cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
All very valid points, Tim and true.
Z
zorf
New member
This had a big buzz at the last aes in sf.
Ballpark prices:
handheld is going to be around $750 the larger one around $1250 give or take.
I thought it would make a nice mixdown/archive solution for an analog setup
http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?A_PROD_NO=MR__Series
Ballpark prices:
handheld is going to be around $750 the larger one around $1250 give or take.
I thought it would make a nice mixdown/archive solution for an analog setup
http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?A_PROD_NO=MR__Series
Last edited:
B
Beck
Guest
Korg Brochure said:
Yikes! That’s a bold claim considering it’s impossible.
I will say this… since the laws regulating what manufacturers can claim are even more lax than they were in 1982 it can make our job easier. Hopefully as they get more ridiculous you won’t have to be an engineer to see the problems with the claims.
On the other hand, it just may be getting easier to fool most of the people most of the time.
I do like the catchy tune someone is whistling when you open the link on Korg's website. What, can't you hear it?
Attachments
Z
zorf
New member
man,
you guys are rough.
Anyone else have any thoughts on the Korg thingys?
you guys are rough.
Anyone else have any thoughts on the Korg thingys?
ausrock
Well-known member
Not "rough"........just brutally honest 
.
As I understand it, virtually any of the currently accepted digital audio formats require some number crunching during conversions....................and 2.822 million samples/second?..........I wonder what their accepted error percentage is
.
.As I understand it, virtually any of the currently accepted digital audio formats require some number crunching during conversions....................and 2.822 million samples/second?..........I wonder what their accepted error percentage is
.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
As far as the Korg (and the TASCAM DV-RA1000), it looks like the same ad copy regurgitated over and over, for the past 20 years or so, starting with the CD... It's interesting though. I'll give you that!
It's interesting though. I'll give you that!
B
Beck
Guest
Nothin’ personal zorfy. It’s just that the present and near future is analog around here. The future of digital and what form it will take is very controversial. we’re in another transition period where manufacturers are jockeying for position. We’re seeing a lot of proposed standards, but no one yet knows what the outcome will be.
Analog tape is a constant... it hasn’t changed since last time we checked because it doesn’t need to.
The industry is in a very awkward position -- having to admit that the digital nirvana everyone thought they were in has fallen short so they can hawk their new wares, while at the same time they must maintain consumer confidence in their current products, which might also be their future products, depending on how things go.
Thus the rhetoric cannot follow any logical pattern. The core of the argument is based on two diametrically opposed declarations:
1) The current digital technology (whatever it happens to be) is a perfect medium... what goes in is what comes out (we’ve been hearing this one since the introduction of open reel DASH and consumers have been hearing it since CD and DAT).
2) We need a better digital recording medium because the current technology is outdated.
They can never say these things on the same page like I have, but they will imply the latter, and even use many ant-digital arguments we’ve heard over the years to raise the new technology above the old.
Most people hanging out in this form (but not all) require more than a well-written brochure to be inspired... because a lot of us know from past experience that there is a fine line between being on the vanguard of technology and being this guy:
Analog tape is a constant... it hasn’t changed since last time we checked because it doesn’t need to.
The industry is in a very awkward position -- having to admit that the digital nirvana everyone thought they were in has fallen short so they can hawk their new wares, while at the same time they must maintain consumer confidence in their current products, which might also be their future products, depending on how things go.
Thus the rhetoric cannot follow any logical pattern. The core of the argument is based on two diametrically opposed declarations:
1) The current digital technology (whatever it happens to be) is a perfect medium... what goes in is what comes out (we’ve been hearing this one since the introduction of open reel DASH and consumers have been hearing it since CD and DAT).
2) We need a better digital recording medium because the current technology is outdated.
They can never say these things on the same page like I have, but they will imply the latter, and even use many ant-digital arguments we’ve heard over the years to raise the new technology above the old.
Most people hanging out in this form (but not all) require more than a well-written brochure to be inspired... because a lot of us know from past experience that there is a fine line between being on the vanguard of technology and being this guy:
Attachments
Last edited:
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
The ad for the Korg digital recorder has "future proof" peppered throughout. That's funny. The only thing "future proof" was, is and will be Analog, at least as long as I'm alive. It is a time tested technology.
ausrock
Well-known member
And they're using terminology like this.........: "......lifelike imaging and analog quality depth.........." which in the context it was used, could be construed as saying that any previous digital technology wasn't achieving these lofty goals.
I wonder which manufacturer will try and top that .
I wonder which manufacturer will try and top that
.
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
Haha! Yeah, all good points ausrock! Indeed, it could be easily construed as they're admitting past digital tech wasn't worth crap. They've had analog long dead & burried since the inception of the CD (and even prior to that) and now they're actually admitting they were full of crap throughout all that time and now, get this, they're basically saying that nothing up to this point could touch analog. (With the exception of their current digital gizmo that is .. ). An accidental, read between the lines, ad for analog perhaps ? Well, at least that's how I interpret it.
Yeah, all good points ausrock! Indeed, it could be easily construed as they're admitting past digital tech wasn't worth crap. They've had analog long dead & burried since the inception of the CD (and even prior to that) and now they're actually admitting they were full of crap throughout all that time and now, get this, they're basically saying that nothing up to this point could touch analog. (With the exception of their current digital gizmo that is .. ). An accidental, read between the lines, ad for analog perhaps ? Well, at least that's how I interpret it. 
