Beosound 5 and HD music files

Thanks

koning:

None of you guys actualy listened to these rips.

You can only comment.

So I stop with this discussion

 

what is the ultimate aim - to accurately reproduce the sound encoded on vinyl or to best reproduce the sound capture during recording? ? They are different things!

 

Puncher:

 what is the ultimate aim - to accurately reproduce the sound encoded on vinyl or to best reproduce the sound capture during recording? ? They are different things!

You actually can 'reproduce the sound capture' made during the recording in different ways - depending on the medium of the reproduction.

If you go for vinyl, you will have to master for vinyl - which involves preparing the files/the music for the specifications of the 'medium vinyl'.

Same goes for preparing for a CD. With a CD release though, it is easier to do 'hot mastering' (make 'loud releases') as with a vinyl release.

That and the 'feeling' of the vinyl sound is the reason, why some prefer the vinyl releases.

if the origin of the files allows for it/if the recordings were done in 24/96 or more, they should be released as 24/96 downloads, or on discs like BluRay or DVD-A.

A 'responsible' mastering engineer does not do any 'hot mastering' - responsible artists don't allow 'hot mastering' of their studio work (there are 'artistic exceptions'). In most cases this kind of mastering (which has lead to the 'loudness war' ) is pushed by producers, record companies etc - because they believe, that this is the only way, that 'their' releases can stand out against the competition!

it is not so much a matter of, which medium is used - it is more a matter of, how the engineers etc are dealing with the 'flat masters' coming from the artists and the recording/mixing engineers in the studio.

Many older 'classic rock' artists even prefer analog/vinyl releases of their recordings.

Personally I don't see much reason in releasing modern 24/96 recordings on vinyl!

In most cases I am happy with a CD or a redbook standart FLAC download.

MM

Back when this whole analog/digital kerfluffle started various people did tests where they took the master tape, the vinyl release, and the CD release, often on "audiophile" labels that released in both LP and CD, or in some cases compared the CD to the master tape itself where there was no LP release. They compared the end media to the final master tape from the studio, not of course to the adjusted tape used to cut LPs. In every case I know about the CD was either identical (tests I trust more ) or nearly so (sighted tests that I don't trust as much) to the master. That was enough to convince me that CD, old fashioned 44.1/16, is transparent enough. If you still believe LP sounds more "real" or such, you prefer the euphonic distortions LP induces. Some of them can sound engaging, but they also come along with a lot of other distortions and noise that aren't as pleasant.

Back in the 80s Bob Carver produced and sold a thing called a Digital Time Lens. He had examined LPs and reproduced the freq response and phase anomalies common to LPs. You ran the CD player output thru the processor and could switch the effect in or out. It did indeed make CDs much more vinyl like, but by then I was already over my fetish with LP sound and had fully embraced digital, so it never tempted me.

I always thought someone could do a CD player with a DAC that had plug ins that captured the measured aberrations of different cartridge/arm/table combos and you could sell multiple plugins. Say, one was for a VPI table with an SME arm and Shure V15, another would be for say a Grace 707 arm with a Denon moving coil on a Revolver or some such. I'm surprised no one has done this but it appears the hard core vinylphile won't even consider that CD can be as good and won't buy into this.

 

 

@Jeff Some mixing engineers use such or similar plugins, and can easily make their mixes 'sound analog' - if prefered. Still - I think you are right, the hardcore-vinylphiles would never buy the cd anyway.... ......but maybe the 'highres' versions (for 10 $/€/£ more). MM

Millemissen:

@Jeff Some mixing engineers use such or similar plugins, and can easily make their mixes 'sound analog' - if prefered. Still - I think you are right, the hardcore-vinylphiles would never buy the cd anyway.... ......but maybe the 'highres' versions (for 10 $/€/£ more). MM

MY brother-in-law is a pretty good musician, manages to fill most nights a week with gigs. He is in a rhythm and blues band, plays sax and guitar. He has a studio he built in his basement that is remarkably well equipped and laid out, he records there and rents it to other muscians. He has shown me his setup and I've seen it morph over the years and you're right, he has some amazing "plug in" filters and equalizer settings implemented fully in the digital domain. He is quite adamant that he wants to record at 24 bit because of the fudge factor but that mixing down to 16 is all he feels required. I've listened to his recordings over the years, and it's amazing how much he's progressed, both in equipment and in talent/skill too...his latest stuff sounds as good as most anything I hear short of a few higher end, very well recorded albums, and that is perhaps due as much to studio acoustics as engineering talent. He's a talented guy.

Back in the day of the famous Columbia mono orchestral recordings, they used a series of different rooms with an Altec 604 coax speaker at one end and a mic located towards the other end. Different room treatments, even different pressures and types of gas in the rooms, some pressurized, some partially evacuated, some with nitrogen. They connected to these over very long distances of telephone cable from the studio, and they were used to provide different ambiance and reverb/hall effects by mixing in different amounts from one or more rooms to the final recording, an extremely analog/physical approach to what's done in digital today.

I dont know which exact hardware do they use. I just know that they do it. Try to write them straight, maybe somebody from this site will answer you.