New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bigshot

Just crank the volume and get a free ear piercing.
a lot of the high frequency info is noise.
I'm sure all the mixing stages are THX certified. There isn't enough work doing multichannel for music, so I don't think there are dedicated multichannel music studios.
Interesting interview! http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.music.classical.recordings/2007-11/msg03076.html
There isn't much high frequency information in modern recordings either. They don't want lots of high frequencies. That will end up distorting in homes with stereos not designed to play it.
I only worked on a mixing stage for multichannel once. It looked kinda like this...     The thing is, you can remaster something from the mix downs. You don't have to go into all the elements and completely rebuild the mix from the ground up. With multichannel you have to do that.
I'm afraid I can't help with that because whenever I get a file that is 24/96, I knock it down to redbook then encode to AAC 256 VBR. I don't mess with high bitrate / high sampling rate files on my music server.
The real question, which for some reason people who do tests don't seem to be interested in finding out, is where the line of full transparency lies. At what point does the sound no longer improve with any kind of music being tested? I've done the test myself, so I know, but I don't think a lot of audiophiles do. They think more is better forever into eternity.
Yes it's the same. Multichannel mixes are expensive to produce. They recycle them in all the various formats since no one format is dominant.
Ah! so he can't hear a difference if it is 320 LAME or AAC 256 VBR. That makes sense then.
New Posts  All Forums: