|
|
|
Another step forwards - exciting news
|
|
Senior Member
|
8. September 2003 @ 11:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
9. September 2003 @ 11:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wilkes, i think this fits in here. Isnt Vinyl only at high quality, the first 2 or 3 times it is played. After that doesnt the quality dissipate somewhat to a lesser than CD quality?
|
Senior Member
|
9. September 2003 @ 12:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
I guess that is down to a number of factors - the quality of the vinyl used initially - EMI used to keep their virgin vinyl for the classical stuff, and use recycled vinyl on their pop releases. The stylus used, the tracking weight, how the record is stored, how clean it is kept, etc.
I know that record collector magazine regard as pristine something that has been played less than 5 times.
Anyway, all that aside, I can clean things up to the point where there will be a noticeable improvement if the record is old or worn, and an almost perfect xfer if it's still new.
When I've finished the album I'm mixing, I'll post some before & after stuff on my FTP.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. September 2003 @ 06:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah, I heard that if you want to convert Vinyl to 24/96 or higher, it really has to be brand new to get complete quality. I still find it strange that converting from Vinyl is the best way to obtain maximum quality. I suppose the most modern technologies, dont always have to be better than what they replaced - ie - vinyl to tape - tape to cd
|
Senior Member
|
10. September 2003 @ 06:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wouldn't say it has to be brand new at all. You really can get some superb sounding results with the right tools.
Let's look at it this way - for most of the reissues on CD/DVD at the moment, the remaster is coming from a noisy, possibly deteriorating 1/4" tape. Okay, this is better than mullered vinyl, but unless it's incredibly badly worn, using 32 float @ 96KHz or even 48KHz for DVD, you can get a great sounding product. Trust me - I've done it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. September 2003 @ 07:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Nice one - thanks for putting me straight on that one. I was always a bit confused over it. :D
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
6. October 2003 @ 09:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oriphus, it would take an awful lot of playings on a sub-standard turntable to reduce a virgin vinyl record to anywhere near "cd quality".
My V-15 Type V cartridge was tracking at 1 gram weight. You could play an album 100 times in-a-row at that rate and never notice any loss in musicality. The trick always was (and is) to keep the vinyl scrupulously clean (I used the 'DiscWasher' brush.) If the stylus came away at the end of a record side, as clean as when you began to play that side, you knew the record was clean.
And yes, as strange as it may seem, in many many many (most) cases, the original vinyl was to the ordinary music cd as an original studio master tape is to a cheap audio cassette. The vinyl was always the winner, and today is a most worthy contender for encoding to 96kHz/24bit, assuming we can find some economical software with which to do it.
In other words, in the pre-digital era, it was generally (and correctly) acknowledged that the vinyl lp was the very best consumer musical source available - if you were to check the prices of quality turntables back then, they could run into the thousands of dollars(!!). (I think mine cost something like $350+ dollars (cheap for what it did!), and the magnetic cartridge about $150.)
I even had a TEAC Open-Reel deck (damned expensive!) - and used to mail-order 3rd-party audiophile reels (7-1/2 ips, quarter-track) like, Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" album, and I don't recall the reels sounding as good as the vinyl equivalent. AMPEX-recorded reels were pretty awful (all the Creedence Clearwater Revival albums were duplicated at 3-3/4 ips (inches per second), and sounded MUCH worse than the vinyl copies).
Absolutely stunning in quality were the 'direct cut' vinyl LPs. No tape used - the actual output from the studio musicians was mixed and piped directly to the record cutting lathe. Some of these albums were cut at 45 rpm instead of the usual 33-1/3. Also "Half-Speed Mastering", popularized by MFSL (Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs) was in use, if you were willing to pay a stiff markup. Even LONDON records came out with 'FFRR' LPs. (Full Frequency Range Recordings) All these vinyl variations blew the freeking doors off red book music cd.
Many audiophiles today have outright rejected ordinary music cds, and stick exclusively to vinyl, and vinyl lps today are very very expensive compared to what they used to be. (They're much scarcer now of course).
And so on and etc., bla-bla-bla....... :-)
Back to 2003......[sigh]
Wilkes, I'm a little confused about this '32-bit floating point thing. My Pioneer player has a maximum decoding ability of 192kHz/24 bit. (Is this an important spec?)
