Hi Hunter:
You ask a key question here:
> Or put another way: I would like to know the ultimate source of the files I
> am buying. Were the tapes digitized to 16 bit in the 1990s and then
> repackaged as 24 bit?
There has been some agreement in the audio-hardware business and also among the record companies
that "up-sampled" CD-resolution (or lower) audio should not be called "High-Definition" or
"High-Resolution." Not everyone obeys this non-binding agreement, but in general, if you are sold a
96/24 or 192/24 file, it shouldn't be something up-converted from a lower-resolution source. There
are some strange anomalies out there, and I give credit to "truth in advertising" since I spot them
in the descriptive text. One example is an album sold as a pricey DSD download, but in the details,
one sees that the source was 44.1kHz PCM (the bitrate was not specified). So, did someone playback a
CD into a DSD recorder? I very much question if that would make any audible "improvement" in the
sound, unless a person's DAC did a better job with higher-resolution than CD-resolution (it's
possible, for instance if the brickwall low-pass filtering rang in the audible range for 44.1kHz
conversion).
In any case, I'd like to see more transparency in all of this. I want to know when a high-resolution
download was created (i.e. when did the remastering take place), who did the remastering and what
was their source audio (master tape, safety copy, something else?). In the case of "born digital"
audio, I want to know if that high-resolution download is a clone of the master file or is
up-sampled from something different (for instance, 44.1/24-bit was a master file format at some
labels until relatively recently, when 96/24 has become relatively ubiquitous).
I can tell you specifics about the Mercury Living Presence albums I have remastered. The transfers
were done at 192/24, which is optimal for the Plangent Process work. I then got back 192/24 files
for each channel of audio, and I did my mixing and mastering in that format. UMG is standardized on
96/24 master files, so I delivered 96/24 masters, down-sampled using the SRC algorhythm in
dBPowerAmp software (see various test results online, this SRC measures out to be transparent and
causing no artifacts, as opposed to the SRC's built into some popular DAW software). What is sold
online are transcodes of those WAV files I delivered (i.e. FLAC, ALAC, etc), with metadata added by
the record company. I think this is pretty much standard operating procedure for reputable modern
remasters of analog sources (i.e. transfer in high resolution, master in high resolution, deliver a
high resolution master file, from which other formats are derived). Just to be clear, I make no
claims that working in 192/24 is "better" than working in 96/24, and I understand that some tools
used by some of the top mastering guys don't work in 192/24. I hear no difference in "native" 192/24
and 96/24, and I hear no difference in 192/24 "native" files and 96/24 that have been SRC'd by
dBPowerAmp's algorhythm. In the limited testing I've done with my Tascam DA-3000 digital recorder
(same source, same levels, etc), I actually prefer how high-resolution PCM sounds vs. DSD, because I
think the PCM sounds closer to output=input. The DSD does "something" to the sound quality, I would
say it "softens the edges" a bit. I don't prefer that, but I can see how people would say that
sounds "analog" or "warmer." I've definitely heard what I consider very audible differences between
SACD players, so apparently there are different ways to do DSD, and different ways to do the analog
stage following it.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Hunter Kevil" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hi-Rez symphony recordings, including some MLP, on sale at HDTracks
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for picking up on an unfortunate ambiguity in my comment when I used
> the term "quality." I was not interested in flame wars & have no problem
> with personal preferences. I suppose I was trying to figure out what the
> term "high resolution" might actually mean. A transfer of a 1960s tape
> marketed in a 24/96 wrapper is what? Doesn't the resolution of the tape
> correspond to the equivalent of an 8- or 12-bit word? If so, what does the
> wrapper do?
>
> Or put another way: I would like to know the ultimate source of the files I
> am buying. Were the tapes digitized to 16 bit in the 1990s and then
> repackaged as 24 bit? If so, my CD will be just as good. I guess we are now
> in another flame war, one in which some claim that converting 44.1 or 48 to
> higher multiples gives better sound. I have done this & have noticed no
> difference whatsoever. I would like to hear from those who have an informed
> opinion about this.
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> It's called high-resolution if the transfers from analog to digital are
>> done 24-bit, at least 44.1kHz. As you can see, most of these are 96/24 and
>> some offer a 192/24 option.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Hunter Kevil" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 2:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hi-Rez symphony recordings, including some MLP, on
>> sale at HDTracks
>>
>>
>> Many of the offerings cannot possibly be of high-resolution quality or even
>>> CD quality. E.g., Karl Boehm died in 1981. His DG recordings of Mozart
>>> symphonies derive from analogue tapes, which in many respects cannot be
>>> close to CD quality.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> A 30% discount brings prices down into CD territory, for hi-rez audio.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hdtracks.com/specials-of-the-week
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
|