View Full Version : Rupert Neve Interview

04-25-2002, 06:13 PM
It's about an hour long.
www.imusicast.com/html/rupertneve.html (http://www.imusicast.com/html/rupertneve.html)

Digital Sound Lab
04-26-2002, 10:22 AM
very nice and very interesting. Good history lesson. I guess it's time to go HD and buy some Pure Path. images/icons/smile.gif
More history (http://www.recordist.com/aeshc/docs/audio.history.timeline.html)

04-26-2002, 01:47 PM
i checked out the interview.very nice. first 30 min is history and next 30 mins is really good. you want rupert neve now, you better get the pure path

04-27-2002, 07:15 PM
I don't need the interview, the Pure Path is exceptional.


04-29-2002, 10:26 AM
Isn't sad that most people can't here the difference between digital and analog...I couldn't agree more with the interview.....People are more interested in the money not the sound or even the music just the MOney........Like Rupert said, The young genX have been fooled into 44.1 and have no idea what sounds good! images/icons/tongue.gif images/icons/tongue.gif images/icons/cool.gif

04-29-2002, 01:29 PM
is there a synopsis of this interview somewhere...ya know, the highlights!

04-29-2002, 03:20 PM

you may want to check the Pure Path (http://www.purepath.co.uk) Site.

You will find a short introduction written by Rupert Neve.

But make shure to check the interview!!! images/icons/tongue.gif

04-29-2002, 04:42 PM
I am very sorry!

In a way I do agree with Rupert, but on the other hand why are you here??? Because you've got a protools system...right?

so make the best of it, after all you chose for it.
Digital will get better (as Rupert said) and I think the time is now.

The problems of CD's still remain. This is our end stage in the line of production, so we'd better cope with it.

everything Mr. Neve said is nice but we've got commercial values to stick to right now.
In other words the majority of people don't care about ODD harmonics. Or glitches within Amps.

So lets all make the best of it...at least if you are in some type of branch regarding Pop/Dance/rock....commercial music.



P.S. How old is/was this interview anyway?

05-01-2002, 05:52 PM
thx a lot xendo for the link ...
mr.neve is funny as hell images/icons/grin.gif

05-02-2002, 08:40 AM
I also have tremendous respect for Mr Neve, but he has made statements in the past that show he is not as up to snuff on digital as he could be.

Be that as it may, all I know is that I heard my 1st CD somehwhere after I had purchased my 350th vinyl albulm. I was floored by how close it sounded to my friend's audiophile analog system! Certainly the high end was not as clear as the audiophile system but the overall sound was SO much better than what any of the rest of us had with our measly $2000ish analog systems.

My point is that while we can debate which is better in the studio, there is no doubt that most consumers are enjoying much better sound quality with CDs then they ever did with vinyl (audiophiles excluded).

05-02-2002, 01:50 PM

Well that's a matter of opinion!!! If the present CD sounds so good why do they have 96k SACD? Also, if 44.1/16 is so great why did they come out with a 192k/24 interface? images/icons/grin.gif

05-02-2002, 02:11 PM

Pay attention!

Just because it's good doen't mean there is no room for improvement.

The higher sampling rates and bit depths were introduced to get better sound. It doesn't mean
what you started with was horrible.

Technology evolves.
Why do we have 2Ghz processors?
Not because 1.5Ghz was slow but because technology
allowed something faster and people want it. How many people actually need a 2Ghz machine and can't
get by with the 1.5Ghz?

Things improve.


Stone Knife
05-02-2002, 02:14 PM
Hi Tom.
I think there are two legitimate answers to your questions...

The 44.1/16 is not the end of the road, and the higher rates/wordlengths are improvements to a standard which was set using the technology present when it was adopted.
The move to CD gave most people the freedom from some of the less desirable aspects of analog, pops, clicks, scratches, dust noise, tape hiss, ...was a fact of life even for people who treated their music as though it were being handled at NASA in a clean room. I don't miss that racket at all! But we did loose the clarity and smooth high end that analog inherently has, in the process.

Now there are cost-effective chips that make digital improvements practical to make...


Regardless of the actual benefits which may (or may not) be inherent to new products, companies don't sell too much of an equipment or software standard, once most people have it. The sales come when people move to the "New-New" and abandon the "Old-New".

The questions you ask also come to mind when I read people debating the Windows 9x and Win XP OS's. I think, "well, sure, Win 9x is so darn good, that's why it's being abandoned for the XP..."
But though the 9x may be (I don't believe it is) better, more stable than XP, the introduction of the new OS means lots of sales for M.S., where everyone keeping 9x/Me means way fewer sales. Moving to the "New-New" sells product, whether we need it or not.

