Hugh Robjohns wrote:CS70 wrote:Well that's the point - the difference in the recorded signal would be printed on the two files. To perceive it, one should also have the right DA and monitoring chain and room of course, but that's the assumption.
If only life were that simple...
The other really important consideration which this approach doesn't take into account is the cumulative effect of working with multiple tracks recorded through budget versus high-end converters, rather than just a single source.
I'm not saying some form of comparison file can't be created... but arriving at a valid system to evaluate the admittedly subtle benefits involved in this kind of equipment comparison is very far from trivial.
Yes, the thought had striken me. I was thinking a couple of guitars and a vocal, but perhaps it's too little still. And for these effects to be perceivable, a regular session should do, right?
Personally, though, I think it's an entirely pointless exercise.
The loudest shout-downs will always come from those who cant or won't perceive the benefits, regardless of the effort you go to in setting up comparisons, and to whom any real benefits are entirely irrelevant anyway.
Instead, I prefer to experience it first hand, and/or to listen to the views of those who have successful professional track records of working at the high-end, and who have the experience to express valid opinions on the equipment they choose and use. For example, the likes of Jack, Bob, Iestyn, Max and several others whose contributions we're very lucky to enjoy regularly on these forums...
H
I see your point, but just to clarify: I am not thinking, or caring, about shoutdowns or discussions.. the world is full of people who don't know what they are talking about, for the very simple fact that any of us can know what we're talking about in a very limited number of fields, but we happily talk about anything (unless one is Gauss, of course. Gauss could
anything )
So that's a lost cause, not worth of anyone's time: people will have opinions taken out of thin air more often than not, and that's the nature of things. It's not a big problem unless it's a Trump or such. Certainly it wouldn't move me to do anything.
I am thinking of the potential
educational value: what if we had a set of files to mix which are
known to be the product of a superior recording chain, and that people open to learning could actually use to practice? Together with identical performances recorded using run of the mill equipment, so that spotting the difference (if not in sound, in ease of use) is possible? What if we had actually a
number of sessions like these? A bit in the spirit of Mike Senior's "libraries".
I do not think it would be entirely pointless. Ears cannot become experienced without anything to practice, no more that you can learn to play the guitar reading about playing the guitar - or you can learn what makes a good guitar (with respect to an ok one) without trying some. One must practice - repeatedly.
It is not common to have at one's disposal high end mics, high end preamps and a high end converter and a good room to use them... and the main challenge to learning audio stuff today is that while there's a gazillion books and videos (and this forum of course), there's almost no studios left to actually
practice. And certain aspects of the art (such as the one we're discussing) cannot be conveyed in a video. Jack may be spending all his time in a high-end studio, you may have high end stuff around you all the time but most people trying out don't have such access.
Of course, the biggest bummer would be that you would still need a good playback chain to hear or "feel" any difference.. but people splurge more often, in my experience, in good monitors and (often after some encouragement) room treatment, achieving reasonable playback environments; so while still there would be a treshold, having such material available would at least halve it.