Also, do you feel (as I think you mentioned in an earlier post), that 96/24 is plenty enough resolution for today's DVDAs ??
I tend to think that (maybe) for any NEW recordings (such as you make), directly to hard disc without any tape?), 96/24 might indeed be plenty. But what of old studio master tapes (the kind of music which represents a guaranteed GOLD MINE for the recording labels that own the rights to them). My Doobie Brother 's DVDA, at 192/24 sounds SO much better than my Alice Cooper disc, at 96/24, and these are both Warner Brothers albums released in 1973.
(Thnx).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. October 2003 @ 10:11
|
Senior Member
|
7. October 2003 @ 08:44 |
Link to this message
|
Just a quick "on and off" at the moment with this little number on 32 bit Floating Point processing.
"""
To start with I have to clear up a misunderstanding. Nuendo and Cubase´s internal audio paths are all native-floating-point paths. That means that we use the floating-point type supported by our compiler and your platform combination.
But what are floating-point numbers?
Floating point numbers are just one of many possible ways to represent a value with a small chunk of memory in your computer, or a section of your disk drive. Simple, but there are two types: Integer numbers and floating-point types.
Floating-point numbers differ from integer numbers in that they can scale themselves internally to be able to represent very big and very small numbers without losing significant detail.
The other kind, integers have a fixed finite range: a 16-bit integer can represent 65535 different discrete values. A 24-bit number can represent 16777216 different discrete values. And a 32-bit integer number can represent 4294967296 different discrete values. Sounds great but all these integer number have the same disadvantage: as the number they try and represent get smaller, the number of bits that the number uses to represent itself, falls. Therefore the significant error in representing a small analogue sample increases as the number gets smaller as the number can only be 1, 2, 3 .... n. There is no 1 and bit, just a bit less than 2 etc.
Floating-point numbers offer exactly that: A number with a decimal point where the point can move. A number can be represented as fractional parts. That is the number can be 1.00001, or 2.55555, or 95522041.1456, it doesn´t matter.
Internally inside a 32 bit floating point number 24 bits are just to represent the number required between 0.0000000 and 0.999999, and the remaining 8 bits are used to scale the number to the right range. (a gross simplification!) If you ever did math where numbers were represented as...
2.3 * 10^3
4.4589 * 10^-4 (sorry that does not work well in text)
... then you will see an analogy here.
So a floating-point number has the capacity to represent HUGE numbers and maintain accuracy with very small numbers.
Nuendo uses a nominal operating level inside this floating point range, such that there is a more than sufficient accuracy to represent the finest detail but still have a massive head room(Someone once calculated 1500 dB headroom - but I think that gives false impression).
The massive headroom is what enables you to pile on tracks, and lower the master fader when the summed signal cannot be represented anymore by the integer bits of your sound card.
Lowering the master fader is changing the scaling value as the floating point values are converted to integer bits for the audio card. The advantage is that you can pile on the tracks and if the final output clips you can just turn down the master fader, and not be forced to reduce each fader in tern until the clipping at the output disappears.
The accuracy at lower levels is why you don´t need to really worry about optimizing auxiliary-send levels etc. With analogue equipment it would potentially lead to noise build up, with Nuendo it is not really critical.
So to sum up: a 32 bit floating point representation for audio can define very small signals, and is practically overload proof.
Nuendo actually uses many more bits when working on the calculation within the main processor: where 80 or 96 bits (or 151 bits on a PowerPC!) of information represent the result of adding or multiplying a series of floating point numbers.
In Nuendo audio files can exist in 32-bit point format. A 32-bit floating-point file has all the characteristics of a 32 number in memory. It maintains accuracy when representing very small numbers, but has a huge headroom over the nominal operating level.
The question everyone asks is, "what has that to do with recording audio when my sound card is only 16/24 bits?" It is sure that recording 16 or 24 bit data into a 32-bit file gains nothing, at first sight, it can´t make more accuracy for example.
But the advantages lie elsewhere.
Consider the action of exporting your song. In any 16/24 bit application for that matter, as soon as you leave the VST floating point world and make a decision to set the conversion to integer numbers (the master fader) and pack the result into a file: Get it wrong and the file is clipped or not using the full range of values, increasing distortion. With a floating point export file you are exporting without having to make a decision about the level of the conversion to integer numbers.
