HD vs. Redbook

[thall]

If an Buddy Guy's "Stone Crazy was recorded in the 1981 using analog (redbook standards), how can it be HD 24/96? Will the HD version of the this cd sound better in HD vs the redbook recording? I was always under the impression that it needed to be recorded at 24/96 to get the extra quality sound out of it.

 

Can you guess I am new at this?!

 

Tim

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Tim - Good question and one that is discussed in the Podcast I linked to in the HD article on the front page. It's worth a listen if you haven't already.

 

There is no such thing as "analog (redbook standards)." Redbook is a womens magazine. Just kidding I'm sure you're referring to the digital Compact Disc standard and the 16/44.1 sample rate that's associated with the standard.

 

If this recording was originally done in the analog domain I see no problem with calling a 24/96 version of it high resolution. Of course there is a bit of a debate about what actually is high resolution and if a performance must be captured in that resolution to be considered high res.

 

The major issue to look out for is the origination of the 24/96 files. If they are 16/44.1 upsampled to 24/96 than there is a problem no matter who is giving an opinion.

 

Hopefully I didn't confuse you even more with this rather discombobulated post.

 

[ted_b]

Second, analog recording is not redbook. Redbook is a digital standard for cd (16/44). (OOps, Chris beat me to it on that point). So, just because something is listed in Chesky's HDTRacks does not make it HD. And to echo Chris, if its upsampled (according to Chesky brothers that never happens on HDTracks high def stuff) it ain't HiRez.

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

What counts most beside good music & performer(s) is the recording/mastering engineer talent.

 

I have more than 9000 hi-res files in my library (mostly 24/88.2, /96, few hundred 24/176.4, /292 - masters and vinyl rips) .

 

Although some of them sound amazing, there are hundreds of lower resolution files that still sound even much better !?

 

As to Buddy Guy (and many other 60,70,80' ) recordings (masters) (are)were analogue (tape) i.e.

in theory this is unlimited resolution. As said, if the recording is great - you can generate out of it any resolution file (if you have the masters) sounding great.

 

So, what is Hi-Res ? I think the question should be: what is an amazing music at any resolution ?

(example : one such sold at hdtracks is Jon Faddis : "Remembrances" or Tone Wik & Barokkanere : "Belleza Crudel (Vivaldi) etc.)

 

Regards

 

WL

 

WL

 

[thall]

I listened to the "Home Theater Geek" #9 discussing HD music. In the interview the guest gave the example of the latest John Mellencamp CD that was recorded on tape. According to the podcast, tape & vinyl are at best 12 bit. So the comment was, "how can this be HD if the original was not 24 bit? That is why I wondered how much better an analog recording could sound?

 

Thanks for the feedback.

Tim

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

xxx quote :

I listened to the "Home Theater Geek" #9 discussing HD music. In the interview the guest gave the example of the latest John Mellencamp CD that was recorded on tape. According to the podcast, tape & vinyl are at best 12 bit. So the comment was, "how can this be HD if the original was not 24 bit?

end quote xxx

 

Analogue recording is continuous. Digital is not.

 

Therefore :

 

If terms like sampling rate and bit depth applied to analog recording, we would say that analog's sampling rate is infinite, and its bit depth is also infinite.

(so, whoever mentioned 12bit for analogue recording does not understand the basics !)

 

If you want to see what are strengths/drawbacks of analogue and/or digital recordings, here is for example a short article: http://www.tiptopsound.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4&Page=5

 

WL

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"(so, whoever mentioned 12bit for analogue recording does not understand the basics !)"

 

Hi wl - Have you listened to the podcast? Mark Waldrep has a PhD in this area and is very knowledgeable. I believe he derived his 12 bit opinion from the dynamic range of analog tape.

 

 

From Wikipedia:

"Consumer analog cassette tapes may have a dynamic range of 60 to 70 dB. Analog FM broadcasts rarely have a dynamic range exceeding 50 dB. The dynamic range of a direct-cut vinyl record may surpass 70 dB. Analog studio master tapes using Dolby-A noise reduction can have a dynamic range of around 80 dB."

 

I really can't decide what side of the fence I am on. If true high res must come from a high res digital recording or if an A to D transfer can be true high res as well. There are good arguments on both sides.

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

if he mentioned 12 bits with analogue recording he does not know the basics !

 

Actually bits and samples, for that matter, are superfluous terms in analogue audio recording (since they always would be infinite values) and are and should be only used in digital recording which is not continuos but is like taking thousands (or millions) of "pictures" of the sound per second.

 

I do not know what is your background Chris, but dynamic range has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand i.e. the above mentioned "12 bits ..." .

 

Do yourself a favor and check what I am saying with people knowing better (than this PhD).

 

Again : there are advantages and disadvantages in analogue/digital recording . Personally I think digital recording should better analogue recording if done properly, for many reasons.

 

Take Care

 

WL

 

 

 

[Nikos]

waterlogic the phd guy believes that 12bits are enough to reproduce the dynamic range of the analogue tape/vinyl.

he has a phd, he knows the difference between analogue/digital.

if he is right, the digital transfers of analogue tape to 24/96 and 16/44 will sound identical.

 

 

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

Try to rip a LP at that bit rate or 16bit rate, and then finally 24/96 and then listen to the results.

 

But my point was totally different - using bits to describe analogue recording i.e. continuous process is

outrageous without, and quite worse with PhD .

 

What all the knowledge and science and titles mean when the outcome is wrong (nice example :

Al Gore Nobel prize for climate change - biggest joke on earth !).

