants exact reality unless that's what you are trying to achieve?
I have not seen any HD porn (eeks!), but is that much HD a good thing? Skanky augmented breasts and razor burns (I miss furry muffs and natural boobage!!!) captured in 1080p sounds a bit, uh, scary...
In movies, if you are using any kind of lighting or color correction or effects or any form of creative manipulation, you are basically "lying" to your eyes.
I for one, do like the illusions. I deal with reality every single day!
Well, I am ensconced in my own little hedonistic world, but I do come into contact with reality every once and a while.