High resolution audio(not impressed)

[CnoEvil]

Yes but as said before it may not down to the bits.

...Yup, by me, a couple of posts ago.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm informed that the remastered Genesis albums a few years ago that were available on CD, SACD, and vinyl, all came from the same master. There's a test for ya.

 

[BigH]

I'm informed that the remastered Genesis albums a few years ago that were available on CD, SACD, and vinyl, all came from the same master. There's a test for ya.

The vinyl is the same master?

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm informed that the remastered Genesis albums a few years ago that were available on CD, SACD, and vinyl, all came from the same master. There's a test for ya.

The vinyl is the same master?

All came from the same master, and for all intents and purposes, as close as you'll get to compare the three formats. None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

 

[BigH]

I'm informed that the remastered Genesis albums a few years ago that were available on CD, SACD, and vinyl, all came from the same master. There's a test for ya.

The vinyl is the same master?

All came from the same master, and for all intents and purposes, as close as you'll get to compare the three formats. None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

Well I don't have them, I don't have a SACD player and I won't be buying them as I have been informed by many people that these remixed versions are not good, putting it politely. And using a digital master for vinyl is not a good idea.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Well I don't have them, I don't have a SACD player and I won't be buying them as I have been informed by many people that these remixed versions are not good, putting it politely. And using a digital master for vinyl is not a good idea.

I would investigate for your own piece of mind rather than just going by what others say. The Brothers In Arms SACD is excellent. Nothing sounds odd or altered, you're just able to hear everything better as everything has its own space.

Analogue tapes degrade. Some studios transfer the analogue tales to hi-res masters in order to work on their restoration, if needed. They can do anything they like in the digital domain, within reason. As long as the master is dealt with properly to transfer to vinyl, there is no problem with it. I picked up Tubeway Army's Replicas on vinyl, which has been cut from the 24/96 master. I'll see how that sounds some time soon.

 

[BigH]

So I have to go out and buy a SACD player and several Genesis cds just to try it out?

It should be remastered for vinyl. Yes most albums these days are digital and most are 24 bit at least.

I disagree down-sampling is nonsense that's the only way you know its from the same master.

 

[The_Lhc]

None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

It's only nonsense if you're afraid of finding out that the downsampled 16-bit version sounds exactly the same as the 24-bit version it was created from.

The CD/sacd/vinyl comparison doesn't work as you can't use the same equipment to play them all, you can with the 16/24 file comparison, so everything else is equal.

 

[davedotco]

None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

It's only nonsense if you're afraid of finding out that the downsampled 16-bit version sounds exactly the same as the 24-bit version it was created from.

The CD/sacd/vinyl comparison doesn't work as you can't use the same equipment to play them all, you can with the 16/24 file comparison, so everything else is equal.

Don't confuse him with science and logic.

I believe his issue is one of 'cognitive dissonance'.

 

[Frank Harvey]

None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

It's only nonsense if you're afraid of finding out that the downsampled 16-bit version sounds exactly the same as the 24-bit version it was created from.

Presuming the 24bit file has been captured/mixed/mastered to be all it can be, how can the 16bit version hold the exact same information as the 24bit version? If you downsampled a 24/96 file to 16/44, you're taking away everything it is. This was another subject I chatted about with the producer.

 

[TomSawyer]

Presuming the 24bit file has been captured/mixed/mastered to be all it can be, how can the 16bit version hold the exact same information as the 24bit version? If you downsampled a 24/96 file to 16/44, you're taking away everything it is. This was another subject I chatted about with the producer.

David, I think this is where the science is counter-intuitive. I have an open mind about physics and engineering because we only know what we know until someone proves what we know to be wrong, probably most famously with Relativity vs Newtonian physics. But then again, as Andy said earlier in engineering good enough is usually the aim because perfection costs too much in one way or another so Newtons laws of motion are used daily whereas Relativity isn't used much outside of CERN.

Going back to your point, the problem is as far as sound goes regardless of whether you have a 24/96 file or a 16/44 file you don't have anything other than a set of clues as to how to reconstruct a sound wave. Either way you get a complete sound wave so nothing's "lost". The only question up for debate is can exactly the same wave be recreated using less data?

