I don't find myself in agreement with Mr. Mark Waldrep's views. In fact, if he was standing in the same room with me and told me it was sunny outside, I would look for myself to make sure.
He's been spewing his BS at a couple of shows now most recently Capital AudioFest. Kind of reads like that other thread.
You also have to remember Mark has an agenda to sell his PCM files. It would not behoove him to tout the merits of DSD.
You also have to remember Mark has an agenda to sell his PCM files. It would not behoove him to tout the merits of DSD.
I was at that show in JAcksonville since it's close to home and I would say that demonstration was 'attended" .
Well Attended = describes an event where many people are present:
If you are in the business of selling and promoting PCM digital, it only makes sense that you wouldn't have kind words for DSD. I have been saying all along that the reason I like DSD is because it sounds more like analog than any other digital format I have heard.
I count 12 in the picture. Well attended to me means the room is at least full.
Well, maybe I'll play Bad Company tonight ...
Your confused, Mark business isn't simply selling a format, more important ... he's selling a complete MUSICAL product/package.
I've met Mark, and he's a character to say the least. His "too much dynamic range" story seemed misguided ... and it's beyond obvious he doesn't really understand the true potential of turntables. That said, if his musical product is what you covet, and many do, you're paying, and receiving some of the best possible high quality digital transfers.
tb1
So how many of his recordings actually have captured 130dB of dynamic range? Over 120dB of dynamic range? Over a 100dB of dynamic range? It's one thing to have gear that is theoretically able to capture and playback that much dynamic range, quite another to have software that actually contains anything approaching that type of dynamic range. So by Mark's definition, if his recordings don't really approach 130dB of dynamic range, then they are "standard definition" as well.
I thought he was selling PCM recordings of mainly musicians I have never heard of with his own definition of what constitutes a "high definition" recording:
I get it, that's why I said that I thought his dynamic range story misguided.
But that's neither here nor there considering the overall sonic package he's offering.
Ok boys...educate me....
At what resolution is it considered hi-rez? 44? 88? 96? etc....., and yes, I know others factors come into play.
He's also selling his knowledge, processes, and recording experience.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |