Popular Post Lee Scoggins Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 On 2/16/2019 at 3:40 PM, Rt66indierock said: I’m willing to listen to arguments that 12-14/30ish (analog tape) is high resolution but to me high resolution starts with microphones. I need special ones to make a high-resolution recording and they weren’t around when the White Album was recorded. Better is fine but at a Los Angles Audio Show seminar we were told very few studios produce high-resolution recordings. In any case what is the point? There isn’t a commercially viable market that can distinguish a well recorded CD from a high-resolution recording. Or as Mark Waldrep said yesterday MQA is a hoax and so is hi-res. Quite a change from a man whose blog is Real HD Audio and believed until recently that his High-Resolution recordings were demonstrably better than CD quality. His own readers can’t reliably tell the difference. There are, in fact, many microphones that capture north of 20khz. But that's not what you need for the benefits of hirez recording. Hirez is really about improvements in the audible range. Hires adds more accurate timbre of instruments and better imaging. All that leads to a more natural presentation that sounds much more like real musicians in a real space than CD. What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness. Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters. But there is much hirez done from either higher sampling rates or analog tape to DSD /hirez PCM transfers. I would argue the latter are the ones that most of us here would agree sound the best. Of course, there are some stunning sounding CDs due to an excellent original recording and a great mastering. But in those case, I often find that newer hirez versions are actually the best of all...provided the tape has remained in good shape. Teresa and R1200CL 2 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 7 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: There are, in fact, many microphones that capture north of 20khz. But that's not what you need for the benefits of hirez recording. Hirez is really about improvements in the audible range. Hires adds more accurate timbre of instruments and better imaging. That statement is mathematically incorrect. crenca and tmtomh 1 1 Link to comment
Ran Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness. Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters. No. There is nothing wrong with Pro Tools. It's how you use it. Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Ran said: No. There is nothing wrong with Pro Tools. It's how you use it. I never said that Pro Tools was the problem. Using ProTools to so 24/48 is the problem. Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Ran said: No. There is nothing wrong with Pro Tools. It's how you use it. Although to be more fair to engineers, a good number of them are being ordered to do this by the record labels they work for. Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post JoeWhip Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 So it is more than just laziness or deafness? Just because you may disagree with the use of a particular sample rate or format that a particular engineer uses to capture a recording doesn’t mean they are lazy or deaf. A skillful engineer through the use of mics and mic placement can get sensational results with 24/44.1 or 24/48. spin33 and Paul R 2 Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted February 19, 2019 Author Share Posted February 19, 2019 10 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: There are, in fact, many microphones that capture north of 20khz. But that's not what you need for the benefits of hirez recording. Hirez is really about improvements in the audible range. Hires adds more accurate timbre of instruments and better imaging. All that leads to a more natural presentation that sounds much more like real musicians in a real space than CD. What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness. Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters. But there is much hirez done from either higher sampling rates or analog tape to DSD /hirez PCM transfers. I would argue the latter are the ones that most of us here would agree sound the best. Of course, there are some stunning sounding CDs due to an excellent original recording and a great mastering. But in those case, I often find that newer hirez versions are actually the best of all...provided the tape has remained in good shape. I'm going to follow the rules of the Hi-Res Music logo for what are high resolution recordings. Link to comment
Popular Post KeenObserver Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 Is MQA dead yet? Or are they still pushing it? MikeyFresh and crenca 1 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said: I'm going to follow the rules of the Hi-Res Music logo for what are high resolution recordings. That would be 20/48k in a lossless format. crenca 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted February 19, 2019 Author Share Posted February 19, 2019 17 minutes ago, Paul R said: That would be 20/48k in a lossless format. Yes it would or greater of course. Link to comment
Popular Post new_media Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 Gads that logo is awful. Looks like someone designed it in the 1989 version of Print Shop Pro. Much prefer the logo used in Europe. Lee Scoggins and crenca 2 Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 "Hi-Res Audio" and "Hi-Res Music" are two different animals. Hi-Res Audio is from the Japanese Audio Society and is generally put on hardware. Hi-Res Music is from the RIAA, is put on Music, and as far as I know, is only for North America. Personally, I think it is a bit of flim-flam, at least in North America. Maybe Europe is a little different. (By "film-flam" I mean all marketing hype.) Teresa 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
FredericV Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: The problem here is that the A/B is contaminated by the level of quality of the upsampling/downsampling algorithm used. 1. So you are saying sox and secret rabbit code are contaminating the quality? We won best of show in Munich 2017 from 2 hifi press outlets, and sox upsampling was active > 1000 others brands and hundreds of competing rooms. Oh and we did this in 3.5 years we are on the market. If nobody can hear the difference between 24/96 and a sox filtered version, why do we care? Quote A better test is to make a recording and split the mic feed into two recording boxes, one recorded at 16/44 and one at 24/96, level set to same. Use acoustic instruments to make it easier to discern the quality. Quote Then do just basic editing on both, then you have a fair test. 2. Editing in 16/44.1 is stupid if you can record in 24 bit and have more headroom to work with. It's like shooting in JPEG with a pro camera if you can shoot RAW, and then use the 14 bit / color headroom for grading to output an 8 bit / color final result. Editing in 8 bit will limit what you can do in POST. Beginners shoot in JPEG. So it again shows you are technologically illiterate. Editing in 24 bit with dithering to 16 bit for the distribution file can still lead to 120dB of dynamic range. Just like a 4 color CMYK printer can output the illusion of millions of colors by distributing the error.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range Now combine 1 and 2. Jud 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