For all the reasons described here, listening to two versions of the same recording can't prove this one way or the other because of the other variables such as whether the same master was used, how your phono stage equalises the recording etc.

However, if you down sample a 24/96 to 16/44 and play it through the same DAC, all else is equal. Nyquist-Shannon (and most with science/maths/engineering backgrounds on the forum) says that the 16/44 version contains enough (back to good enough) to fully recreate the wave within the frequencies (and then some) of human hearing. Counterintuitive as it is, adding more samples doesn't add anything to the finished sound wave because the DAC had enough. There's no stair steps, as is often used to justify hi-res, the DAC produces an analogue wave.

Like most people so far, I have some 24/96 stuff that sounds better than the CD but I'm absolutely convinced that is because it was mastered for an audiophile audience, not radio and iPods.

 

[andyjm]

I'm informed that the remastered Genesis albums a few years ago that were available on CD, SACD, and vinyl, all came from the same master. There's a test for ya.

The vinyl is the same master?

All came from the same master, and for all intents and purposes, as close as you'll get to compare the three formats. None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

Depends what you mean by master. The digital files can indeed be the same as the master, or a downsampled version of the master. The vinyl needs one further step, the production of a 'cutting master'. This effectively involves mangling the music to compensate for the many problems of vinyl. I have posted links in the past, but off the top of my head, mixing LF to mono, dynamic range limitation, de essing, RIAA pre emphasis and so on. This makes it very hard to compare vinyl and digital 'using the same master' as a lot will have happened to the music on its journey to vinyl and back again.

 

[BigH]

I'm informed that the remastered Genesis albums a few years ago that were available on CD, SACD, and vinyl, all came from the same master. There's a test for ya.

The vinyl is the same master?

All came from the same master, and for all intents and purposes, as close as you'll get to compare the three formats. None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

Depends what you mean by master. The digital files can indeed be the same as the master, or a downsampled version of the master. The vinyl needs one further step, the production of a 'cutting master'. This effectively involves mangling the music to compensate for the many problems of vinyl. I have posted links in the past, but off the top of my head, mixing LF to mono, dynamic range limitation, de essing, RIAA pre emphasis and so on. This makes it very hard to compare vinyl and digital 'using the same master' as a lot will have happened to the music on its journey to vinyl and back again.

Yes thats what I meant. But from David's comment he seemed to be saying something different. Seems a lot of new vinyl has not been master that well. Really the vinyl is only as good as the master and the vinyl engineer, but even vinyl is compromised because it has to play on cheap turntables as well as high end ones. Vinyl is limited, they should filter out a lot of things because it can't handle huge amounts of treble or bass.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Yes thats what I meant. But from David's comment he seemed to be saying something different. Seems a lot of new vinyl has not been master that well. Really the vinyl is only as good as the master and the vinyl engineer, but even vinyl is compromised because it has to play on cheap turntables as well as high end ones. Vinyl is limited, they should filter out a lot of things because it can't handle huge amounts of treble or bass.

On the contrary. Apparently, the albums were only going to be remastered and reissued for CD and SACD, but those involved approached the record company and asked if they were reissuing on vinyl too, to which they asked why. They asked to be given the chance to produce some acetates to show how good the vinyl can be. Long story short, the vinyl was reissued too, and is believed to sound superior to the CD and SACD releases.

 

[CnoEvil]

Yes thats what I meant. But from David's comment he seemed to be saying something different. Seems a lot of new vinyl has not been master that well. Really the vinyl is only as good as the master and the vinyl engineer, but even vinyl is compromised because it has to play on cheap turntables as well as high end ones. Vinyl is limited, they should filter out a lot of things because it can't handle huge amounts of treble or bass.

This crowd do stunning recordings: http://www.mofi.com/aboutus.asp

Back in the day, they were well the known for giving the best possible quality on Vinyl...but at a premium.

A friend of mine bought the one, with a recording of a Steam Train on one side and a Thunder Storm on the other ("The Power and the Majesty")....this was one of the recordings that got Brad Miller noticed for the stunning quality that he managed to achieve.

