Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16

[bachish]

Just now, crenca said:

 

What is the cabling/bus tech of your "field recorder" (i.e. how does it connect to your computer)?  USB?  

 

Much of the Audiophile debate is centered around the bus tech implementation (USB, etc.) to DAC tech.  I have thought about writing a little batch script that copies an audio file back and forth between my computer through my cheap USB cables and "noisy" USB bus, letting it run for a while (say a month), and then doing an analysis such as yours.  So far I have been too lazy... ?

 

Yep, I just connect it with a regular 'ol USB cable. The cable from my ADC is just a $30 Cambridge Soundworks digital interconnect. 

 

But even if someone objects to the USB cable, it would be the same for the whole test so it shouldn't matter I would think.  The file that is transfered the most on that cable should be more corrupted than the one that is transfered only once. At least that is what I am thinking. If the files null, then there are no problems. If it doesn't null then we know there's a problem but won't know where it originates.

 

Your way sounds more sophisticated than mine.  

[bachish]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

If I recall correctly, and @cookiemarenco can chime in herself of course and correct/confirm me, she believes she hears a difference between WAV and the same file encoded to FLAC.  @bachish, this belief I would argue would be an "audiophile" assertion, because those who know the math behind FLAC encoding will tell you that there is no difference (i.e. perfect, not just near perfect, null).  Someone then mentions the computational overhead necessary to decode a FLAC encoding vs. a WAV file and your off to the audiophile races about what can or can not be "'heard" in a digital file...

 

Hmmm, extra computational overhead effects the sound...I'm pretty sure computers excell at computation. 

[bachish]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The various things she thinks make a difference to eventual sound quality.

 

I would be interested in her recording techniques. I need to listen to her recordings...

[bachish]

2 hours ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

Hello and thank you for the mention, 

 

First I'd like to mention that I applaud anyone buying music, especially in high resolution and disc format.  Streaming rate payouts will never support a robust ecosystem of varying music genres.  We want to support you all and the format of your choice.  What ever works best for you, in your listening situation and to fit your budget.  Your continuing enjoyment of music helps support us making new music.  Thank you.

 

Math vs listening tests.... Arguments that could arise from our differences are not often understood by the main stream music listener and even professional audio engineers.  I've been in the pro audio side of thing since opening a commercial facility in 1982.  I left active participation with pro audio to create an audiophile music label in 2007.  99% of the professional audio community is still recording in 44.1/24 or 16 bits.  99% of the music we receive for evaluation, mixing and mastering arrives as 44.1 files.  If you ask 99% of the record labels (and I include the major labels here) for the multitrack masters or even the final mixes pre mastering...  you'll get a look of horror.  They don't know where they are.  This is a tragedy. 

 

I suspect the thought of learning something new or managing large files or spending more money on gear during a time when audio engineering jobs and commercial studios are dying off and labels going out of business, is not really a pleasant consideration.

 

What and how we listen is a personal decision.  When I'm at home and in my office, I listen to youtube, CDs, SACDs, and DSD.. depends on my mood and what I'm doing.  I listen to the baseball games on a 20 year old transistor Sony radio, by the way.

 

What I record to is a different story.  I record to 2" tape and DSD256, no PCM.  If you have more questions, feel free to ask.

 

Do we hear the difference between FLAC and WAV?  yes.  We have repeated this test dozens of times, blindfolded and can teach people how to hear the difference.  Do we hear the difference between the conversion of various levels of FLAC?  Yes, and we optimize our conversions to create the best sounding FLAC.  Do we hear the difference between a FLAC made from a DSD256 and from WAV?  Yes.  Do we hear differences in USB and Ethernet cables?  Yes... for another discussion.

 

In the early 80's we were beta testers for the first digital audio workstations.  Part of my job was to do rigorous listening tests.  For more than 30 years I've been paid by dozens of audio manufacturers (both pro and consumer) to test their gear.  We got started in this because we complained about digital audio conversions.  When engineers discovered we were right, they hired us to test.  