FredericV Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness. Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters Completely clueless mcgillroy 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness. Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters. I could show you recordings that would blow your mind and are better than anything I've ever heard, that were also done on a ProTools rig. Blaming the tool doesn't make sense. It's all about the people involved. Jud, Paul R and spin33 1 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
FredericV Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I could show you recordings that would blow your mind and are better than anything I've ever heard, that were also done on a ProTools rig. Blaming the tool doesn't make sense. It's all about the people involved. The first stage of this recording was done with ProTools in 32 bit 48 Khz as project resolution Those files were then sent to us, we did the 432 conversion approved by all band members, and then it was mastered using analog Manley gear by the label's mastering engineer. On hifi shows I see them Shazam these tracks when we play them, and for a new-jazz album it's certainly in a very high standard, and much higher than what is expected for the genre:http://432evo.be/index.php/432-hz-en/tick-tock-by-jazzprofilactika So claiming ProTools is mid-res is a completely foolish reaction from Lee. There's a lot of sh* pop music probably produced with ProTools, but claiming it's midrez is foolish. A fool with a tool is still a fool. Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Paul R said: "Hi-Res Audio" and "Hi-Res Music" are two different animals. Hi-Res Audio is from the Japanese Audio Society and is generally put on hardware. Hi-Res Music is from the RIAA, is put on Music, and as far as I know, is only for North America. Personally, I think it is a bit of flim-flam, at least in North America. Maybe Europe is a little different. (By "film-flam" I mean all marketing hype.) Well, yes and no (many aspects involved, more than a little grey area and thus a "debate") The point to remember in reference to this thread is that MQA does not meet any of the definitions of hi res. new_media, MikeyFresh and spin33 2 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I could show you recordings that would blow your mind and are better than anything I've ever heard, that were also done on a ProTools rig. Blaming the tool doesn't make sense. It's all about the people involved. You are not reading what I wrote above in responding to Ron and taking my words out of context. It's not the app that is the problem, it is the implementation. If you talk to someone like Joe Palmaccio, he will tell you that you need 24/96 to be effective. Mark Waldrep would say the same thing repeatedly, at least up to the last year. Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 2 hours ago, FredericV said: 1. So you are saying sox and secret rabbit code are contaminating the quality? We won best of show in Munich 2017 from 2 hifi press outlets, and sox upsampling was active > 1000 others brands and hundreds of competing rooms. Oh and we did this in 3.5 years we are on the market. If nobody can hear the difference between 24/96 and a sox filtered version, why do we care? 2. Editing in 16/44.1 is stupid if you can record in 24 bit and have more headroom to work with. It's like shooting in JPEG with a pro camera if you can shoot RAW, and then use the 14 bit / color headroom for grading to output an 8 bit / color final result. Editing in 8 bit will limit what you can do in POST. Beginners shoot in JPEG. So it again shows you are technologically illiterate. Editing in 24 bit with dithering to 16 bit for the distribution file can still lead to 120dB of dynamic range. Just like a 4 color CMYK printer can output the illusion of millions of colors by distributing the error.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range Now combine 1 and 2. It's not your algorithm I am judging. It's that the split-mic feed approach provides a better test and there is nothing interfering with the format differences. Link to comment
mansr Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Just now, Lee Scoggins said: You are not reading what I wrote above in responding to Ron and taking my words out of context. It's not the app that is the problem, it is the implementation. If you talk to someone like Joe Palmaccio, he will tell you that you need 24/96 to be effective. Mark Waldrep would say the same thing repeatedly, at least up to the last year. Your implication is that Pro Tools can't handle high-res formats, and that's patently false. Paul R 1 Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 3 hours ago, Paul R said: That would be 20/48k in a lossless format. Historically speaking, true high resolution has meant 24/88.2 or higher. Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 1 minute ago, mansr said: Your implication is that Pro Tools can't handle high-res formats, and that's patently false. False. I did not say that at all. I know Pro Tools can handle hirez formats. I have worked on pro recordings with it. The implication was that many in the studio are 1. either doing 24/44 or 24/48 out of following a standard or laziness, or 2. because the labels sometimes request that. Many more seasoned engineers are arguing for all recordings to be done in at least 24/96. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted February 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2019 Just now, Lee Scoggins said: False. I did not say that at all. I know Pro Tools can handle hirez formats. I have worked on pro recordings with it. This is what you said: 15 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness. Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters. If that's not implying that Pro Tools can't do high-res, I don't know what would, nor what you could possibly be intending to say. Perhaps you should just put that shovel down before the hole you're in gets any deeper. Jud and crenca 2 Link to comment
Jud Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said: False. I did not say that at all. I know Pro Tools can handle hirez formats. I have worked on pro recordings with it. The implication was that many in the studio are 1. either doing 24/44 or 24/48 out of following a standard or laziness, or 2. because the labels sometimes request that. Many more seasoned engineers are arguing for all recordings to be done in at least 24/96. Funny, I didn't see any mention of Pro Tools in your explanation of how you described Pro Tools. Edit: Meaning this - The implication was that many in the studio are 1. either doing 24/44 or 24/48 out of following a standard or laziness, or 2. because the labels sometimes request that. Many more seasoned engineers are arguing for all recordings to be done in at least 24/96. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Isn't the rub really that "factory" music production environments tend to want to standardize on formats (sample rates) that are the most portable and easiest for others to pick up should something happen whereas boutique audiophile music production is all about the provenance? It's not laziness, it's all about the Benjamins! crenca 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now