16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[firedog]

If you listen to Redbook, improving your system should mean the sound of Redbook also improves. There are setups where the sound of Redbook can be so good that you can’t tell much difference to hi-res.

[firedog]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's highly instructive to take some hi res tracks from a recognised source - I use those from 2L - and subtract out the extra stuff after creating a CD quality version; and then look at, and listen to the hi res elements after amplifying by enormous amounts - ummm, absolutely nothing of special value. Sometimes, just transients from accidental, non-musical bumps and scrapes in the recording space.

 

If it sounds obviously different, then it's different masterings, or a playback chain that is poor at handling 16 bit format.

Historically, I found some hi-res sounded better - a little more extension on the high end, a little less digital sounding. Mostly noticeable with acoustic string or percussion instruments. I did seem to find some recordings/examples where it was independent of mastering. 

Now, my system has improved and I think there is even less difference. I won't say there is none, but it isn't a dramatic difference. So some of that difference was due to my equipment, and not the medium. 

I still tend to buy recordings in high res if they were made that way, because I figure they might sound a tiny bit better in the original format; I also prefer DSD as a medium for tape converted to digital-I think it sounds more like the original.

But it's no longer a big deal to me. I'm pretty happy with well recorded Redbook, if I can find it. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

The bass is a bit squishy.

That's because it has sponge in the bass ports of the speakers.

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I've heard 16-bit/44.1 KHz recordings that sound magnificent, and I've heard DSD and high-res recordings that sound atrocious. It's not any one part of the process that guarantees good sound, it's the whole megillah!

And your point is? I didn't say anything about one medium being intrinsically superior to another. 

But I've compared such transfers of tape to both DSD and PCM - I like the DSD better and think it sounds more like the tape.  It's my perception. Why do you feel a need to chime in? I don't think you have the ability to tell me what I'm hearing. 

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

High resolution audio sounds better, that's a ** FACT **.

 

Why it sounds better is up for debate. There's good evidence that it's due to our apparent ability to process high frequency information even though we aren't conscious of them as sounds. There is also evidence that human's time domain acuity is much higher than our frequency perception would suggest. Setting aside the theory, it's fact that anyone with even a mediocre ability to discern audio quality should be able to appreciate it. 

Do you know what a fact is? I think not. 

 

"good evidence" - no. Evidence. An indication. Nothing remotely supporting an idea of good evidence. Other than direct bone conduction, there is little evidence of it. One paper with results that are reproduced by others doesn't count as good evidence.

 

You keep saying that "anyone" can appreciate it - but that clearly isn't true. If it was so clearly better it wouldn't be up for debate, and lots of audio/recording professionals wouldn't say the opposite of what you are claiming. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Key point here is : find that one and only decent original transfer

Which one are you referring to? There are multiple versions, even on CD.

[firedog]

13 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Good question ... (I only have stored the front cover of it, and this tells nothing).

All I know is that only after a couple of years I found "the" one on CD, whereas the Hires version was there for a longer time already (and that one you one want to listen to). Anyway, it is not the HDCD version, of which also two exist ...

 

Currently I'm coincidentally working on comparison software, showing me the least compression for the versions (of any album) I have.

The 40th anniversary box set has, among the 5 discs: a remaster of the original master tape. 

A needle drop recording of a UK first pressing, from Robert Fripp's personal archive copy. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

About 2 years ago I tested VBR MP3 with the latest encoder vs FLAC and I seriously could tell NO difference. If there was a difference it was so small it couldn't break past memory effect / test stress.

 

Wait, after all your snobby posts putting down everyone else's equipment, crappy "CD quality" music, and listening skills - you write this?

So you've been lying to us all along and are now telling truth? 

Understand, I think many people, if honest, would agree about mp3 on at least some tracks, if not all. 

 

[firedog]

46 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

So is entirely an early digital recording, hence innately 44k1.

Peter Gabriel, "So": 

 

Quote

The studio's basic equipment consisted of "two analog 24-track machines, a Studer A80, and a Studer A80 shell that had been modified by a local electronics wizard, with its own audio cards and transport controls".^{[nb 2]} To record vocals a Neumann U47 tube microphone and a Decca compressor were used without equalization.^[12] All of So's songs were made in a similar format. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_(album)

 

So, a remaster to 24/192 might sound better than the original CD if it was made from the tapes. 

[firedog]

9 minutes ago, Fokus said:

Sorry, my info back then stated that So was fully digital. The LP has a tell tale ridge at 20kHz. The SACD has the same ridge. Both were clearly 44.1k at one stage during production.

 

Edit: the story is in the Classic Tracks series on SOS. They ran into sync problems with the A80s, and had to bounce all tracks over a Mitsubishi 32track. Digital thus ...

Well both things could be true - 24 track tape and a 16\44.1 master produced from the tapes.  And certainly wouldn't be the first time SACDs were produced from upsampled Redbook. 