 

But hey, if you want to believe the math, that's cool.    I wanted to believe the math when I started distributing downloads in 2008.  We were told that FLAC sounded the same.  Sure, the files would be smaller, easier to download, cost less to host, etc.  But, before we hosted hundreds of FLAC files, I suggested we do comparative listening tests. As the owner of the business, FLAC was a more financially advantageous file to deliver.

 

My "oh s*&t" moment came when we heard the difference.  WAV sounded better.  We couldn't lie to our customers about what we heard.  It's not a big difference but we heard it... test after test after test. It was going to cost more money to deliver WAV but we promised our customers the best files we could deliver at the time... and we still do.

 

Bottomline... we sell the FLAC, DSD and WAV... we sell all formats available to us at Blue Coast Music.  Buy what makes you happy.  Math?  I love math.  But ...... 

 

This has been a great article.  I'm going to submit it to DSD-Guide.com where you can read more about the tests we do and why.

https://dsd-guide.com

 

Enjoy your listening and support your favorite musicians, 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

 

Hi Cookie,  Thank you for the post!

 

I don't know how much you read of the thread but here is the recording we used for the null test to give you an idea of the recordings I do. Excuse the compressed mp3 streaming. 

 

Here is a recording I did of myself on cello,

 

They are just as a point of reference! Sorry if it is a little too forward! 

 

My approach to recording is definitely minimalist, though I am not against the German 'tonmeister' approach of multi-micing. It's just another way, IMO. The above recordings were both with two mics only. I even prefer not to mix, if at all possible. I have a strong liking for Blumlein when it is appropriate. I also love the spacious sound of omnis (I mainly do classical and a little jazz), despite the poor localization.

 

For me, after good players and good instruments, the acoustic is next in importance for a good recording. After that I'd say the recording engineer, next I'd say the gear, and quite distant in importance, IMHO, is the conversion type (PCM vs DSD). For me, it just becomes irrelevant when the other factors are in place.  Both, when done correctly, sound spectacular. I personally use PCM.

 

With all due respect, your description of the professional recording world is not my experience at all.  Every professional recording engineer I know - in the classical world any way - is not recording serious projects at 44.1 and most definitely not at 16 bit. The vast majority are recording at higher sample rates, except perhaps for live recitals (and I agree with this - live recitals I record are at 44.1/24 bit).  And every classical engineer I know always records at 24 bit. It would be crazy not to, especially in classical recording with the extreme dynamics. 24 bit allows the engineer plenty of headroom to record at lower levels to avoid overs.  And, IMO, A/D converters sound better and more relaxed when not pushed anyway.  And I have never heard of professional recording engineers (classical anyway) providing a mastering studio with a 44.1 file, unless it was a special circumstance. Every book I have every read on the subject instructs quite the opposite. For studios that do a lot of mixing on computer, I can understand the use of 44.1, though (ready to be stoned now! haha).

 

But even if a recording is done at 44.1, assuming the other factors I mentioned above are in place, the recording will still be spectacular. The quality just doesn't hinge on 44/1 vs DSD vs. 96Khz.

 

And I'm also scratching my head at, 

 

"I suspect the thought of learning something new or managing large files or spending more money on gear during a time when audio engineering jobs and commercial studios are dying off and labels going out of business, is not really a pleasant consideration."

 

Many labels have been struggling, true, but recording in high res is pretty standard and not really new.  And most of the recording engineers i have come into contact with have quite expensive gear and wonderful mics. Just check out the conversations at gearslutz.com and read about the mics that are being used in the remote recording section.  Some of the newbies have less expensive mics, true. But the more experienced engineers are using very good equipment, amassed over the years, and are masters in their own right.

 

I'm sorry if I seem a bit indignant. But I notice those who use the title 'audiophile label' like to paint the world of recording engineers as mediocre, uninformed, half @$$ (haha), fools and...well... it just aint so. 

[bachish]

1 hour ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

Sure!  What do you want to know?  I've moved to smaller, chamber acoustic recordings that are live in the studio without headphones or overdubs.  Much harder than having unlimited tracks, isolated rooms and control over the sound and performances.  