That means either you can further process the file in your favorite mastering package, or make the final level matching of multiple tracks etc, without first having squeezed your music through a thoroughly unnecessary quality reduction stage.
Consider the action making a mixdown, because it´s obviously related to exporting audio. The main reason from mixing down is that the computer cannot cope with the tracks and synths you want to run simultaneously. While performing this mixdown you have to choose a conversion level so the mixed file doesn´t clip. Too low and you introduce quantising artifacts. But mixing down to a floating-point file means it´s practically irrelevant. Just do it. You loose far less than when mixing to integer file and you can´t clip them. As a side line subjectively speaking apart from the removal of the clipping
issue, the main thing is that they just sound damn good-wonderful dynamics.
I´ll stop there before someone accuses me of trying to sell this to you.
Use this URL to bookmark this page
http://service.steinberg.net:80/knowledge_pro.nsf/show/32bit_floating_point
"""""
I'll be back later, got a mix I must finish before I spend any more time on Forums.
There is some very interesting stuff and observations i must comment on, as soon as I have put this damned song to bed - it's doing my head in it's that badly recorded! Salvage job is the least of it!
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
8. October 2003 @ 00:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Cor Blimey, Wilkes!! I had to whip out my Chinese abbacus and Walmart slide-rule just to confirm your findings!!! I have more numbers now inside my head than hairs growing on it !!! Whew! (Tell you what.....I'll take your summation as gospel truth....I believe you!).
With a maximum of 65535 possible values for 16-bit redbook standard, one can most easily see (hear) the advantages that the increased resolution of 24-bit's 16777216 possible values offers, but taking that a bit further, my question is still unanswered..... do you think, that (any) original analogue audio (whether from your own studio or from another studio's master tape), when properly converted to digital PCM, sounds better at 192/24 than at 96/24? My (early) impression, based solely on my two War Bros DVDAs, is that it does. Why does my player come with 192/24 bit decoding ability if there is no need to go beyond 96/24?
(And also, I wonder why Warner Brothers chooses to use these two very different resolutions on two different albums?) We have the same 24-bit accuracy in both cases, but twice the number of samples to work with, which has got to be "better", right? (Whether our ears and playback equipment can discern the differences are another matter perhaps), but since...
(a) We have, presumably, tons of available space on a single or dual layer DVD anyway, and...
(b) 192/24 decoding seems to be a standard incorporated into all DVDA players, then ...
WHY hasn't this standard been adopted for ALL commercial DVDA releases? Whether new or old, whether from live (studio) audio, or from 30-year old master tapes.
I can see where we might run into available-space problems trying to encode six discreet channels into 192/24, but isn't that what we have lossless MLP for?
For live audio (i.e., straight from the microphone to your mixing console to your hard disc) I might be unable to discern a difference between the two, but with old master tapes stored in the multi-national's vaults, which need all the help they can get, 192/24-bit sounds better to my ears.
There (may) be other factors at work in my case (in that the Alice Cooper master tape was not recorded as well as the Doobie Brother's master
tape to begin with), but do you have an opinion on this?
Thanks. - Mike -
Do you master exclusively at 96/24 for your clients? (Have you done any mastering at 192/24?)
|
Senior Member
|
9. October 2003 @ 06:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Mike - this is going to be a flyer as I'm up to my eyeballs at the moment.
To use 24/192 in multichannel just ain't possible as even with MLP we will sail over the 9.6 MBPS datarate limit.
I'm still not convinced by going up to 192 yet. Okay - I've not yet tried it, but I have gone extensively into the AES archives, and they don't think there's really any point. I guess I'll have to go get that UA 2192 converter after all and find out for myself.
As for your point about the different resolutions from the same label, I have no idea. I'll have a guess though, and blame the producer as it's likely to have been his/her choice. We usually get lumbered with all that these days.
I'll post back properly in the next few days as I have a deadline looming, and one of the worst recordings known to man to somehow whip into shape!
Can I take the liberty of recommending some vital reading for you?
5.1 surround sound up & running, by Tomlinson Holman.
