Klarinet Archive - Posting 000634.txt from 1997/11

From: GELENNE Fabien STNA approche BC104 p5154 <GELENNE_Fabien@-----.fr>
Subj: Re: Digital Recordings.
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:28:40 -0500

Jonathan Cohler wrote :
>
> Absolutely correct. But I still maintain that the ear is not more
> sensitive than the best digital converters on the market today (although it
> is certainly better than cheapo bad ones). Again, I would challenge anyone
> to produce even just one level-balanced double-blind study proving that the
> ear is more sensitive than a high-end converter.
>
> Thank you for your succint and cogent remarks, Jordan.
>
> Best regards,
> Jonathan Cohler

I agree with you, even if I must say you are maybe a little bit rude
with other opinions.

I'd like to add that I attended a very interesting demonstration 2 years
ago:
a small band was playing a piece while being recorded with 2 mics on a
DAT. Then the microphones were replaced with loudspeakers and the piece
played again this way:

The band played one bar, then the loudspeakers one bar, then the band
and so on. Therefore the comparison was made very easy and I was very
impressed:

The Charleston (amongst other percussive sounds) was not perfect. The
piano just seemed like from another brand: I mean the real piano sound
and the "fake" one sounded equally real, just a bit different. Whereas
vibes and clarinet were totally perfect.

That is why I think that we can set up a list of "usual most limiting
factors" in which the Analog to Digital conversion will not come to the
top. Personnally I would start it this way:

1. The room
2. The loudspeakers
3. Microphones, recording and mixing procedures (mics location)
4. amplifier

But it is still very approximative...

Sincerely
Fabien Gelenne

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org