In Reply to: About depth of field with digital posted by beppe61 on May 7, 2015 at 05:31:20:
Hi,
While this discussion has been enlightning, allow me to throw in a few monkey wrenches from the sidelines.
Depth of Field (A term borrowed from photography BTW, inmplying a tradeoff in several parameters) in analogue audio is strictly a matter of recording technique and generally, with most common minimalist recording techniques you trade off image size for image specifity.
In the old communist days I worked on a recording technique (microphne placement etc.) that in a very pragmatic way solved this dichotomy, a method which I intend to work on again "some time real soon" and which I recently reverse-acronymed S.P.A.C.E.
Much of S.P.A.C.E. depends on the correct ratio between recording venue reverb and direct sound the correct way of capturing both. Short of S.P.A.C.E. Decca's techniques and to a dregree the Stereophonic Mercury recordings deliver good space, but always at the expense of image specifity.
In photographic terms one might say the Depth of Field is good, but focus is soft (it often makes for beautiful listening though).
The bottom line is, if a DAC delivers subjectively improved "depth of field (DOF)" on any recording, it must manipulate the signal it is given. Early digitals high order 1fs LC filters mucked DOF up big time, just as many speaker with complex and high order crossovers do.
One factor is that most digital filters are in effect reverb effects. The "reverb" may be constrained, but 26K tap filters now being touted as the ultimate, we can work out how long the reverb tail is.
FWIW, a judicious amount of decorrelated reverb can make a dry recording sound very spacious, the levels are quite low.
My personal take would be that the kind of DAC that "adds space" simply uses a maximum flat, maximum steepness filter that produces audible reverb where non should exist.
Is that kind of reproduction closer to the recording? No.
Is it closer to the original experience, maybe. Bottom line, it is an effect, so it should have an on/off switch, so the listner may select what is most pleasing.
Thor
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 05/8/1512:34:55 05/8/15 (17)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 13:00:13 05/8/15 (15)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 18:02:24 05/8/15 (14)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 22:35:52 05/8/15 (13)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 01:50:40 05/9/15 (9)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - TBone 09:12:21 05/11/15 (1)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 18:17:49 05/11/15 (0)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 05:33:41 05/9/15 (6)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 06:30:30 05/9/15 (5)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 06:50:14 05/9/15 (4)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 21:58:27 05/9/15 (3)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 00:54:44 05/10/15 (2)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 11:09:14 05/10/15 (1)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 13:29:15 05/10/15 (0)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Daverz 23:21:05 05/8/15 (2)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Tony Lauck 08:49:41 05/9/15 (0)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 00:41:14 05/9/15 (0)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - TBone 12:57:31 05/8/15 (0)