 

The album was remastered in 2002. And apparently again for hi-res and vinyl in 2012. http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/music/remastering-peter-gabriels-so/

 

The question is what is the source of the 24/192 version referred to in the above post. I couldn't find a reference to such a version anywhere. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

You are aware that all DSD recordings have to be converted to LPCM to edit them, after which they are converted back to DSD?

Not necessarily. They can be converted to tape, edited, and converted back to DSD. Or the pyramix system can be used, which only coverts the very small place of the edit itself, and leaves the rest of the recording alone. 

Both of the above methods are in use. Obviously they aren’t used for multitrack recordings and others that require extensive processing.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Pedanticism, thy name is Firedog! The point was that DSD cannot be edited as DSD, It has to be edited in another format. There is nothing that says that the DSD file couldn't be converted to 33.3 RPM stereo lacquer transcriptions to be A/B roll edited (like video tape) to a third 33.3 RPM stereo lacquer transcription, before being converted back to DSD. But I'm reasonably sure that a similar number of record companies do that as transfer their DSD recordings to analog tape to edit them. 

Well, if there are multiple record labels doing exactly what I described on a regular basis, I don't think I'm being pedantic. Maybe you are unaware of them. Maybe you don't know the definition of the word "pedantic".

 

In fact it might fit better to your previous post, where you pedantically pointed out something and stated it as an untrue absolute about ALL DSD recording. 

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 My reaction to that is why bother? Why not capture the performance on analog tape, edit it with a razor blade, and then transfer the edited tape to DSD? That certainly makes more sense than doing a double conversion. Of course DSD recorders are a lot smaller than a pro analog tape deck, and that might be a legitimate reason for capturing a performance in DSD. I don't think it's anything I'd ever do, but then, I record live performances and don't do much in the way of editing, so that point is moot with me.:)

You should ask someone like Cookie or Jared Sachs, but I'd assume that it's quicker and easier recording in DSD, and also possible they like the final sound better with this process. 

[firedog]

11 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

I can't understand how to fund development, researching, make product better and support it with "lifetime" subscription.

I'm guessing it was a good way for them to pull in more cash at the start. Maybe they won't offer it forever.

 

I got a lifetime subscription with a "Christmas discount" their first year (no longer available), so it pretty much has paid itself off already and I'll be getting Roon for "free" from the end of the year.  I think I made a good deal for myself. 

 

 Sure on these types of things you take a small risk, but even at the full price of $499, you would be getting close to your break even point in another year if you jumped in at the start,  and as long as they stay in business your yearly average cost just keeps going down. 

[firedog]

27 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

There's no absolute with wine, there is with HiFi, transparency to the source. That's why we call it High Fidelity.

And bikes, like cars, are measured for all their performance.attributes. If you said you were better at 0-60, or 60-0, or skidpad, etc, all these things can and are measured against each other to determine which one is best. If you claimed yours out performed X you for sure you would be asked for the evidence. You don't get away with this kind of unsupported talk in any motorsport.

Not really. Because we almost never know what the source sounded like and in almost all cases it's been altered in the process of producing the recording. We are all just making more or less informed guesses when we think we know what "the source" sounded like.
 

And other than small group recordings recorded with little or no post production, we will never have even a tiny idea of  what "the source" sounded like - especially if we weren't present at the recording - so "hi fidelity" to source is a concept with no actual absolute. 

 

So if I think some form of playback sounds "better" (which is actually a different way of saying it has "higher fidelity" of whatever I ASSUME  the source sounded like) - there is no way you or anyone else can say I'm wrong. There is no absolute basis for comparison. 

 

Therefore someone like Jud posting his impressions of the sound is 100% legit and useful for just the reasons he said (as long as he doesn't in some way state that what he heard necessarily applies to others and their playback). 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

But I can write it off. It has nothing to do with me. I despise pop and rock, I think it is an indicator of the decline of western civilization (and rap and hip-hop continue that decline). I'm not going to apologize because I have nothing to apologize for. My comments vis-a-vis this particular topic represent MY opinion, and I do not apologize for it. Perhaps you and others who seem to have taken offense at an honest expression of an opinion should grow a bit thicker skins. If I had a dollar for every time someone here over the last 10 years told me that they found classical music boring or impossible to listen to, I could go out this evening and buy myself an expensive steak dinner. But I didn't get bent out of shape like you rockers have in this thread. I figured that's their opinion, their taste and they are entitled to both.  Glad to discuss audio with you any time, but let's end this ridiculous thread here and now.

Saying something is boring or impossible to listen to is not the same as saying it isn't music.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

I don't know about discussions on this site, but on others, and in many situations in real life, I've heard countless people compare The Beatles favorably with Beethoven.  Those people may not claim to "not know" who or what Beethoven was, but comparing The Beatles to him as being alike in genius is a clear demonstration of their ignorance.

 

And now the trend is to elevate The Beach Boys to similar status lmao.  I suppose in thirty years, it will be comparisons between Eminem or Bieber or Rihanna and Beethoven.