 

I don't mix in the box (computer).. instead I run through an analog mixing console.  Have great stories about recording Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Charlie Haden and Quartet West,  Max Roach...  what do you want to know? 

 

Thanks for asking

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

 

Hopefully you will forgive my little rant. I really do like your recordings!  I hope nothing I said was offensive in my other post.

 

But...I am curious as to your micing philosophy.  I mentioned I like a simple stereo pair and avoid spot mics as much as humanly possible (though I may set them up to cover myself!). For me, the stereo pair (or array) does the heavy lifting and any spots would be for just a touch of clarity as needed.  How do you approach the subject? I am pretty open minded on this subject. I've heard many spectacular recordings done both ways. 

 

 

[bachish]

12 hours ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

Hello Bachish, I did read your thread from the beginning.  I thought it was quite charming and adventurous for a first post.  I was familiar with the null test from years gone by.  I'm not sure how much has been deleted from this forum, but there have been some very interesting responses over the years to issues you brought up about the math.  I find no reason to argue any more.  I understand we all have different opinions and different experiences in life.

 

I'll listen more closely to your recordings tomorrow when I'm in a better listening environment.

 

I agree that most of the classical recording engineers record in at least 24 bit (even if 44.1).  Two of my best buddy engineers are Jack Vad (San Francisco Symphony engineer for 30 years and now records to 192) and Michael Bishop (records in DSD).  Classical music represents a good percentage of the music audiophiles buy (though still not as much as rock/pop).  That said, beyond classical it's a very different world of professional audio engineers.  Classical is a small percentage of the total music recorded in the world.  My generalization was about the total spectrum of music being created and how few audio engineers work above 44.1 (24 or 16 bit).  Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

 

I'm not suggesting audio engineers don't care about sound, but there are different definitions of what that sound is.  Very few are taught good recording techniques these days.  We get a lot of interns at the studio from audio programs that are unaware of good techniques for recording. 

 

If I were asked what was the most important part of the recording to get a great sound, it would start with proper grounding and understanding gain structure.  Everything else is simplified once you get gain structure and grounding right.. and have a good set of ears.  .  

 

All the best to you and your recording projects.  It seems like you have good taste in music.

 

all the best,

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

Thank you for the response! I guess I am out of the loop in regards to the bigger picture of audio recording. My (limited) experience is that the recording industry is churning out some amazing recordings and, judging by the engineers I know and gearslutz.com, the engineers are very committed.  But you are obviously in a better position to know.

 

BTW, if you'd like the high res versions of the recordings, let me know and I'll send a link. It's nice of you to offer to listen. Much appreciated!

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

22 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The various things she thinks make a difference to eventual sound quality.

 

Yes, no doubt she is a great engineer. What she has described reminds me of what recording engineer Hudson Fair does, recordist for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.  He also records to analog tape and mixes in an analog mixer. He says it sounds better than mixing on computer and, no doubt, it would sound different but subject to one's aesthetics. But, IMO, what gives Cookie her distinctive sound isn't so much tied to DSD vs PCM but what she is doing in the analog domain prior to converting to digital. That is where the magic happens. 

 

If interested, to see Hudson Fair's website see http://www.hudsonic.net/. Some interestimg pics there.

[bachish]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Thank you for the link. 

 

Yes, that's kind of what I was getting at in my initial comment about Cookie - that regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with anything she says, it's indicative of a degree of care to produce a quality product that's borne out in the result.

 

Yes, she certainly has a deep commitment to sound. We agree. 

 

I guess I just like to emphasise a couple points, directed to anyone here and myself included, that there are many recording engineers who record for mainstream lables that are as committed to sound and recording techniques as "audiophile" lables. And that the focus on DSD vs PCM is, by far, the least important aspect of recording and playback, IMO.  Just because someone doesnt record to alalog tape or mix in all analog or use DSD doesn't mean it is less in quality. I personally like all digital for classical. I love the transparency.  

 

 

[bachish]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Returning the favor of the Hudson Fair link - I've always liked the quality of the recordings Mark Knopfler's been involved with.  Here are a couple of links with some information about his (quite non-purist!) recording techniques:

 

https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Producer_Chuck_Ainlay_on_Recording_Mark_Knopfler

 

http://guyfletcher.co.uk/the-diaries-2/recording-tracker-2014/

 

Edit: I saw your previous post after I posted my comment.  Looks like my "non-purist" remark was right in line with what you're saying.

 

Thanks for the links!  I quickly read the first one. I like a lot of what he is saying. Analog for sure has a nice warmth to it and sounds great.  I'll check out the other link too.

 

There are definitely many ways to record and recordists get great results with all types of techniques. I used to be more dogmatic about how music ought to be recorded - that is until I heard some recordings that were drop dead gorgeous using mic techniques I didn't particularly like! Like virtually everything in life there are trade offs and what somebody likes will be determined by their priorities.

[bachish]

14 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Hey no worries.  Believe it or not, I am not after yet-another-audiophile-cable debate.  Rather, your explanation "...For copying this is completely different from playing an audio stream over the same cable." is what I wanted to indicate to the OP.  This is the "audiophile" assertion I wanted him to understand, which shows that for (some, most probably), digital is digital up to a certain point, when it becomes something else (i.e. the "sound" of digital files say FLAC vs. WAV, or the "sound" of USB signal transmission, or whatever).

 

The why of your assertion, the how of any other file transmission vs. audio (file) transmission (the assertion that USB becomes something different when an audio file is transmitted over it) is never explained really at all but it is simply considered normal and accepted wisdom in Audiophiledom...

 

Yep, I do see your point and believe I see the concern of audiophiles.

 

I am sitting here thinking...I have a 20year old digital Spdif cable....I could stream from the digital outs of my Roland recorder (the field recorder I mentioned) to the Spdif inputs of my 20+ year old Marantz CD burner. I could then stream back to the Roland recorder via the same digital cable. In other words, I'd be streaming in real time with a low end cable. I could upload the double streamed version to the computer and null test it with the original. If it nulls, then it looks like the cable doesn't matter much. If it doesn't null, more tests would need to be done to isolate the problem (could be errors in writing to CDR by an older machine, for example).  

 

Just a thought. If it nulls, would that satisfy the concerned?

[bachish]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

Two further steps might be interesting: comparisons with a 44.1 file produced by @bachish's own decimation filter; and with a 44.1 file produced by someone's version of a simple "bad" decimation filter of the type a major music company might use, that I've seen criticized occasionally here.  For the latter, @mansr @Miska, @PeterSt, Cookie, any ideas? 

 

Hi Jud,

 

The filters used in the major professional DAWs are actually very good. Here are some measurements that visually show any artifacts from the sampling. Again, it's extremely difficult to avoid any ringing or aliasing, but the vast majority of DAWs have excellent results.

 

The worst performer of this list is Sadie. But even though it looks terrible, the artifacts are all under -100 db. The list includes Abletom Live, Logic, Pro Tools, Pyramid, Reaper, Sadie, Samplitude, and Sequoia.

 

You can look at others at http://src.infinitewave.ca

[bachish]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

If only ??

 

The ways that  your original test, and your hypothetical above, is "moot" is as diverse as the number of audiophiles. You have seen two respected and respectable members of the community (I mean that - I don't disparage them personally and I value what I have learned from them) say explicitly why the math itself is moot, that there is an in between where there is a sound, etc. just on this very thread.  Others who have been conversant with you would reveal similar beliefs if pressed.  Like John Atkinson says, being an Audiophile is about "belief ", which is to say that it is more than a mere emphasis, or a state of understanding/knowledge about digital, circuits, or even a methodology about how to go about getting the best sound...

 

 

Ok, interesting...well, when I have the time, I may try that test anyway. If I do, I'll post the results (maybe Null test No. 2 haha). Now, if I could just get my hands on that software by pkane2001!!

 

BTW, if you haven't seen it, check out my last post on the previous page. As long as you use a respectable DAW, you can be assured of a good SRC today. It's a nice website.