Mr. Neve's story about the engineer that could perceive the +3dB difference in a channel strip up in the 53KHz area seems to give food for thought in favor of moving to broader frequency response- for not only studios, but everybody. We are changing our ideas about what is the actual range of human perception.

Corey Shay
05-02-2002, 09:37 PM
I don't think there was ever anything inherently wrong with compact discs any more than i think there was ever anything inherently wrong with vinyl. They both have limitations, and under the best of circumstances and given a perfect listening environment, vinyl might win more people over. But the reason why we have CD's now is because of course vinyl is a less than practical solution for mobile playback. It is also far less durable. It would be great if you could buy a quality record player or tape transport and put it in your car, but it's just not practical.

Realistically CD was not meant to end all audio debates, but that doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. It is not a perfect playback system of course, but in my opinion if you produce to it correctly it can be damn good. The next generation of consumer playback is better, but the benefits will be appreciated and noticed by few consumers, and this is because the CD is already good enough for them. The obvious problems (pops, crackle, hiss, playback wear, dropouts) have been mostly eliminated with CD, and consumers noticed it easily. What will higher sampling rates achieve? More sonic detail? These people don't listen to the details. They listen to the song. And they will enjoy it as long as its relatively free from the obvious intrusions listed above.

I know this argument is really moot. I want better playback just as much as the next guy, but I'm not holding my breath.

05-03-2002, 06:11 AM
Some great comments so far!

Tom N. as was said earlier, I never said CDs were the be all and end all of audio, far from it. What I said was that to most people CD audio was such an improvement over what the "average joe" was listening to (vinyl on consumer NOT audiophile gear), that vinyl dissappeared from stores almost completely in about 2 years.

There is no debate that a truly perfected turntable with perfect vinyl has a much smoother and pleasing high end.

There is also no debate that most people did not not have perfect turntables and heard much more snap, crackle, pop, wow and flutter.

There is also no debate that most of the pristine detail on vinyl would dissapear after a few playings (needle wear).

There is also no debate that you could not pump much bass into a vinyl listening environment because a. the needle would not stay on the platter, b. you would get acoustic feedback via the tone arm unless you had great isolation.

If you recall (I don't know if you are old enough) true audio philes prefered 1/4" 2 track tape to vinyl. They would copy the record to tape on the first play and store the record for safe keeping.

I Love listening to my old records and I hate the way everything is over compressed today (even reissues of older stuff). But I think well mixed 24 bit digital audio sounds incredible. (16 bit still has nasty high end). 96 kHz is just a way to make it simpler to design the anti aliasing filters eliminating the group phase delay distortion common in many 44.1kHz converters (which are the primary causes of the nasty high end). So 96 k will be popular to the high end guys. Everyone else will listen to mp3's through $15 headphones(God help us).


05-03-2002, 08:37 AM
Hello, images/icons/grin.gif

I agree with the above comments images/icons/rolleyes.gif All I was trying to say is that the CD at 44.1 is not in my opinion great sounding images/icons/grin.gif ...and I believe in time digital will be beyond Analog, but for now I prefer the distortion which gives the so called warmth. images/icons/rolleyes.gif It's to bad that companies like Digi will only give small amounts of quality images/icons/mad.gif I know it's business images/icons/rolleyes.gif I guess I'll just have to wait... images/icons/cool.gif images/icons/tongue.gif

05-05-2002, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by Tom N:
I agree with the above comments All I was trying to say is that the CD at 44.1 is not in my opinion great sounding ...and I believe in time digital will be beyond Analog, but for now I prefer the distortion which gives the so called warmth. It's to bad that companies like Digi will only give small amounts of quality I know it's business I guess I'll just have to wait...[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">While pro recording systems are getting better, the world is embracing backward technology, mp3. That format is becoming more popular than ever. Even, if sounds not as good as 16/44.1 kHz.

IMHO the trend should be in... 5.1 DVD players fitted soon in every car. In the car is the perfect environment for 5.1 systems. The most cars have 5 or more speakers fitted by car manufacturers and a lot of people are listening at least 1 hour music in the car on their way to work and back. That would be the biggest market for audio DVD's

Lets face it. When you are going home from work, you listen at least to the radio.
When you are in home, that TV or the Internet takes over. The most people listen the music ONLY in cars.

I do believe, listeners can be convinced easily to put DVD players into their cars. The differences in quality of sound would be very obvious, especially with 48 kHz sampling rate.

My 0.02 c.

Stone Knife
05-05-2002, 08:40 AM
Just gotta toss this in as a kudo to CD's...
Thanks to them, some old stuff that would be so close to impossible to find is now available... I just found Lenny Tristano's previously out-of-print self-titled album (on Atlantic originally) online. Even at 16/44.1 it is sure better than 0/0.0!
BTW, Now that I have a SACD player, where's the music? Is this going to be another Quad?