 

Decrying elitism is a popular thing, but I see the elevation of mediocrity as something worse, culturally.  Oh, and while it's apparently elitist and reprehensible to consign The Beatles or others of their type to the rubbish heap, it's okay for their legions of fans to do the same to Taylor Swift or similar.  lol  There is a much wider gap between what is required to write the compositions (and play them) of a Beethoven and The Beatles than there is between the pop songs of McCartney et al and Swift.

I can compare the Beatles favorably to Beethoven in many ways. They were better at many things than Beethoven was or would have been. Does that matter or is it relevant to anything? No. 
 

The Beatles' music may often not be the world's hardest to play (though I'd like to see you or any other classical musician "play" a song like "Strawberry Fields" - you couldn't do it)- and neither is the music of Muddy Waters. But I guarantee you many virtuoso singers and players sound very lame playing or singing their music. They don't know how to do it convincingly, even though they have the technical chops. Just about all those attempts by opera singers to record pop and jazz are totally lame. They have the technical ability - but not the musical/performance ability to perform the music convincingly. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Popular music is a very commercial enterprise. It is made, packaged and sold to make money

And lots of classical music was expressly done to make money, to please a patron or fulfill the demands of a commission.  Much was also written specifically with the idea of pleasing the public.

Wasn't uncommon, even in modern times, for famous composers to be broke or even near starving. Someone in that position will make artistic compromises in order to get some cash. 
 

There's also certainly popular music that is very consciously intended to be art. 

To try and say one genre is commercial and the other is artistic is false. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and is different for different pieces of music. 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

Mick Jagger is still performing, so in that sense he's clearly better.

Maybe not.....

[firedog]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

Hmm, I don't have all of the discography of The Beatles but in my view they used "classical" Indian influences, not tribal.

They used the tampura, the sitar and the tabla which are as far as I know eclectic instruments.

 

For what it's worth, I have several recordings of both classical and ethnic Indian music and have traveled in India for a total of 6 months in 3 trips.

The Beatles definitely had elements similar to Native American music in their songs. Off the top of my head I think you can find a few on songs from “With the Beatles”.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

hardly - there is only a single extant race of humans

Yes. Race is a fake concept that exists only in the minds of humans. No one can clearly define where one race ends and another begins. It is a human cultural concept, not a biological one.
We are all mixes of various genetic backgrounds. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that is "pure" anything. 

[firedog]

29 minutes ago, rando said:

If I might be so bold as to ask.  What is the accepted, as opposed to fiercely personal, thinking on file degradation or the xerox effect as a potential cause for poor RBCD sound?  

 

 

As others have said, the accepted thinking is that copied files are perfect copies. Alex says differently and says he has produced files that prove it - and that have been verified by others. 

We’ve been over this dozens of times, so lets hope we can end this discussion here. It isn’t worth pursuing again. Google it and find the previous threads about it if you want. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Close, but not really...

 

Races are real and race means a sub-species.  This reality is not diminished because it is more difficult to find the boundary than between full species.

 

Scientists do not designate races (sub-species) in extant humans because the genetic diversity between individuals is so large (> 80% of the total) as compared with any sub-species one might designate.

Well, I’d say if you can’t find the boundary it doesn’t exist as anything other than a concept invented by humans for social reasons that doesn’t reflect reality.  There aren’t races. The concept itself is faulty. 

Even the definitions of the races is different in different societies. 

It isn’t difficult to find a large amount of scientific writing calling race a social, not a scientific concept. 

The concept of species itself is being undermined, as modern studies and knowledge of genetics also show that the boundaries between species are much harder to define than we once thought, and that many individuals in a species have cross species genetics. Species definitions also aren’t a set “truth” - they change. Again,  a human concept designed to help humans categorize,  not a fully accurate  scientific one that reflects reality. 

 

A friend of mine who is a nature guide once pointed out a plant to me growing on a cliff face: “See that plant?”, he asked. It isn’t supposed to be able to grow in this area (climate)....But it hasn’t read the book that tells it that.”

 

 

[firedog]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

It's not a real biological concept, but it remains a social concept based largely on physical appearance and what the individual wants to think of themselves as being. For instance, I have an acquaintance who will tell you he's a negro even though he is as white as a Scandinavian and has no negro physiological features. When asked why he refers to himself that way, he says it's because his great grandfather was a black man.  It's quite true that governments and the media use it to gauge demographics among other things. Even my current driver's license has a category for race on it as did my former CA driver's license. Most government forms both state and federal ask for the race of the person filling out the form. I'm afraid that as s civilization we are some ways from eliminating the concept altogether, but someday, I suspect, it will cease to be an issue. 

It's a social concept based on a fiction and a false understanding. Your friend can believe whatever he wants, that doesn't make it true. An identical twin to your friend would call himself white in a different culture or place - because it is a social concept; and how people see it changes with time and culture - irrespective of the individual's actual genetics. 

The fact that the US is obsessed with race and it's historic legacy of racism and it appears on government documents also doesn't make it real. It makes it a social construct based on a fiction.

[firedog]

I have an issue b/c I can't understand any cop who hasn't applied DSP correction before he/she speaks to me.