 

[The_Lhc]

None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

It's only nonsense if you're afraid of finding out that the downsampled 16-bit version sounds exactly the same as the 24-bit version it was created from.

Presuming the 24bit file has been captured/mixed/mastered to be all it can be, how can the 16bit version hold the exact same information as the 24bit version? If you downsampled a 24/96 file to 16/44, you're taking away everything it is. This was another subject I chatted about with the producer.

This has been explained over and over again, it's a pointless conversation if you're not going to listen.

There is NOTHING in a 24/96-192 recording that the human ear can hear that cannot be PERFECTLY reproduced by a 16/44.1 recording. Anything the human ear can't hear isn't relevant and may actually introduce unwanted noise in an amplifier that isn't designed to handle ultrasonic frequencies.

 

[BigH]

Yes thats what I meant. But from David's comment he seemed to be saying something different. Seems a lot of new vinyl has not been master that well. Really the vinyl is only as good as the master and the vinyl engineer, but even vinyl is compromised because it has to play on cheap turntables as well as high end ones. Vinyl is limited, they should filter out a lot of things because it can't handle huge amounts of treble or bass.

On the contrary. Apparently, the albums were only going to be remastered and reissued for CD and SACD, but those involved approached the record company and asked if they were reissuing on vinyl too, to which they asked why. They asked to be given the chance to produce some acetates to show how good the vinyl can be. Long story short, the vinyl was reissued too, and is believed to sound superior to the CD and SACD releases.

Not according to reviews by buyers I have read, they say that the original vinyl is far superior. Also they say the original cds although they were not good are better. Some don't like the remixing, even some instruments have been omitted apparently. Some remixers are a disaster, look at the Doors ones they are terrible.

Vinyl can be good but it has to be properly remastered for vinyl, if not you will get a lot of distortion and bass problems.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Not according to reviews by buyers I have read, they say that the original vinyl is far superior. Also they say the original cds although they were not good are better. Some don't like the remixing, even some instruments have been omitted apparently. Some remixers are a disaster, look at the Doors ones they are terrible.

That's mostly down to what the artists wants though, or sometimes the record label. Who is going to argue with the person who created the whole thing?

 

[Frank Harvey]

This has been explained over and over again, it's a pointless conversation if you're not going to listen.

There is NOTHING in a 24/96-192 recording that the human ear can hear that cannot be PERFECTLY reproduced by a 16/44.1 recording. Anything the human ear can't hear isn't relevant and may actually introduce unwanted noise in an amplifier that isn't designed to handle ultrasonic frequencies.

No, I get what you're saying, but what we hear every day of our lives is made up of sound we can hear, and sound we can't. Two notes played together no longer sound the same, so why isn't it feasible that a note we can hear can't be affected by a note we can't?

 

[BigH]

Not according to reviews by buyers I have read, they say that the original vinyl is far superior. Also they say the original cds although they were not good are better. Some don't like the remixing, even some instruments have been omitted apparently. Some remixers are a disaster, look at the Doors ones they are terrible.

That's mostly down to what the artists wants though, or sometimes the record label. Who is going to argue with the person who created the whole thing?

I think a lot is down to what you are used to, if you are familiar with the original recording and you then hear it and its completely different you probably are not going to like it. But anyway thats rather off the subject.

So are you saying its fine to just use the digital master for the vinyl record?

 

[TomSawyer]

No, I get what you're saying, but what we hear every day of our lives is made up of sound we can hear, and sound we can't. Two notes played together no longer sound the same, so why isn't it feasible that a note we can hear can't be affected by a note we can't?

Perhaps there's another misconception at play. When we listen to speakers we hear voices and instruments simultaneously and it sounds like our speakers are playing lots of frequencies all at the same time. But they aren't - at any given point in time they are only making a single frequency albeit it is changing quickly.

Recording is the same, only the resultant frequency of all of the individual frequencies is recorded, so to the extent that an ultrasonic harmonic was present and did effect the overall sound, its effect is already present in the recording.

This is the crux, in my view, of why hi-res isn't required to reproduce ambient ultrasonic frequencies, because their effect on the overall single frequency commited to the recording has already been allowed to take place.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think a lot is down to what you are used to, if you are familiar with the original recording and you then hear it and its completely different you probably are not going to like it. But anyway thats rather off the subject.