[bachish]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

This one is rather horrible. What the hell are they doing? Sure, that crap is pretty far down, but there's just no excuse for being that weird.

 

Yeah, definitely not as up to snuff as the others. But then again, it's all extremely quiet.

 

Audacity, the free one, is much better - actually, amazingly good.

 

This is Audacity 2.0.3 (Best Quality). 

[bachish]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Except for Sadie, they are all pretty good. Some show a little aliasing at the very top. This allows a wider transition band, which means less of the dreaded "ringing." Not that it really matters.

 

True, not really. And this is all much quieter than the combined internal noise generated from the recording equipment itself, especially the mics.

[bachish]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Yeah, been going to the Infinitewav site for years.   

 

There are some other SRCs that don't look great on some of the tests.  But what I like it for is to visualize  things like the relationships between steepness, phase, and ringing, for example.

 

Yes, cool website.  Some of the DAWs don't do well and, actually, I've tested one of them against the original and it didn't null. I could hear the whole tune faintly with the volume up all the way up. That is NCH MixPad, which in many other respects works pretty well. But for SRC, no, I wouldn't use that DAW. 

 

But the ones I listed are amoung the most common for studio work. 

 

 

[bachish]

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

In the pro audio world, is there a trade publication or organization that reviews and tests these applications - I mean, really test them for computational integrity and usefullness?  As a music lover/audio enthusiast I have occasionally found myself looking at pro audio websites/publications (can't even recall the names at present) and their speaker or headphone reviews, and they don't appear on average to be any more rigorous than most "audiophile" reviews.   This surprised me a bit to be honest.  Perhaps I have been looking at the wrong publications?

 

Sound on Sound does have more in depth reviews but not all reviews are equally so.  I sent you a PM.

[bachish]

21 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

 

Sound on Sound does have more in depth reviews but not all reviews are equally so.  I sent you a PM.

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

In the pro audio world, is there a trade publication or organization that reviews and tests these applications - I mean, really test them for computational integrity and usefullness?  As a music lover/audio enthusiast I have occasionally found myself looking at pro audio websites/publications (can't even recall the names at present) and their speaker or headphone reviews, and they don't appear on average to be any more rigorous than most "audiophile" reviews.   This surprised me a bit to be honest.  Perhaps I have been looking at the wrong publications?

 

And I almost forgot about the Audio Engineering Society Journal. http://www.aes.org/audiosciences/

 

That is in the format of a typical, scholarly journal with all types of scientific tests and experiments.  To get it I imagine you have to become a member. I've thought about attending one of their conventions. 

 

But just looking through the papers in the latest journal, you realize how in depth and technical the field of recording engineering actually is.  There are definitely some really smart scientists and engineers out there.

[bachish]

8 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Today: yes.

 

In a not-so-distant past, however, the SRCs in top-dollar pro tools were less than stellar (which IMO was inexcusable, since at the top of the music production chain), and

in affordable/free DAWs often were sheer crap. There were exceptions, but the majority of tools was at least suspect.

 

IIRC this situation lasted up to 2007 or so, when iZotope and some of the public domain tools showed how to do things properly.

 

 

There is truth to this. Many of the DAWs back in the 90s and probably into 2000s did have edgy sounding SRC.

 

But i disagree that the 'top of the music chain' had poor SRC. Back in the mid 90s I did my first serious recording project (choir CD). As was common, I recorded to DAT, which is 48Khz. I didnt do my own editing back then so when the final edited version came back it sounded a little edgy and not as smooth. The RE who did the edits said for a better SRC we'd have to take it to a mastering studio.

 

I took it to Sound Mirror, a mastering studio in Boston, and their SRC sounded gorgeous; smooth, silky, and extremely difficult to distinguish from the original, if at all.

 

So they did have good SRC at the top of the music chain before the early 2000s, it was just more expensive than today.

 

[bachish]

3 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Those aware of the issue and prepared to pay did, yes. The others used whatever came with ProTools or SADiE or Pyramix.

 

 

 

Well, that's how technology (harware/software) works, I suppose. Costs come down with time.

