ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
This blog posting regarding a 24-bit release of an "old" recording is worth the read.
Place under the category of "buyer-beware".
Cheers
-g
Geoff Martin: This blog posting regarding a 24-bit release of an "old" recording is worth the read. Place under the category of "buyer-beware". Cheers -g
In no way did I understand all of the technical jargon but this still looks to be shocking - surely fraud or at worst, misrepresentation.
Dave.
I'm afraid that higher bit-rate and higher bit audio is more about marketing than it is about music.
I found there is no point in distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. The playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, but it takes up 6 times the space.
"Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see, let your ears tell you the truth."
Maybe they didn't have those Sony Premium sound SD cards handy....
blah-blah and photographs as needed
Epic, Orava. Epic.
"You think we can slap some oak on this thing?"
Never underestimate the placebo effect in audio...
Geoff Martin: Never underestimate the placebo effect in audio... Cheers -g
Or anything else for that matter, but you're right, in audio it seems particularly bad. One of my first experiences that opened my eyes to this was when an audio dealer I was working with had several cables run into a switch box so we could easily change what cables the CD player went thru to the preamp. We had detailed notes about how this cable sounded vs. that, came back in one morning and sat down to reconfirm before we put out a newsletter with our impressions. Yup, this one was way too bright, this one was dull, etc. Turns out the tech needed the switch box to diagnose something the night before and had removed it, and replaced it, but the cables were not in their original places. The one we had described as excruciatingly bright, was now connected to the one we had called oppressively dull, but when we didn't know that we were still describing it as bright. Quite an eye opening experience.
With audio it is interesting how people react though. If you take, say, an optical illusion where two lines look different lengths, and then show someone that a ruler held up shows they are the same length, people will usually go "wow" or "huh, cool, that's a neat illusion." If they acted like people do when you show them something similar in audio with a blind test, they'd start arguing that they really are different lengths but the ruler somehow obscured their ability to tell that. The reactions are really odd in audio.
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
Blogs and articles like these prevent us from spending a lot of money.
Save it for multichannel audio releases.....and/or a better set of speakers!
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
Here is another one, that might help us stop dreaming of 24bit/96kKps (even 192) releases:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3305
Millemissen: Blogs and articles like these prevent us from spending a lot of money. Save it for multichannel audio releases.....and/or a better set of speakers! MM
+1!!!
And/or pay attention to your speaker positioning and room acoustics, free and almost free!
It is unfortunate. High definition audio can be fantastic. But much like going to a normal film at an imax screen it will just reveal just how much the film was NOT photographed in 65mm. And soon you realize that almost nothing out there actually is anymore. And of the ones that even are, not all of those were really photographed that well anyhow.
That is also the sad reality of most of the music out there. Including "Audiophile" material.
Unless they were originally produced and recorded specifically for that level of reproduction by very skilled engineers and equipment. I love both vinyl and high definition audio but I'm not naive enough to think that there are more than just a handful of sources I own where it makes any difference. And even that boils down to the recording engineers, mixers and mastering techs more than the medium itself.
Still... When it's good... It's REALLY good... Because I believe it to be true... Inside my head;)
Reminds me of the time, I think the 1970's, when I saw the advert for the new Sony Trinitron, the picture clarity and the colours were amazing, it was only after being impressed for quite a few times that my wife pointed out I was watching this on our old Bush T.V. Had a hell of a job convincing her I wasnt a complete fool
Michael: Unless they were originally produced and recorded specifically for that level of reproduction by very skilled engineers and equipment. I love both vinyl and high definition audio but I'm not naive enough to think that there are more than just a handful of sources I own where it makes any difference. And even that boils down to the recording engineers, mixers and mastering techs more than the medium itself.
Even if you would get hold on one of the (few*) 'real highres audio' productions (as a 24/96(192) file, you probably would not be able to notice the benefits of it.
No audiosystem (point me to one, if you know any) in the world would be able to reproduce the S/R ratio/dynamic range/frequenzy bandwith, that is possible with 24/96(192). The systems and speakers, that B&O builts, certainly not aim to do this either.
Vinyl is a different thing - you may love it for how it sounds.....and for the clicks and pops.
But it has nothing to do with highres audio - it is even far from the specs of a CD (16/44.1).
The recording gear, the skills of the engineers, mixing engeneers, and a humble approach (to the delievered files) of the mastering techs are, what we should focus on.
If that is done right, a 16/44.1 file reproduction (on good gear, of course) will be fantastic.
I would not pay any extras to anything above a 24/48.2 file.
Only multichannel audio can make me spend more money, than what a CD and/or a premium streaming service cost.
* Look for iTrax, 2L or (some of the) Linn productions.
This is how 99.9% of, what is sold as 'highres audio', is like.
Well MM, I find we agree completely about this. Multichannel is interesting, it offers in my opinion the only path forward, outside of trying to convince mixing engineers to do a better job with what they have and eschew the loudness wars, to more realistic sound. Why it's never been embraced, particularly by the high end types, is a mystery to me. For most people, it's easy to understand, they have no interest in even properly locating their existing speakers, so asking them to setup more hardware with more speakers is a hard sell. I had thought the development of digital surround for movies would hopefully increase the installed base of hardware enough that multichannel would get more traction, but not so. But one would think the high end types willing to spend big bucks on wires wouldn't be afraid of additional hardware. Perhaps it's the minimalist hair shirt meme of high end, no tone controls, etc. that keeps them from embracing more channels? It's not "pure" whatever that means.
Of course, unless more music is released in it, it won't flourish, and until more people have setups for it and want it, they won't release more music, so it's a Catch 22 sadly. Meanwhile they try and jam out faux HD files, and 4K TVs and spend money to convince us we NEED this, while not doing so for multichannel music.