I bought the remastered Roger Waters album Amused To Death. Great remaster, sounds fantastic. BUT, a few tracks (my favourite ones, coincidentally) were messed with, presumably by Waters, and in my opinion, he's spoilt them. But who am I to argue with that? I still listen to the original release when I want to, which I find a little more aggressive sounding, and more what I am used to.

So are you saying its fine to just use the digital master for the vinyl record?

Many masters are generally taken from hi-res digital masters, or analogue master tapes transferred to digital (to preserve them) for remastering. From there it depends how well produced and mastered for the format it is. The MoFi release of Brothers In Arms is about as good as I have ever heard the album. Along with the SACD of course.

 

[shadders]

No, I get what you're saying, but what we hear every day of our lives is made up of sound we can hear, and sound we can't. Two notes played together no longer sound the same, so why isn't it feasible that a note we can hear can't be affected by a note we can't?

Perhaps there's another misconception at play. When we listen to speakers we hear voices and instruments simultaneously and it sounds like our speakers are playing lots of frequencies all at the same time. But they aren't - at any given point in time they are only making a single frequency albeit it is changing quickly.

Recording is the same, only the resultant frequency of all of the individual frequencies is recorded, so to the extent that an ultrasonic harmonic was present and did effect the overall sound, its effect is already present in the recording.

This is the crux, in my view, of why hi-res isn't required to reproduce ambient ultrasonic frequencies, because their effect on the overall single frequency commited to the recording has already been allowed to take place.

Hi,

I think you need to state that the speaker plays the resultant signal which comprises of different frequencies at differing levels. (very simply stated, not the entire situation).

The ultrasonics are removed from the recorded signal before the ADC. If the system is linear, the ultrasonics will have no effect on the heard frequencies. As such, the effect of ultrasonics will have been removed from the signal. If you raise the sample rate, and down convert to CD standard, all linear effects of the ultrasonics will be removed.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[TrevC]

I'm informed that the remastered Genesis albums a few years ago that were available on CD, SACD, and vinyl, all came from the same master. There's a test for ya.

The vinyl is the same master?

All came from the same master, and for all intents and purposes, as close as you'll get to compare the three formats. None of this down sampling nonsense though, just proper, straight comparisons.

Listening on Spotify premium the remaster of Foxtrot sounds fantastic compared to the murky muddy sound on my older CD and vinyl. It's totally transformed it IMO.

 

[nopiano]

No, I get what you're saying, but what we hear every day of our lives is made up of sound we can hear, and sound we can't. Two notes played together no longer sound the same, so why isn't it feasible that a note we can hear can't be affected by a note we can't?

Perhaps there's another misconception at play. When we listen to speakers we hear voices and instruments simultaneously and it sounds like our speakers are playing lots of frequencies all at the same time. But they aren't - at any given point in time they are only making a single frequency albeit it is changing quickly.

Recording is the same, only the resultant frequency of all of the individual frequencies is recorded, so to the extent that an ultrasonic harmonic was present and did effect the overall sound, its effect is already present in the recording.

This is the crux, in my view, of why hi-res isn't required to reproduce ambient ultrasonic frequencies, because their effect on the overall single frequency commited to the recording has already been allowed to take place.

Hi,

I think you need to state that the speaker plays the resultant signal which comprises of different frequencies at differing levels. (very simply stated, not the entire situation).

The ultrasonics are removed from the recorded signal before the ADC. If the system is linear, the ultrasonics will have no effect on the heard frequencies. As such, the effect of ultrasonics will have been removed from the signal. If you raise the sample rate, and down convert to CD standard, all linear effects of the ultrasonics will be removed.

Regards,

Shadders.

Shadders, I think you and Tom are both very eloquently covering the crux of the matter as I perceive it. And, like David, I've always thought it better conceptually to retain signals from around 22kHz and beyond because of the impact they may/must have on the 'wanted' signal.

I realise that poor gear can be upset by ultra- and infra-sonics, but that demands better engineering not elimination. Some deliberately bandwidth limited gear can sound great (Naim?) - but not as great imo as the best wideband stuff.