It is so well worth the £25, and can be mailordered from www.focal press.com
speak soon.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
12. October 2003 @ 03:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
'Appreciate your candid answers, Wilkes.
I recall you mentioning earlier that the UA 2192 was ungodly expensive, so I understand perfectly why you haven't been mastering at 192/24. (I guess it's only fair to assume that Warner Brothers has more money than either of us) <g> Knowing that multi-channel at 192/24 isn't possible, is helpful. (I will only expect to see 2-channel stereo releases at 192 then).
Since I have a grand total of exactly 2 (two) DVDAs in my entire DVDA collection, can you tell me the resolution that most commercial DVDAs tend to use for their releases? (This is information that I have never seen mentioned on any website that sell or promote the discs, and the info is not printed anywhere on the discs themselves, or their jewel cases). You don't know which res you have until after you've paid for the disc. Unfair.
Book recommendation noted .......
....... but you know something? THX (or) any surround won't likely thrill me until they can get 2-channel Hi-Res sound squared away first, y'know?
Thnx.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2003 @ 02:04
|
|
listen
Junior Member
|
12. October 2003 @ 18:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Most releases are 24/96 I think, because 6-channel is more of a selling point than 192KHz. But yeah, it would be really good to have the information on the back, maybe presented similarly to the information on the back of DVD-V's, as a sort of standard.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
13. October 2003 @ 04:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
I fear you're correct about the 6-channel selling point being more 'important' than 96/24 vs 192/24 mastering.
I still think though, that way more people have two-channel stereo setups rather than 6 channel. And I've seen some of those 6-channel surround 'kits' which places like Walmart sell. Cheap, pitiful little squawk boxes that will, yes, give you surround effects, but at a dismal quality level. They may be 'OK' for Hollywood cops & robbers movies, but have no business being in a quality home audio system.
Myself, I have neither the funds or the space for a truly decent home surround system, at least one which I would want to listen to for more than 10 minutes.
Both 2-channel and six-channel can fit snugly on a single DVDA anyway. Why not pump up the stereo mix to 192kHz/24 bits?
|
Senior Member
|
10. November 2003 @ 05:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
There certainly is room for both!
I agree on those irritating "home cinema" type systems too - what is really needed are 5 full range speakers, preferably the same make & model plus a sub.
Also, be wary of Bass Management when creating DVD. It only applies to the DVD-Video spec, and is not used in DVDA. Still, we don't really need a sub in properly authored DVDA anyway.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
10. November 2003 @ 21:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello Wilkes! Long time no chat.
I have never wanted for low-end bass response, or needed a sub-woofer, self-powered or not, because each of my floor-standing Pro-Linear Stage 300-X speakers contain 2, 12" woofers. Four of those things coming at you and you realize that many dedicated Sub-Woofer-Systems pale in comparison.
Funny thing - the other day, for the first time in many years, I picked up an outrageously expensive copy of 'The Absolute Sound' - a glitzy, glossy, ad-based Audio Mag from the US.
It's not at all hard to see that they play SACD up to the heavens, while tending to snub DVDA. SACD this and SACD that. Oh, there are a handful of DVDA album reviews, but it seems clear, at least to me, that they are SACD-biased. As usual, I am sitting this one out (yet again) because the market is still in a quagmire.
I feel pretty comfortable with DVDA if for no other reason than I know how terrific it can sound. Also, I understand the concept of LPCM, while DSD, the SACD-way of doing things, has me totally befuddled. I haven't got two clues in hell how it works. Any of the descriptions I've read about DSD (Direct Stream Digital) just leave me worse off than before I started reading them. I don't like "black magic" technologies I can't understand.
Besides, who on earth _needs_ DSD when DVDA's LPCM sounds so wonderful? However, as you know, it is not always the best format that ultimately 'wins'. I truly think we're still in 'never-never' land Wilkes, when it comes to the two HI-Res formats. Can you just imagine the headaches we'd be facing right now if there were a *third* hi-res format in competition with the other two? OY!
I'm quite interested in the surround-sound mixes you do even though I don't have a six-channel system. I imagine multi-channel mixing takes up pretty much all of your waking hours. What type(s) of music do you mix, Wilkes? Acoustic? Electronic? Are you more involved with microphones in an acoustic environment, or using direct streams from electronic instruments? (Or both?)
