On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:09:26PM +0200, Giso Grimm wrote:
> Here you might listen, the same piece, same musicians, same place, same
I wonder, what is the link between preparing those files (which
should not involve anything except editing and maybe getting the
levels equal, i.e. no hardware involved at all), and that discovery ?
Anyway, this is still an 'easy' test, it doesn't stretch the
hardware to any limits at all.
The difference between the Behringer and the Micstasy is not
about 'audio quality' in the sense of frequency response,
distortion, etc. It would take really bad engineering to get
those so bad that it would matter.
It is all about technical qualities that *do* matter if things
get a bit more difficult: hum levels, noise levels, the ability
to change the mic gain while recording without any risk and by
a defined amount, resistance to RF and mains interference, being
able to supply stable phantom power on all inputs, etc. etc.
Try recording a contemporary music concert on location, with
percussion ranging from barely audible scratches to a bing bang,
and voices switching between whispering and screaming in a matter
of seconds. This sort of thing even takes a Micstasy or an Aphex
1778A to its limits. Your B. will fail miserably.
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Linux-audio-dev mailing list