I think we are ultimately saying the same thing here MM. And to clarify, I said I like HD AND vinyl. No implication that vinyl=HD . I'm simply saying I have a soft spot for both fringes of the audio world but we could all stand to be a little more immune to the placebo effect of our egos. Speaking of... You won't hear pops on MY vinyl;)
I'll leave the reproduction arguments to the engineers but in general I'd probably agree with you. As much time as I spend in studios (with actual engineers) I know the value better resolution brings to being able to bend and flex the mixes a bit with quality sources. However, in reality this has little to do with the final master requiring much over 24bit/48.
Example: JPEG can be a fine image delivery format as long as there is absolutely no need to correct the image at all. No need to send a HDR or Raw to the end user.
I agree Multichannel is very interesting and clearly a path forward. Probably, for a while it will be back to the original situation of mono and stereo where the established talent, time and money in production went towards the Mono mix and the Stereo was an afterthought until industry adoption(or radio broadcasters demanded it for marketing purposes). I'm really looking forward to people pushing multichannel artistically and technically. Fortunately our talent pool is a lot larger and more capable then it used to be.
Try the vinylrips 24/96 from pbthal,dr. Robert, or aksman..for sure you throw your cd's away!
koning: Try the vinylrips 24/96 from pbthal,dr. Robert, or aksman..for sure you throw your cd's away!
Are you really suggesting that we should go pirating
dr. Robert, who's that another dr. Phil ? Is it somebody who works at the Agency for Toxic Substances and can help you in case of exposure to vinyl chloride ?
koning: Try the vinylrips 24/96 from pbthal,......
Try the vinylrips 24/96 from pbthal,......
Comparing 'the same album' from two different mastering sources using different playback gear (CD-player/DAC and streaming device/DAC) and making conclusions seems rather dubious. There are too many variables!
You might say, that you prefer one over the other - that would probably be the only conclusion, that can be made.
Besides - The final mastering of a vinyl is different from the mastering of a CD and some simply prefer the sound of the vinyls etc.
In many cases the early analog to digital transfers of the tape-based mixes of music productions (that we have as CD's) weren't the best.
In the eighties - as the digital era started - they simply didn't have the right equipment (compared to what is available nowadays) or the skills to make digital transfers sound good.
Chris: dr. Robert, who's that another dr. Phil ? Is it somebody who works at the Agency for Toxic Substances and can help you in case of exposure to vinyl chloride ?
If it is this Dr. Robert, then it has something to do with toxic substances, in a way...
(Dr. Robert by The Beatles):http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=111
Millemissen: In many cases the early analog to digital transfers of the tape-based mixes of music productions (that we have as CD's) weren't the best. In the eighties - as the digital era started - they simply didn't have the right equipment (compared to what is available nowadays) or the skills to make digital transfers sound good. MM
Soo, the conclusion: All in the eighties, and above music must be re-recorded to get them at the best
Orava: Soo, the conclusion: All in the eighties, and above music must be re-recorded to get them at the best
First of all - I was talking about transfering old recordings (from analog source) to digital (=CD) in those days.
This often led to 'bad sounding' albums - and most people would prefer the original vinyl releases instead.
If newer albums are sounding bad, it is because of the lacking skills of the mixing/mastering engineers.
And/or because the record companies (in a lot of cases) demands loud, hard-hitting masters, that must compete with other recordings on the radio or in the car (for business reasons)!
Just don't expect that 'sincere album listening' has a high priority - especially not in pop/rock.
Now - re-recording would be a difficult thing. Some of the 'old guys' are - as you know - dead and gone
But a new transfer of the original flat-masters can/could work wonder.
Undortunately this won't happen in general!
And even if it happens, the music companies will demand 'loud mastering' anyway.....and they will want to push them as 24/96 downloads.
What we see on sides like Pono Music is (almost to 100%) upconverted standard resolution.
They won't get the old flat-master tapes (the final mixing masters, before the mastering for vinyl and cassette was made) to make
new masters of them. In many cases these tapes don't even exist anymore, or are in bad conditions.
Only guys like Steven Wilson - http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/59786/Yes-Close-to-the-Edge/ - does this kind of stuff.
Compared to the millions of CD's/rips for streaming services out there (re-issued or not), there are only very few, that have been remastered this way.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I'm only kidding
I should have known that - from your avatar
Yet another 'high resolution' music store!
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=4212
Geoff did well, as he - in his initial post - wrote:
It's amazing to think back on the 80's when CD first came on the scene, just how badly mastered so many early CDs were. I remember one particularly egregious example, a Philips sampler disc called Hear The Light. Gawdawful, just horrifically bright, it was as if they grabbed the vinyl cutting master tape and never took out the high frequency emphasis that was used to make up for the cutting lathe head HF losses. Completely unlistenable.
When done well, CD can and does deliver a stunning audio experience, sounds emerge with crystal clarity from an almost black silence, and bass is phenomenal when compared with the muddled, limited, and mono bass from an LP. And high bit rate MP3/AAC files derived from CD can sound identical, the encoders have gotten very, very good at their job.
HD audio tracks are a marketing gimmick, even if you come across a concert or recording venue where you can get the noise floor low enough to actually need or use 24 bits, almost every listening room out there doesn't have as good a noise floor, and even if it did there's the issue of turn it up to hear the soft parts and have your hair parted on the loud ones, the human ear doesn't find that much dynamic range pleasant to listen to. Go to a symphonic concert at a decent hall, I guarantee you that the live performance will not be 24 bits of dynamic range, even if the score goes from ppp to fff.