In one of the album reviews I read in the over-produced 'Absolute Sound' magazine I mentioned above, a reviewer talks about the new Steely Dan album, 'Everything Must Go' :
Lead vocals, bass, drums, and sax solos are solidly anchored in front; behind, there are subsidiary guitar parts, horn sections, some sweetening vocals. For once, there isn't the sense of the music being pulled apart but, rather, a pleasing three-dimensional mass of sound, the preferred way to experience this material.
Which always makes me wonder.... Are producers more interested in creating "Gosh-WoW" multi-surround effects, than they are in providing an all-immersive, natural musical balance? I'd much rather be in the center seat of an orchestra or pop ensemble than listening to 'ping-pong'-like multichannel effects. That kind of sound can't be very realistic or natural. Do some producers simply "create" spurious 6-channel effects simply to SAY they have a multi-channel recording?
What criteria do you use in your own mixes, Wilkes?
Anyway, on a different note, I keep waiting to see or read any web reports from the powers-that-be that either prove or disprove SACD's DSD technology. It might be a little mistaken for me to dislike DSD just because I don't understand it. But on the surface at least, I don't *agree* with it and it's one-bit processing (or whatever in the hell they use). When we now have 192/24 (or 96/24), who (honestly) needs DSD? And are magazines like 'The Absolute Sound' simply being paid more lucratively to promote SACD over DVDA?
(I could go on for hours.....)
I'm not likely to purchase any more expensive hi-res titles until a little more shake-down occurs and I have a few more answers.
Later. -- Mike --
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2003 @ 22:06
|
Senior Member
|
11. November 2003 @ 10:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi there Mike - it has been a while, hasn't it. Still pretty tied up with this DVDA Surround Album. It's now at the point where the Stereo mixes have been done & put to bed, so I can finally concentrate on the surround versions - I'm afraid I just don't like the idea of downmixing for stereo. I'd much rather have a dedicated stereo version for non-surrounded up listeners, otherwise to me it just doesn't sound how I wanted it to.
The main stuff I do tends to be guitar-based rather than electronica/dance. I just don't "get" that style myself, so I leave it to those who do. As to the method of mixing, it's generally down to the client as there are several ways of approaching it, dependant on what you are trying to achieve. As it's me that usually "sells" it to the clients though, my personal preferences tend to get pushed harder. I'm a great believer in actually putting you "on the stage" with the band, rather than using the surrounds just for "ambience", which to my mind is more of an effect than a mix. It can work on a live album, where you want to simulate how things would have sounded from the back of the hall, I guess, but if I can put you up there in the middle of it, then that surely has to be better? Anyway, IMO it does!
Using surround panners is a strange experience, but you find that it starts to come almost naturally after a while. A favourite trick, if there are say 2 guitars, is to have each one panned left front/rear & right front/rear, more to the front, and when the solo comes in automate a pan round from the sides and blister it through the centre channel. Things like this don't seem to downmix too well, though, which is one of the reasons I prefer to do the stereo mix independantly rather than using the downmix co-efficients. It's all a bit of a case of "horses for courses", and each track starts to suggest it's own setup to me - just as when you do a stereo mix, you instinctively know roughly where things should go, the same in Surround. Obviously, you have to really pay attention to potential phasing problems - the cancellation can be a bugger when panning if you don't stay on top of it, but by & large I tend to just go with where the song leads me.
One of the best parts is the enormous dynamic range available - you really can use the old fashioned "light & shade" approach very effectively.
To finish for today, as I'm knackered & need to sleep (new client tomorrow - full production job if I can sell it to him), I honestly think a lot of the current surround mixes have been done with a stereo mindset. Have you heard the Led Zep live DVD-Video? It's bloody awful!
the only "surround" mixes are DD & DTS, the stereo is 16/44.1, and if you rip the DD track and open it in Nuendo, you can see that the Left/Right is extensively used, there is almost nothing in the centre, and the Ls/Rs are purely ambient! what a wasted opportunity.
Oddly enough, I even went to the Led Zep website, and pointed this out in the forum expecting to get flamed, or at the very least start a good discussion, but it would appear that either everyone agrees, or they are too apathetic to reply.