 

If a RE didn't notice a problem where one existed such as poor SRC, or wasn't willing to pay the $200-$400, then it probably wasn't a widely distributed recording anyway.

 

Do you have any evidence that Pyramix had bad SRC prior to ca. 2007? I admit Im a bit skeptical. Pyramix is considered a high end DAW, and not cheap too.

[bachish]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Would higher quality conversion then characterize recordings (if not all, then a substantial proportion) issued by major labels since that time?

 

(I am wanting to get a notion of the quality of the conversions that are done with most of the music I buy.)

 

5 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Anecdotally, I want to say yes (which means I am probably wrong ?).  This just based on my personal experience with many Jazz artists I buy.  I have noticed a quality "demarcation" that I had been placing at about 2005 in my mind up until now.  Recordings before then have an "edgy" quality that those after don't (a general statement of course).  I had wondered the cause, and was wondering if it was something digital or something else.  I had also not made a distinction between the "major" labels in Jazz (e.g. Blue Note, Posi-Tone {are they "major"?} , etc.) but will have to go back and evaluate...

 

I can only speak from my own experience and what I have heard as a hobbyist, but my understanding is that the big classical labels (I don't know about rock, or pop), generally send the masters to a master studio for the final touches or they use a mastering studio to do the recording and the mastering.  If that has been the case, then any of the big labels: Gramophone, Philips, Decca, Telarc, etc, probably employed a mastering studio for sample rate conversion since that is one of the final steps any way. It would seem inconceivable for Gramophone to record the Berlin Philharmonic and then no do the SRC properly and that the engineers wouldn't have noticed an edgy SRC

 

But I suppose you never know. I am out of the loop on that. But I would not assume that the SRC was not done properly prior to 2007. As I mentioned, back in the mid 90s a good SRC was accessible to me for a few hundred bucks. 

 

Yes, it does seem that recording are getting better all the time. Some of it has to do with different types of mics. Ribbon mics, for example, are becoming more common. Check out the smooth, silky, analog-like quality of the Rhode NTRs - a very nice ribbon mic. Worth a listen...

 

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Yeah, right! Certainly not from this video when played directly .

 It sounds like crap , even when  compared with the same video sourced from the URL of this video , then downloaded and played with JRiver , DESPITE only having 125 kilobits .aac audio !

 

* WinX YouTube Downloader

https://youtu.be/lEgRsHjoF4c

 

 

I can still get a good sense of the mics, thank you.  Seems obvious to me. Just have to know what to listen for.

 

[bachish]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 With only 125 Kilobits compressed .aac audio, perhaps a healthy dose of Expectation Bias too ?

 

Nice try.  Ribbon mics have a distinct sound. They are obviously different from a condenser mic. I'm actually pretty surprised it isn't more obvious. I can tell by the sound of the mids, the airy yet somewhat rolled off highs, the sound of the piano, particularly in the mids, and I can hear the silkier quality, even on a YouTube.  

 

 

[bachish]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 Yes. YouTube .aac has nothing above 16KHZ

 

It's not that either.  It's the way ribbons handle highs up to 15 Khz (the highest not on a piano is only around 4 Khz - so there are a lot of overtones up to 15 Khz). If it was just the same as a simple eq roll off, then I could make any condenser mic sound like a ribbon - but that just aint going to happen.

 

Personally, I think people (audiophiles in particular) should train their ears to be able to hear qualities in recordings even when not on an audiophile system or high bit streaming.  

[bachish]

Deleated

[bachish]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I don't doubt that you are able to hear the differences between the mics, but don't expect others to from YouTube or VEVO videos which are designed to have markedly inferior audio so that it doesn't affect album sales.

 

Actually, I do expect audiophiles to tell the difference. Sorry. You all should be developing your ears. And I think it's a great educational opportunity for you. There is plenty of musical information in the YouTube I posted to make it clear that the mics are ribbons and not condenser mics. 

 

I suggest doing a little digging around on the internet for examples and I am confident you will be able to tell, easily, in fact.