Recording engineers tell it like it is

[cravnsn]

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording...rs/5_1_Rec.pdf

A lengthy read, but full of great information from the people who engineer the music & movies we hear.

[crackinhedz]

that is awesome. nice find.

[RUR]

It surely is. I find this bit (forgive the pun) particularly interesting:

In any event, sample rate is not the sole, nor even the most
significant factor in perceived audio quality; the design and quality of the A/D and
D/A converters makes the most important sonic difference. A state-of-the-art
audiophile 44.1kHz / 16-bit converter can easily sound better than a 192kHz /
24-bit converter built using an inferior chipset.

I've asked the "A DAC is a DAC!" folks over on AVS their opinion of this.

[prerich]

[kingofgrills]

That's very cool! I've stayed at Phil Ramone's Manhattan apartment before.

[PS3-Playb3yond]

Whoa! Thanks! I didn't even know theaters had that many speakers.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by cravnsn

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording...rs/5_1_Rec.pdf

A lengthy read, but full of great information from the people who engineer the music & movies we hear.

Thanks a lot, great find!

[Big Daddy]

I read this article several times before I prepared my A Guide to Subwoofers and Calibrating Your Audio with an SPL Meter threads and used it as a reference. I found the article very interesting and informative. However, I thought the document was written mostly for recording engineers in a studio and had minimal use for home theater enthusiasts. The other problem was that it was written in 2004 and discusses only the lossy DD, DD ES, DTS, and DTS Neo, and has no coverage of the new HD audio codecs. Overall, it is a very useful and informative document.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

I read this article several times before I prepared my A Guide to Subwoofers and Calibrating Your Audio with an SPL Meter threads and used it as a reference. I found the article very interesting and informative. However, I thought the document was written mostly for recording engineers in a studio and had minimal use for home theater enthusiasts. The other problem was that it was written in 2004 and discusses only the lossy DD, DD ES, DTS, and DTS Neo, and has no coverage of the new HD audio codecs. Overall, it is a very useful and informative document.

Big Daddy, you are right about these guidlines being for mostly the studio environment. Think of it this way, the closer you follow these standards, the least chance you have of spatial playback errors.

I'll give you an example. My review system is eq'd around the ISO 2969 theater standard with a twist. And because it mirrors a standard for the theater environment, when I take mixes home to listen to them on my system, they sound so close to what i hear on the dubbing stage its not funny.

Forget the fact that they only discuss the lossy audio codecs, the same practice used for them is the same practice you use for the lossless codecs.

[FreddieFerric]

I ran across this article today and thought to post it here. I like this piece. Says alot about were we stand today.

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

[prerich]

Originally Posted by BluRayFred

I ran across this article today and thought to post it here. I like this piece. Says alot about were we stand today.

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

Nice find also.

[Intamin]

Originally Posted by BluRayFred

I ran across this article today and thought to post it here. I like this piece. Says alot about were we stand today.

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

Interesting read. I'm part of the "grew up without music sounding like music" generation.

[got rice]

Originally Posted by cravnsn

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording...rs/5_1_Rec.pdf

A lengthy read, but full of great information from the people who engineer the music & movies we hear.

Definitely a jewel...Great read, this coincides with alot of Big Daddys sticky's.

[Silverwing]

Originally Posted by cravnsn

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording...rs/5_1_Rec.pdf

A lengthy read, but full of great information from the people who engineer the music & movies we hear.

Great read. Very well done

[BTTF]

I am going to switch gear more towards audio on CDs though still related to movies..

I have always been curious- As more and more classic albums get 5.1 surround mixes (a GREAT example is Queen's "A Night at The Opera"), many are being released as DVDs in 5.1 (like my example- videos for every song, commentary, etc.), as well as having a new 2.0 stereo mix for the CDs.

My question is- when one approaches this, pound for pound in an A-B comparison, which 2.0 would sound better?

1. A song that was mixed for 5.1 and then downsampled/converted to 2.0?
2. Re-mixing specifically for 2.0.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by BTTF

My question is- when one approaches this, pound for pound in an A-B comparison, which 2.0 would sound better?

1. A song that was mixed for 5.1 and then downsampled/converted to 2.0?
2. Re-mixing specifically for 2.0.

A genuine stereo mix is almost always going to sound better than a mechanical downmix.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Matrixing a source will never sound as good as the initial source.

John

[BTTF]

Thanks for a straight shooting answer! I had always thought that with common sense, and so I've wondered why new 5.1 mixes on albums were then down-sampled. I guess it is just a money thing. They figure, if the new 2.0 downmix still sounds way better than the original CD from "x" number of years ago, then we will release it.. most people won't mind as it is a step up from what they had, and the pride of ownership is more so for the 5.1 mix.

[kingofgrills]

Given the choice, I have always preferred a great 2 channel mix over the 5.1 multichannel mix. Too many 5.1 channel mixed SACDs have sounded artificial and gimmicky to me, especially the ones that place me, as the listener, in the center of the orchestra or band.

By the way, Norah Jones' Come Away with Me, which was mentioned as best engineered CD in the article on loss of dynamic range, is one of my favorite reference SACDs for both stereo and 5.1 channel mixes.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by kingofgrills

By the way, Norah Jones' Come Away with Me, which was mentioned as best engineered CD in the article on loss of dynamic range, is one of my favorite reference SACDs for both stereo and 5.1 channel mixes.

Ooh! I just picked up a copy of Classic Records' four disc, single-sided 45-RPM, Clarity Vinyl pressing of Come Away with Me at THE Show this past weekend. I'm not familiar with the record, but by all accounts I'm in for a real treat!