1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

TrueMatch Reference Microphone Converter

Discussion in 'Recording' started by audiokid, Nov 4, 2012.

  1. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Check this one out:


    Check out the Concept Link:

    TrueMatch RMC Concept
  2. bouldersound

    bouldersound Real guitars are for old people. Well-Known Member

    Digital noise floor is determined by the word length, not conversion technology.
  3. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    I'm neutral on this. This lead was included in a link on the Sequoia forum.

    Check this out too. I've never read any article where they actually did comparisons with real hearing via speakers and headphones. Something like this, I would expect this to be all paper specs, not real world:

    Thesis by students from the Music Academy in Detmold (Germany)
  4. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Well-Known Member

    I think this is a bunch of marketing BS? Taking a microphone into a converter still requires some type of a voltage step up. Direct transfer from microphone my ass. Talking about no thermal noise is like saying he knows how to turn lead into gold. And we know how honest that is. 153 DB is simply the digital working level that one gets from a 28 bit word. BFD. That's extremely misleading. Telling you that the microphone's internal thermal noise is more than their electronics, quite frankly, I think is poppycock? Thermal noise is based upon physics. And you can't cheat physics no matter how much you want to. Either way the output of an analog microphone still has to be converted to digital and that still means it's coming into an analog input. No thermal noise is like proclaiming " Read my lips... no new taxes ". Yeah, sure, check, you bet. That's marketing crap and so is this device. There's a sucker born every second. And this device will prove that truth again. Ya have to have some kind of anal insecurity to go with one of those things. Go ahead and keep spending your money on every tiny incremental improvement made and see how far your money goes. Their BS gizmo is so great it doesn't even do DSD. Because it's not good enough to do DSD. So what's more important? A good recording or good technical blah blah? I go for a good recording myself. I don't give a crap about much of the equipment as long as it's functional. That's all I need to make a good recording. That's all anybody needs really. What? You think you're going to outdo George Massenburg your first time out? I can't even do that after 40+ years. And I'm good. I'm better than good. I'm better than most. I'm one of the best engineers who's never had an actual hit that contain royalty contracts. But that makes no difference unless you have clientele. And I don't anymore. They're either dead, given up, broken up or split, retired. And at 57, it's really hard to make friends with all those twentysomething-year-olds, you can exploit and make money with. Besides what rock 'n roller is really going to give a crap whether you are dealing with some thermal noise or not? Like you're going to hear any thermal noise on a heavy metal jam? So let's not be ridiculous. I just want more decent and usable, more affordable, DSD. And software every bit as powerful as what we're using today with DSD capability. And that's not inexpensive software. And who's making anything DSD? Korg and Prism? Something like that? Two. Oh boy, two. And that's one of the most sensible of all digital methods of recording. It sounds real and it doesn't sound like anything PCM. I've been able to pick out the original source in double blind listening tests of 24-bit, at 192 kHz converters. Because I can hear the PCM process. It's as annoying to me as working under fluorescent lighting. I actually also have as yet to convert to DSD myself, if I ever do? It just does not look like a digital format that's going to take off? And it should. It's the best damn method of encoding digital audio I've heard to date. Along with clean transcode's, to any PCM format regardless of bit depth and sample rates. So why are we not embracing that? We're not because our computers are still really not up to the task. Not quite yet. Marginally maybe? Certainly not universally. So what's the point of all this gobbledygook when most of the releases are at 16-bit, 44.1 kHz?? Somebody's giving you a $50,000 contract? If yes? Then go for it at 24-bit, 96 kHz like George Massenburg tells us all to do. But it's just an incremental improvement that still ends up getting transcoded back to 16-bit, 44.1 kHz. So really what's the point unless somebody is handing you a lot of cash?

    Thanks, I'll wait.
    Mx. Remy Ann David
  5. bouldersound

    bouldersound Real guitars are for old people. Well-Known Member

    But it could be a very nice sounding unit.
  6. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    The whole concept is odd to me. I'm thinking pretty damn sterile for starters. Its like a mastering system trying to do the tracking with no mojo makes me think I'm missing something here. 8 to 24 channels?
  7. bouldersound

    bouldersound Real guitars are for old people. Well-Known Member

    It looks like it could be useful for the front end of a digital snake.

Share This Page