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Future-proof and pristine...
are the two biggest buzz-words that jumped out at me. Neither is true.
are the two biggest buzz-words that jumped out at me. Neither is true.
ausrock
Well-known member
I can and do track to both digital (Fostex "D" series recorder) and 1" 16 trk R2R, so, saying that, I'm not trying to be a smart arse but if any of you guys are prepared to take a listen (to some songs) and then a (hopefully educated) guess, I'd be interested in seeing if people have an opinion on what format, etc., was used.
Three songs here http://www.recordingproject.com/media/select.php?mediaid=164 ......forget "A Wedding Song", so just the other two. Also, one song here http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2061&alid=-1
For the record, if of course anyone listens, the mixes were never finished and also take into account that the drums are Roland V-Drums which leave a bit to be desired. I don't mean this to be taken as a challenge, etc., however, should anyone care to respond, just list each song and what format you think may have been used.
Cheers
Three songs here http://www.recordingproject.com/media/select.php?mediaid=164 ......forget "A Wedding Song", so just the other two. Also, one song here http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2061&alid=-1
For the record, if of course anyone listens, the mixes were never finished and also take into account that the drums are Roland V-Drums which leave a bit to be desired. I don't mean this to be taken as a challenge, etc., however, should anyone care to respond, just list each song and what format you think may have been used.
Cheers
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
For some reason I couldn't download "Leaving Today" but was able to the other 2 titles. The first thing I noticed is that they're in 128 kbps, which is a pretty severe degredation of the original. It's not an excuse to not listen (I did) but it's not really a fair evaluation. A wav file would be better. Isn't Leaving Today a wav ? I just couldn't d/l it. Nowhere radio doesn't have the option and streaming it doesn't work.
ausrock
Well-known member
Hmmmmmmm...........well I must admit that I've never needed to listen to them from those sites so I can't comment on any possible degredation.
I can't recall whether the 128kbps was my doing when I mp3'd the tracks for hosting at RecProject.........probably was done to keep the file size within reasonable limits. NWR does allow d/loading but you need to be registered there and logged in and if streaming isn't working there may be problems with the site.
Ah well............doesn't matter .
I can't recall whether the 128kbps was my doing when I mp3'd the tracks for hosting at RecProject.........probably was done to keep the file size within reasonable limits. NWR does allow d/loading but you need to be registered there and logged in and if streaming isn't working there may be problems with the site.
Ah well............doesn't matter
.
Slowrider
STOP Voting!
Cell Phones?
Saw a good documentary last night that stated cell phones and digital media is outdated every 18 months. Don't know if that's true....but I'm glad I don't cater to that crowd. Give me a good R to R and Tascam cassette and I'm happy!!!!!
Saw a good documentary last night that stated cell phones and digital media is outdated every 18 months. Don't know if that's true....but I'm glad I don't cater to that crowd. Give me a good R to R and Tascam cassette and I'm happy!!!!!
evm1024
New member
Slowrider said:Saw a good documentary last night that stated cell phones and digital media is outdated every 18 months. Don't know if that's true....but I'm glad I don't cater to that crowd. Give me a good R to R and Tascam cassette and I'm happy!!!!!
Moore's Law strikes again!
Now is a most execelent time for the vendors to blame it all on mp3 and ipods and their clones.
Most of the young ones that I know listen to ipods and cell phones and shitty sterios. CD is a better sounding media for many. And CD on dad's system is better than what they have.
So, time for a new format that has quality "beyond" CD....
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
Looking at the Tascam and Korg recorders, I've read in a few places that the PWM recording technique introduces generation loss in the form of hiss if you repeatedly convert to and from PWM (e.g. mixing down to DSD and then mastering to DSD via the analogue domain).
Has anyone done it? Is it like tape hiss? And if so, would DBX or Dolby remove it?
Has anyone done it? Is it like tape hiss? And if so, would DBX or Dolby remove it?
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Yes. - Analog Tape that is.evm1024 said:
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Beck said:Of course there are better digital formats than CD, but they all share some things in common. The sound stage for one -- to this day digital stereo at any bit depth or resolution does not even approach the width and spatial complexity of high quality stereo cassette.
Oh it may beat it in other ways, but the sound stage hasn't improved since this article. It's not one of those things that will be noticed by most people if they haven't heard the analog master first, but is one of the limitations of digital that we know and can measure. Many of us just don't like it.
I waited some days, thinking surely someone will pick up on this obvious blooper.
High quality cassette's stereo image or soundstage is significantly weaker and less reliable than either high quality reel to reel or high quality digital.
Yes the humble cassette came a long way since its birth in the early 60's but it has struggled all its life with poor S/N and azimuth alignment problems. The latter translates into unreliable highs and unreliable stereo image or soundstage.
Poor S/N was never really solved except through NR and the compander NR circuits could only work properly with very reliable record/play specs, something which the cassette was weak on anyway. NR exaggerates record/play misalignment, something that is not such a problem with pro reel to reel, and stereo can make it worse as NR tracking misalignments can have the signal shooting wildly from one speaker to the other and back again.
This is not an analog versus digital issue, its simply the limitations of the cassette, compared to better analog or digital systems.
And that's what you'd expect given the slow tape speed and the unreliable tape path accuracy.
What Beck says here is nonsense. Demonstrably so. High quality cassette's stereo soundstage is poor in analog terms, without any reference to digital.
Why is this simple fact so hard to admit?
Tim G.
