Klarinet Archive - Posting 000638.txt from 1997/11

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.net>
Subj: Re: Digital Recordings.
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:27:13 -0500

Gelenne Fabien wrote:

>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

This has no bearing on the discussion with which I was involved. Although,
what you say about there being other far mar limiting factors in the
recording process (than converters) is absolutely correct.

There are, of course, many factors involved in recording and sound
reproduction, such as the four that you mention above, but none of those
have anything to do with the A/D and D/A process that was being discussed
in this thread.

To clarify for people who may think that this is a response to my request
for double blind studies, suffice it to say that your experiment above is
not even vaguely related to the type of double-blind, level-balanced
experiment that I mentioned, which would isolate the A/D converter or the
D/A converter as the sole variable in the process. The study above is also
neither double-blind, nor is level balanced, nor is it a study in the
scientific sense.

As for your ad hominem remark about my relative rudeness, I find this
distasteful, off-the-subject and without any justification.

------------------------
Jonathan Cohler
cohler@-----.net