AndrewOld
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Posts
- 1,008
- Likes
- 899
No I don't think 384/24 is indistinguishable with 48/24 or certainly not 44.1/16 - but my feeling is that the standard is much less important than the recording method, so in that sense M scaler is a great equalizer - although this was true with Dave too, certainly with the ability to enjoy older recordings. For example, Decca recordings from 1960 to pre dolby 1967 redbook recordings do things that modern 192/24 kHz recordings are incapable of doing - notably being able to record speed and impact of real instruments. Modern recordings are smooth and refined but seem incapable of reproducing timbre variations and raw impact like the classic 1960's recordings. So simple microphone and short signal paths with sound optimized custom built mixers and amps are more important than 44.1 or 192. That said, my older recosrdings benefit much more from M scaler - which is what one would expect.
Future recordings with Davina will allow us to evaluate exactly what the losses are in sample rate and reconstruction. With the tremendous change M scaler offers clearly the next question is how much further can we take this, and Davina will tell us exactly how close 1M taps to ideal actually is.
Rob
Decca were famous for using an arrangement of microphones which became known as the Decca tree for recordings of that time; the arrangement is still used. Three or sometimes five omni-directional microphones were used arranged in a tree roughly above the conductor.. (So you'll need more than two channels of Davina to record like that!).
Here's an interesting article about the Decca sound with pictures of some of those recording sessions, including Solti,
http://www.polymathperspective.com/?p=2484
and here's the wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_tree