Page 3 of 3
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:25 pm
by Uncle Ovipositor_Archive
Pure L wrote:Is that from The Casbah in San Francisco?
I don't think there was ever a club called the Casbah in SF that hosted rock bands. You're probably thinking of the one in San Diego.
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:31 pm
by Pure L_Archive
oops.
yep, i meant san diego.
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:51 pm
by DazeyDiver_Archive
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:39 pm
by benadrian_Archive
eliya wrote:Thanks!
btw, is it me or Eddie Watkins looks exactly like Benadrian?
and, is Dave playing guitar through a GK amp?
In those videos, holy crap, that does look quite a bit like me.
Ben
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:56 pm
by benadrian_Archive
from the above video
vs.
I was kind of a fatass when that pic was taken.
Ben
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:54 am
by helenforsdale_Archive
totally the casbah, and it totally looks like dave is playing through a gk...weird...!
man, what i'd give to see footage of them circa "celebrate the new dark age"...93-94. that live clip has gotta be from about 96, my guess...maybe right before exploded drawing came out...? maybe when they were touring for this eclipse...?
-joshua...
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:36 am
by tw_Archive
prolearts wrote:Hi peoples,
For those curious about the vinyl cutting at 192 kHz query in that interview and on this thread, I wanted to point out that there is a resounding lack of demand to support sample rates that high. Below are a couple of links for the interested. One is a paper from Dan Lavry, maker of arguably the most well-regarded converters in the industry today, on the limits of useful audio sampling frequencies. It is his well-founded opinion that somewhere around 60kHz is the very highest useful sampling rate you would ever need (he somewhat begrudgingly builds converters that function at 88.2 and 96k and believes strongly that 192kHz was a sampling frequency conceived in the marketing, rather than the engineering department). The second link is a thread posted to by a fairly large number of mastering houses regarding their ability to handle such files and the amount of requests they get to do so.
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documen ... Theory.pdfhttp://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/20069/0/The oft-maligned 44.1 kHz sampling frequency has a lot more life to it than is in vogue to admit. Much of the baggage it has accumulated should more rightly be carried by the 16-bit wordlength and early converter technology. It's our conviction that the starting and working bit depth of mixes is a much more critical factor (24 please!) in the resultant quality of a final master than sample rate.
best,
Jason Ward
Chicago Mastering Service
hi jason,
thanks for reading the article and posting yr comments. i'm familiar with the arguments for and against higher sampling rates. we mixed to 192 simply because we could...we knew that it'd get dithered down, but we like d the airiness of the sound and we wanted to retain that for processing as far as we could. when we lost the war with 192, we weren't _that_ frustrated.
we were FAR more upset that the vinyl was cut from the truncated 16 bit audio...you really lose A LOT in that process. it just seemed silly to be using a 16 bit master for an analog playback format. what a waste. glad to hear that you guys use the 24 bit playback.
thanks again for your input.
regards,
tw walsh
http://towerofsong.com
http://bouncetodisk.com
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:36 am
by tw_Archive
prolearts wrote:Hi peoples,
For those curious about the vinyl cutting at 192 kHz query in that interview and on this thread, I wanted to point out that there is a resounding lack of demand to support sample rates that high. Below are a couple of links for the interested. One is a paper from Dan Lavry, maker of arguably the most well-regarded converters in the industry today, on the limits of useful audio sampling frequencies. It is his well-founded opinion that somewhere around 60kHz is the very highest useful sampling rate you would ever need (he somewhat begrudgingly builds converters that function at 88.2 and 96k and believes strongly that 192kHz was a sampling frequency conceived in the marketing, rather than the engineering department). The second link is a thread posted to by a fairly large number of mastering houses regarding their ability to handle such files and the amount of requests they get to do so.
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documen ... Theory.pdfhttp://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/20069/0/The oft-maligned 44.1 kHz sampling frequency has a lot more life to it than is in vogue to admit. Much of the baggage it has accumulated should more rightly be carried by the 16-bit wordlength and early converter technology. It's our conviction that the starting and working bit depth of mixes is a much more critical factor (24 please!) in the resultant quality of a final master than sample rate.
best,
Jason Ward
Chicago Mastering Service
hi jason,
thanks for reading the article and posting yr comments. i'm familiar with the arguments for and against higher sampling rates. we mixed to 192 simply because we could...we knew that it'd get dithered down, but we like d the airiness of the sound and we wanted to retain that for processing as far as we could. when we lost the war with 192, we weren't _that_ frustrated.
we were FAR more upset that the vinyl was cut from the truncated 16 bit audio...you really lose A LOT in that process. it just seemed silly to be using a 16 bit master for an analog playback format. what a waste. glad to hear that you guys use the 24 bit playback.
thanks again for your input.
regards,
tw walsh
http://towerofsong.com
http://bouncetodisk.com
Bob Weston interview at Bounce to Disk
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:41 pm
by eliya_Archive
benadrian wrote:helenforsdale wrote:from the above video
vs.
I was kind of a fatass when that pic was taken.
Ben
Dude, It's you!!
