No, the reference of any recording is actually being present at the event, even then, it’s only the reference at some specific location and typically is not the desired final audio output of the recording anyway! The “recordings of the microphone” are arbitrary. Firstly, mics are transducers and therefore are highly inaccurate (compared to most other items in the audio chain) and Secondly, their placement bares little or no relation to the reality of a listening position and therefore what they record to start with is significantly different, so they are not the reference, they’re just the raw materials for creating a mix.Where is the reference of any given event of recording? - the recordings of the microphone
In professional/commercial recordings then of course it’s not just the producer but also the engineers, typically on several very different sets of speakers in at least two different studios and often the musicians as well. The engineers have four massive advantages compared to consumers as far as “really hearing everything” is concerned: 1. The systems used include custom designed acoustics (by professional acousticians) and provide more detailed/analytical reproduction than consumers can achieve. 2. We have the ability to “solo” individual tracks/channels and sub groups of channels so we can hear them in isolation from the rest of the mix, and of course to raise the level of them just for monitoring. So we can easily hear details that will be completely inaudible or not even exist above the noise floor of the mix. 3. We listen acutely for a living, we’ve been formally trained and do it professionally for 8 or more hours every working day, typically for many years/decades. 4. We’re not just employing those listening skills to listen to that song/piece a few times or even a few dozen times and in addition, those listening sessions are not going to be separated by days/weeks/years. During the process of recording, mixing and mastering we’ll listen intently to individual parts of the mix as well as the whole mix many hundreds of times and over the course of just days/weeks, so it’s all fresh in the memory.does the producer really hear everything on his dynamics/speakers - what would have happened if the producer used another technology for speakers?
Yes, all pro-audio ADCs are delta-sigma and have been for many, many years.If you reference for audio playback is based on what you record your audio in/DAW I would guess its deltasigma.
Fine but of course commercial recording studios do not buy recording equipment according to your opinion. They buy recording equipment based on the functionality of course, along with the proven, demonstrated objective science/facts, which in this case is the opposite of your opinion! Furthermore, the manufacturers of pro-audio ADCs/DACs know that their consumers are well educated professionals who are therefore not going to fall for the typical audiophile BS marketing. They’re going to understand the specs, they’re going to extensively objectively test the ADC’s performance and so pro-audio manufacturers don’t even make any R2R/NOS ADCs, because their performance would be shockingly poor and easily discovered! The only place you find R2R/NOS converters is in DACs and even then, only DACs in the audiophile community because only audiophiles can be convinced to pay a premium for lower performance.In my opinion, to experience a natural pure sound it is not deltasigma but rather R2R/NOS.
Moving the freqs up and down affecting the whole spectrum isn’t EQ, that’s called volume adjustment. So yes, most ignore that fact because it’s not a fact. You’re right that increasing the mids does not make it sound warmer though, it’s increasing the mid/high bass which does that!EQ has nothing to do with neutral sound or warm sound. Most people ignore the fact, it just move levels of frequencies up and down -effecting the whole spectrum. Increasing the mids does not make it warm, just higher volume/level
Why would you be “willing to bet” that “more positive hype” will have any effect at all on the pro-audio community, where audiophile “positive hype” not only doesn’t work but is typically actually counter productive!? R2R ADCs (never filterless NOS though!) is what was used up to the late 1980’s and was then gradually superseded by delta-sigma, as that technology matured during the 80’s/90’s. How could adopting an old, long superseded technology that has less functionality, is less reliable, is less accurate and is more expensive “change the industry positively”? It would of course actually do the opposite, which is why it will never happen, just as recording to wax cylinders is a superseded technology that is poorer fidelity and isn’t coming back to commercial recording studios anytime soon!The day R2R gets more positive hype and recoignition I am willing to bet, when it is implemented into DAW interface for input, it could change the industry positively.
G
Last edited: