Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Which format is closest to the master: vinyl, CD, DVD-A, or SACD?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which format is closest to the master: vinyl, CD, DVD-A, or SACD? - Page 5

post #61 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by recephasan
However, I seriously doubt any CD would be listenable if it were an exact duplicate of the original. And I say this because we still have not defined 'original'.
As you most probably know, most studio recordings are made in order, not with the entire band prestent at the same moment to perform, so there is no original to speak of.
The final work product from any recording, live or studio, solo or multi instrumental is a master tape. Even live to master produces a master tape. That is what is reproduced to make the products we listen to. The master is the final and best representation of the music according to the producer and artist.

The master would be the "original". The cd/sacd/vinyl is the reproduction of the master tape
post #62 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1
The final work product from any recording, live or studio, solo or multi instrumental is a master tape. Even live to master produces a master tape. That is what is reproduced to make the products we listen to. The master is the final and best representation of the music according to the producer and artist.

The master would be the "original". The cd/sacd/vinyl is the reproduction of the master tape
Obviously. My discussion with JaZZ got started when I quoted several professionals expressing their opinions on the format. Refer to the beg. of the thread for the complete picture.
post #63 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ
We could discuss the correct way of recording to preserve the intention of the composer, the musicians or the recording engineer or whatsoever, but that's beyond my competence.
Same here

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ
I'm just interested in the technical quality of the storage format itself in its consequence for the perceived sonic characteristic. I'm rather sure even you wouldn't accept MP3 at 64 kb/s or cassette tape as storage format because of the missing accuracy.
It is for that reason I'd revert to the subjective opinions of professionals rather than reading reviews of equipment or referring to specs. They are the ones who know what they started out to produce in the first place, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ
You know, synergy means reciprocal compensation for flaws in a reproduction chain, with the goal to achieve something like an approximated restoration of accuracy -- or what else?
I was using it for its dictionary definition, which is "combined action or operation" or "a mutually advantageous conjunction or compatibility of distinct business participants or elements (as resources or efforts)". Anyway, what I meant was more of how it sounds than how accurate it is. If I misused the word, I'd like to rephrase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ
Of course I want «musicality» too in the end, but I'm convinced to find it in a reproduction as neutral as possible, not in euphonic coloration. Or do you think an undistorted violin or piano doesn't sound musical (enough)?
OK, but it depends on how I am away from the instrument, the room acoustics etc. So where the mic is placed, how it is recorded etc. make all the difference.

IMHO!
post #64 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by recephasan
It is for that reason I'd revert to the subjective opinions of professionals rather than reading reviews of equipment or referring to specs. They are the ones who know what they started out to produce in the first place, anyway.
I see your standpoint. So you're not the perfectionist as whom I see myself: if it sounds «good» in the opinion of a trustworthy person, it's good enough. But please note that the cited comparison didn't even mention the CD format, which would have been essential in this context.

However, you just make the wrong assumption that the flaws introduced by an audio format can be corrected by favorable synergetic effects afterwards. Think of MP3: once the data are compressed, you can't restore the initial resolution, instead you have to deal with compression artifacts. The same with audio formats, especially digital: Since they represent data compression by nature, it's essential to have a high enough resolution and no audible encoding-inherent artifacts. You won't be able to correct the losses and distortions, at best you could try to mask them by using not overly resolving playback equipment. I think this is in fact an issue with the CD format where you have to deal with audible artifacts, and there's no way to overcome them without introducing compensating artifacts such as harmonic distortion, which on the other hand can't restore a pure image of the original -- with reference to the master tape.


Quote:
OK, but it depends on how I am away from the instrument, the room acoustics etc. So where the mic is placed, how it is recorded etc. make all the difference.
Again: recording techniques/configurations are a discipline of their own and have nothing to do with the accuracy of a format in relation to the master (tape). Or the neutrality of any hi-fi component for that matter. Well, at least from a purist and perfectionist point of view.


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Which format is closest to the master: vinyl, CD, DVD-A, or SACD?