Orpheus
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Posts
- 3,126
- Likes
- 21
okay..... no, you're right... no recording is EXACTLY the same as the source. but to my ears, it's pretty damn close. close enough to say yes, it's the same. i use a MOTU 896. it's 96khz, 24bit * 8 channels. and it's supposed to be pretty darn good.... just a bit behind pro tools from what i've heard. not that pro tools is the best there is either... but the 896 is definately among the top tier. i think if you gave me a blind test and played a recording versus the live feed, i would not be able to tell the difference. and i doubt you can either. i used to have a Digidesign Audiomedia III card.... and at the time, it was $800 for 2 channel... and i remember it was pretty darn good too. i have never used a consumer card for recording. (i'm willing to put down $100 on a bet that you cannot hear a damn difference with recordings on my MOTU system in a blind test. in the area?--i'm serious.)
but i think you're still missing the point. whether the source is digital or analog MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to my argument.
the original question for this thread was whether radio sounds better than CD. well, under the assumption that radio is similar to vinyl, i argued that it is possible that radio/vinyl does sound better to some people, but that doesn't mean vinyl/radio is more accurate. my main point was that digital does accurately record sound, and the reason people don't like CD sound isn't because it's not accurate, but more because they don't like accuracy.
...my supporting argument was that people always state the same fallacy that an accurate recording should sound like the original performance. no i say--it sounds like the sound coming from the microphones, which don't sound at all like what a person would hear sitting in the audience.
again, whether the source is digital or not makes no difference to my argument whatsoever--because i am comparing the before and after effects of digital recording. the "source" is the before, whether from a digtal source or from a analog (miked) source, and the "recording" is what results from the ADC and is recorded to my hard drive.
i think i wrote clearly enough.... if you still don't understand the point... just reread until you do.
............anyway, the only recording i could see sounding like a real performance are those binaural ones... if you put a dummy head in the middle of the audience... then record that... well, then yes, theoretically should sound like the performance, cause that's how a person would hear it. but 99.999% of recordings are not done that way. so logically, such recordings will never sound like a live performance.
so.............. does radio/vinyl sound better than CD? i say, it's possible to some people. especially if they are looking for a more "i'm there" sound. because today's recording techniques can never logically put you there. and that's my conclusion.
but i think you're still missing the point. whether the source is digital or analog MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to my argument.
the original question for this thread was whether radio sounds better than CD. well, under the assumption that radio is similar to vinyl, i argued that it is possible that radio/vinyl does sound better to some people, but that doesn't mean vinyl/radio is more accurate. my main point was that digital does accurately record sound, and the reason people don't like CD sound isn't because it's not accurate, but more because they don't like accuracy.
...my supporting argument was that people always state the same fallacy that an accurate recording should sound like the original performance. no i say--it sounds like the sound coming from the microphones, which don't sound at all like what a person would hear sitting in the audience.
again, whether the source is digital or not makes no difference to my argument whatsoever--because i am comparing the before and after effects of digital recording. the "source" is the before, whether from a digtal source or from a analog (miked) source, and the "recording" is what results from the ADC and is recorded to my hard drive.
i think i wrote clearly enough.... if you still don't understand the point... just reread until you do.
............anyway, the only recording i could see sounding like a real performance are those binaural ones... if you put a dummy head in the middle of the audience... then record that... well, then yes, theoretically should sound like the performance, cause that's how a person would hear it. but 99.999% of recordings are not done that way. so logically, such recordings will never sound like a live performance.
so.............. does radio/vinyl sound better than CD? i say, it's possible to some people. especially if they are looking for a more "i'm there" sound. because today's recording techniques can never logically put you there. and that's my conclusion.