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.
|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.