 

WL

 

[ted_b]

you're belittling before making these accusations? I know you like to constantly criticize ( quite condescendingly...with your comments about USB cable fans being laughably cute...one example..) but until you actually get in the discussion with the same references that others have your credibility is waning. His 12 bit comments are based on real logic, and real experience. Yes, they are debatable, but not for your reasons. He did not say analog tape was 12 bits, he said that he felt if analog tape's dynamic range was measured against hirez digital it would be compared to about 12 bits. Analog tape's comparable "bit depth" or "sample rate/resolution" is not infinite...otherwise it's dynamic range would be also. You feel the same way about all analog source recording media...78 rpm records, or wire tape recorders? That would be pretty amazing, huh? The fact that it draws a sine wave continuously is only one aspect.

 

[Guest WATERLOGIC]

 

[Edited]

*******derogatory comments removed throughout this post*******

 

 

 

I commented what a forum poster stated. Using terms as bit depth and sample rate with analog recording or whatever continuous process is a manifestation of not understanding the basic nature of the process.

 

Analogue process (=sound is continuous process) is real life and Digital process is your Camera with which you take snap shots of real life. More resolution (bit depth) your camera has and more snaps per second you make (sampling rate) more information about the real world you have recorded. How you further manipulate such data depending what you want to achieve is a completely different issue. (if I take an analogy from the photo world - you do not need a hi-resolution snapshot for your passport photo, whereby for a huge poster much higher resolution is required etc). From more data you can generate less data, the other way around is not possible.

 

I do not feel anything about any analog source recording media - it just has drawbacks and advantages.

 

MfG

 

WL

 

[PeterSt]

Reading this thread I felt like disagreeing here and there, but I couldn't find exactly where. So, I gave up on it initially.

But at brewing some morning coffee, I suddenly knew it :

 

What about analogue recording means not being continuous at all, eh ?

 

So, for tape it will be the number of particles (density) allowing for the "sample rate". And this is NOT infinite ...

The strongness in magnetizing (per distance unit) could be the bit depth. It is NOT infinite ...

The fact that at least the density of the particles is not infinite, will create your noise. It is just destortion (and unlike digital quantization noise, out of control noise).

 

For vinyl the possible sideways excursion per distance unit (derived from the rpm) will be the sample rate. Notice this is related to what the pickup needle can take too.

The vertical excursion will be the bit depth. This too is subject to a maximum per distance unit, and whether the needle can follow without jumping out.

 

Any "analogue" recording means available that outbetter this ? (video tape in theory).

 

I came to the above because of the analogy with the dynamic range, and actually, when you think about this, there must be a reason for tape etc. not reaching the dynamic range from digital (16/44.1 already).

Reading about the (suggested) infinit dynamic range because of "analogue" made me disagree with at least something. But well, here you have it. All fits, and nothing is wrong. Analogue just has a lower sample rate than digital and/or the (discernable !) bit depth is lower than digital. Keep in mind : one of both is enough to drop the dynamic range, because both need eachother (as I tried to explain a few times before, elsewhere).

 

I didn't listen to the podcast, and if something the same is in there, I am sorry.

Peter

 

PS: Don't forget that we are talking about recording means. Real life is a complete different story, possibly limited by air molecules and/or our hearing capabilities (resolution) and stuff.

 

[PeterSt]

Uhohh ... someone has vanished here ...

 

Well, I hope my post now doesn't lack the context which was derived from Waterfall's last post too.

 

It may be true that things got too harsh a bit, but it sure got at least me thinking.

Some times when people shout outloud, they can be right ... somewhere. Anyway, I'm glad I read it before it went.

 

Or maybe I dreamed it. :~)

Peter

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"Or maybe I dreamed it. :~)"

 

Ha! That's a good one.

 

The content of WL's comments was totally fine, but he was more interested in debating people and using derogatory speech than debating the actual topic at hand. This isn't the first site where his comments have been removed. He has a knack for this stuff.

 

Maybe I'll re-publish his comments above but remove all the personal criticisms. At least it will make you look like you didn't imagine the comments :~)

 

[PeterSt]

Hehe, thank you Chris.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Peter,

 

"For vinyl the possible sideways excursion per distance unit (derived from the rpm) will be the sample rate. Notice this is related to what the pickup needle can take too.

The vertical excursion will be the bit depth. This too is subject to a maximum per distance unit, and whether the needle can follow without jumping out."

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent in these statements but actually, with vinyl, both the "sample rate" and "bit depth" (i.e. word length) equivalents are encoded in the lateral (i.e. sideways) motion of the stylus in the groove.

 

"Sample rate" (or bandwidth extension at the top) will be determined by how frequently stylus and groove move laterally in a given time interval. "Bit depth" (or or dynamic resolution) will be determined by the degree of lateral motion, i.e. how much the stylus/groove "swing" from side to side.

 

Vertical motion is where the difference (i.e. stereo) information is encoded; the difference between left and right channels.

 

That said, I agree with you regarding folks being mistaken in thinking of analog as having "infinite" resolution, frequency-wise or dynamically. It has many good qualities but infinite anything is not (in my view) among them.

 

***

On another note, some question whether an analog transfer can be considered high res. Having done a few of these myself, I would think this depends on the digital encoding hardware and software.

 

For example, an analog tape can be encoded at 16/44, or 24/96 or 24/192 (and other rates too of course). Each of these, in my experience (assuming quality hardware/software) will reveal increasing resolution, with each step sounding more like the original.

 

Remember too that a microphone signal taken during recording is also an analog signal, subject to the same effects as an analog source tape, when it comes to digital encoding. (Of course, one would hope the mic feed sounds more "alive" than the analog source tape. ;-})

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com