Print

Print


Hi Paul:

That hasn't been the case with down-converting HDTracks hi-rez files, both to CD audio and MP3. I 
strongly suspect that, among all its other problems, the Sony 1600/1630 A-D converter had problems 
with bass energy for one reason or another. Consider that most early-era CDs were made by playing a 
tape into a 1600 and later 1630 box, storing 44.1/16 on U-Matic tapes and using Sony's kludged-over 
video insert-editing system and PQ Code authoring system to finish out a data tape that was then 
sent to the CD plant. At the plant, the 1630 tape was played and the digital stream fed the 
glass-master cutter, and production parts were made from there. My suspicion is that the bass 
information never made it to the digital realm, however some early mainstream-market CD players had 
terrible analog stages after D-A and couldn't reproduce large amounts of bass energy even if it 
existed on a CD.

Early-era third-party ADC units had better fidelity to the source, for instance the dcs unit used 
for the Mercury CDs and used widely throughout Polygram Classics (not by DGG). RCA also used a 
third-party converter for their Living Stereo reissue CDs, I forgot the type. At least as far as 
classical music is concerned, Sony seemed to come up with a system less bass-deficient in their 
20-bit optical-drive system.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Neil Young wants to take h high-resolution on FLAC audio recordings 
mainstream m with Pono - Tech New s and Analysis


> On 3/11/2014 6:17 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> he other thing  we noticed about many early CDs is lack of bass. We
>> couldn't figure that out, it shouldn't be a problem, but it is.
>
> I was at the AES meeting where the first hi-res digital recordings (20- and 24-bit) were demoed, 
> and members of the panel talking about them noted with some surprise that the new recordings all 
> seemed to have better bass than the 16-bit ones, and they couldn't figure out why.
>
> Try this: take a good 24-biit recording and dither it down to 16 bits. Does it lose something in 
> the low frequencies? In that experiment, you'll be using the same hardware on both the 24- and 
> 16-bit versions, same power supplies and all. Try it; I'd be interested to know what you hear.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>