Who knows!
Anyway - i'm off for now. Catch you soon.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
11. November 2003 @ 12:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm knackered myself, Neil, so yes - have a good snooze and I wish you the _best of luck_ with tomorrow's pontential deal.
(No, I didn't get to hear/see the live Led Zep DVD, and I am a Led Zep Fan).
Odd what you say about honest stereo mixes vs mixed-down surround to 2 channel mixes.
I forget which record label is presently doing it, but in the Absolute Sound, I was reading that one classical music label has TWO *entirely* different microphone setups for their modern orchestral recordings. They too, do not downmix anything.
They produce hybrid discs, and the stereo layer is strictly produced from the stereo microphone setup, while the surround mix is handled by a different set of engineers via the surround mic setup. Both are recorded simultaneously of course. A lot of extra work and expense perhaps, but it results in honest, ungimmicky audio for each type of listener.
I can really only see one use for 5.1 To --> 2-channel mixdowns. Internally, in the player, for surround-only discs. (I don't even *know* if there are surround-sound-only discs on the market), but if so, I can see the need for a person (like me) with only a stereo setup, to be able to hear a stereo mix, even if it isn't as 'natural' as it should be.
Win that contract tomorrow, Wilkes.
-- Mike --
|
|
mfurj
Member
|
11. November 2003 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Klingy-pick up an expensive copy of Sound and Vision magazine. They support SACD and DVD-A pretty equally. Each month they introduce the new releases for both formats. They also frequently go into depth about a particular mix and interview band members. producers etc. They also have reviews on and info on equipment that I'll never afford but they throw in some regular guy stuff too.
|
Senior Member
|
11. November 2003 @ 23:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes - you can set downmix coefficients to automatically handle stereo for "non-surround" listeners, but honestly, unless disc space is a real issue then the stereo one should IMVHO, be a separate one as I've never yet heard a downmix that actually translates properly into stereo without compromises somewhere.
We have dual layered discs, and that's how I'd do it - either that or a double sided one. Just ordered a batch of those to see how robust they are. A dual layer jobbie should be okay though. Most players will pick up what you have - ie if you have a 2 channel setup, then set that as the default and you will then get the stereo mixes.
Anyhow - you'll find out for yourself probably in January now, as I can't see the current project being authored until then, but you'll get a test copy in the mail.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
12. November 2003 @ 01:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
mfurj: Yep, I've read Sound and Vision many times. Only reason I use terms like 'outrageously expensive' is because, believe it or not, I just discovered an old copy of 'Audio Scene Canada' up in the attic dated January 1978 !! Price: .95c.
(Good Lord! Back then they were selling Ampex cassette and 8-track "Studio" tapes!) Man! Am I ever showing my age!
Current 'Absolute Sound'? Over $10 bucks. (I love to bitch). :-)
Neil, you do wonderful work. It must be quite challenging due to all the competition, but very rewarding when things work out. I would loved to have been there at the '98 Lee Griffiths concert to see you at work. I absolutely adored the sweet acoustic work of 'Astronaut'. Crystal clear, unencumbered and a natural-sounding ambience, which I find surprising because I envisioned an outdoor on-stage concert where you wouldn't be apt to have much in the way of room acoustics. (I could not get the "before" sample segment to play from your demo page; the others played fine.) And the cleaness of the hard-hitting 'One Dimensional Man' by Emma Bone shows you can handle complex rock instrumentation with professonal competency. The bass was tight! (Not a gratuitous compliment, just an honest observation).
I like the idea in one way of 'flipper' (dual-sided discs. No worry about getting the proper mix or erroneously setting a menu in the playback machine. But you're right - I don't know how robust present-day dual-sided flippers are. (Never bought one). Some of the regular one-sided ones are a bit 'iffy'. With the lastest spindle-pack I just bought, I have to be very careful just prying them off the center spindle of a jewel-box (believe it or not I hear an almost imperceptible 'sound' of (layer separation?) if the disc is wedged too tightly on the center hub. Very scary. (No I'm not paranoid :-), but these discs cannot take too much external physical stress).
Enough of that. Go make that deal today.
-- Mike --
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2003 @ 02:03
|
|
