The original CD, for its part, has two slightly different masterings: the US Sire mastering, and the UK/EU Mute mastering. But I'm surprised to see the OP say they don't like the Violator remaster since it sounds so similar to the original CD. #Talk talk spirit of eden sacd series#The Depeche Mode catalogue was remastered in 2006/2007 with a series of CD/DVD (and in Europe SACD/DVD) remaster sets. #Talk talk spirit of eden sacd trial#So it takes some looking, reading, and trial and error. There are plenty of great remasters out there - but also plenty of mediocre and bad ones. So that’s my biggest worry about Analog tape. It might be as quiet, and but it’s not going to retain the signal, you know, as long as Digital tape. If you use this as a tool, some people like what this does, and it sort of helps to mix all their music together, that’s fine, but, you know, you can’t say that Analog tape with Dolby SR is as good as Digital. And by the time a week or two weeks go by and it’s time to mix, a lot of the transients have started to disappear. I’ve made DAT copies when I’m cutting tracks, and then have an automation snap shot of the mix and then later that evening put the tape back on, play it back, compare it with the Dat, and there’s already starting to be a difference. And there’s nothing so far that anybody’d been able to do about that, you know, like those little magnetic particles are made to be able to wander around and they do so by themselves while the tape is just sitting there. If I record something on Analog tape and it doesn’t matter whether I’m do using Dolby SR, Dolby A or DBX or no noise reduction or whatever it is, if you record something on a piece of analog tape and play it back later the same day, the same program is not on the tape. So if there is some little artifact because it’s digital, it’s a majorable (sic) artifact, and it’s going to be the same artifact ten years from now. Roger Nichols: Yes, and it’s mostly because when I record something on a digital machine.um, you know, and I play it back ten years from now it will sound exatly the same. I have the impression that MQA claims or suggest that. I would say enjoy the music despite lose of transients still enjoyable enough i guess but don't expect or claim it is the original sound the engineers heard when it was made. So what about the original quality of re-masters made of analog masters (guess the majority) that are already loosing transients with in a few hours. Some insights from Roger Nichols who recorded most of Steely Dan records about transients that already disapear from analog mastertapes with in a few houres. #Talk talk spirit of eden sacd how to#The audio law relating to that positioning is anything but linear so unless you know how to match the physical position to a particular amount of attenuation, knowledge of the physical fader positions is only half the battle. Mixing systems tend to record the physical position of the faders as a value from 0-255 in a linear manner. The commercial incentive would have to be alarmingly large to warrant the necessary work.Īnd there's another issue: if the faders have been replaced (which, almost certainly, they would have), it would be necessary to know the exact law of the originals otherwise the mix data would be worthless. So the practical reality of running a mix recorded on early hardware is so close to zero that I don't believe its ever actually been done. While many vintage consoles of that era have survived and remain in service, the mixing computer (and the faders) have almost invariably been replaced. The desktop PCs of the day were nowhere near powerful enough to handle the near-real time requirements of mixing. Some of it has survived, working but most of it has not. In the early days of computer assisted mixing there was a huge variety of kit, most of it custom made mini computers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |