Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16

[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...

 

 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, bachish said:

Check out the smooth, silky, analog-like quality of the Rhode NTRs - a very nice ribbon mic. Worth a listen...

 

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

 It sounds like crap , 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

 

P.S.

 You will also see from my Sig that I also hear (despite my advanced years) what Cookie reports hearing, including the use of Uncompressed Zips as confirmed by her testing with elcorso (Roch) some time ago.

[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.

 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

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

 

 

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

 Perhaps you have a link to the audio of this video that isn't so compressed and " bit shy" ?

[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.  

 

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, bachish said:

the airy yet somewhat rolled off highs

 

 Yes. YouTube .aac has nothing above 16KHZ

 

 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.

[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.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, bachish said:

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.  

 

Why ?  Music is for enjoyment, not analysis.  Why settle for plain Vanilla ?

 As I mentioned previously, this recording when  downloaded sounds WAY better, and less compressed when played using JRiver.

[bachish]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

Why ?  Music is for enjoyment, not analysis.  Why settle for plain Vanilla ?

 As I mentioned previously, this recording when  downloaded sounds WAY better, and less compressed when played using JRiver.

 

Because in the end it will bring you more enjoyment, even when you don't have a Redbook or high res version.  I can enjoy the YouTube recording and can tell it is actually quit a beautiful, even spectacular recording, despite the compression.  

 

It's like being able to tell a cellist is great even when the recording isn't so good. I love to listen to cellist Emanuel Feuermann, even though the recordings are from the  30s and 40s. It's still obvious what a great cellist he is. Same thing. See? It actually enables you to get more enjoyment from a wider array of sources of music, even compressed.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, bachish said:

Because in the end it will bring you more enjoyment, even when you don't have a Redbook or high res version.

 Really ?

Low bit rate audio, especially .mp3, annoys the hell out of me, perhaps due to industrial type hearing damage.

It sounds like an excuse to try and make people get used to the typical high compression and reduced SQ since around 1985 when the Loudness Wars started.

Thankfully, there are still Recording and Mastering Engineers around like Barry Diament and Cookie Marenco who strive for the highest possible sound quality from their recordings.

 

How about we get back to Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16 which is of more interest than very low bit rate YouTube Audio ?

[bachish]

Sorry to hear about the damage to your hearing.  My reaction is because I am concerned with the approach of some audiophiles.  They will listen for the difference between FLAC and WAV but don't spend time learning how to hear the difference between different types of microphones.  

 

sanyk, there is no nefarious plot here to try to get you used to compressed audio. The point of the video, in context, is to demonstrate the differences in microphones used in the last 25 years. That's all.  

 

I am actually quite concerned about audio and quality of sound.  I've literally spent entire days experimenting with microphone placement when recording the cello and other instruments.  I buy the best recording and playback gear I can afford.  

 

I don;t analyse the difference between FLAC and WAV, I listen first to the musical performance, I try to listen for the mic placement technique, the way the engineer captured the timbre of the instruments, the type of microphones, etc.  Yes, it's all easier when not compressed, but I can still hear the basics on compressed audio.

 

If you can hear the differences cookie talks about, then you are more than able to tell the YouTube was recorded with ribbon mics with a bit of training.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, bachish said:

If you can hear the differences cookie talks about, then you are more than able to tell the YouTube was recorded with ribbon mics with a bit of training.

 

 I may already be able to without training, given  something better than .aac audio at 125Kilobits. However, like most people, I take YouTube and Vevo music videos as ONLY an indication whether the album the video was designed to promote is worth further investigation. 

[bachish]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I may already be able to without training, given  something better than .aac audio at 125Kilobits. However, like most people, I take YouTube and Vevo music videos as ONLY an indication whether the album the video was designed to promote is worth further investigation. 

 

That's totally fine.  I got posting with some others about sample rate conversion improvement over the last 25 years and I was only was pointing out that the loss of edge in recordings today is not necessarily the result of better sample rate conversion.  It's also different recording techniques and different microphones. So it was very related to the topic of the thread I started.

 

Ribbon microphone technology was basically dead when David Royer, nearly single handedly, brought them back and updated the technology. They go very well with digital - they just have a beautiful french silk quality. I uploaded a YouTube as an example that's all.  It seems obvious to me. 

 

Oh well!   C'est la vie!  

[Jud]

1 hour ago, bachish said:

 

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.  

 

Not sure what "airy but somewhat rolled off" means, but the FR is shown below.

 

Sound on Sound also had some gentle criticism of the self-noise:

 

Quote

Active circuitry inevitably introduces noise, and the NTR’s self–noise is quoted as 15dBA SPL, which is comparable to a good small–diaphragm capacitor mic. It also restricts the headroom of the mic: this is quoted as 130dB SPL, but for one percent THD rather than the more usual 0.5 percent.

 

[bachish]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Not sure what "airy but somewhat rolled off" means, but here's the FR:

 

 

 

Sound on Sound also had some gentle criticism of the self-noise:

 

 

 

Actually 15db isn't a bad self noise spec. for a mic. The ambient sound of a concert hall will mask a lot of that. And if used in a studio, the close micing will render it a non issue. 

 

The active circuitry on that mic is because ribbons have extremely low output and so need a very high gain, super clean mic preamp with a high input impedance to bring the signal up to a level usable for recording. Many do not own an amp that works with ribbons, even professionals, so on many ribbons they include 'active circuitry' or a little amp inside the mic, increasing the output to a higher level so a 'regular' mic pre can be used with it (hence Active Ribbon Mic). So yes, every amp is going to introduce some self noise but it also means that your mic pre isn't going to work as hard and so there will be less noise there. 

 

Ribbons are very fragile ;  usually a 1.5 to 2.5 micron thick corrugated diaphragm suspended in a very strong magnetic field.  So what they are saying is, the mic can handle 130 SPL, which is slightly lower than without the active circuitry, but still ridiculously high considering how fragile ribbons have been in the past and the thinness of the diaphragm.

 

They are very cool mics, IMO. 

 

 

[Jud]

For comparison, the Sound on Sound review of the Earthworks SR40V says

 

Quote

There was a small but noticeable improvement in clarity over my usual vocal mics

 

and

 

Quote

The exceptional transient response of the mic is even more evident when heard over good studio monitors

 

At least if the FR chart at Earthworks' own page is to be believed ( https://earthworksaudio.com/support/technology/frequency-response/ ), the mic has reasonably flat response to 40kHz.

 

So it depends on what you're going for.  If you think digital needs "silky," then you'd go for that specific sound.  I tend to like stuff with less character of its own, because I find a consistent overlay on everything I hear eventually becomes boring.

[Sonicularity]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I may already be able to without training, given  something better than .aac audio at 125Kilobits. However, like most people, I take YouTube and Vevo music videos as ONLY an indication whether the album the video was designed to promote is worth further investigation. 

 

The overwhelming majority of people listen to YouTube as their main music source or when they can't find something available on some other music streaming service.  Most of us are far from considered normal when it comes to music listening.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

The overwhelming majority of people listen to YouTube as their main music source

 

Maybe not quite, but a lot of folks.  (I've seen the figures somewhere, and YouTube isn't the #1 source.)  But if we don't want to....   

[bachish]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

For comparison, the Sound on Sound review of the Earthworks SR40V says

 

 

and

 

 

At least if the FR chart at Earthworks' own page is to be believed ( https://earthworksaudio.com/support/technology/frequency-response/ ), the mic has reasonably flat response to 40kHz.

 

So it depends on what you're going for.  If you think digital needs "silky," then you'd go for that specific sound.  I tend to like stuff with less character of its own, because I find a consistent overlay on everything I hear eventually becomes boring.

 

Good point

 

Yes, the Earthworks are condenser mics and have very small diaphragms and an extremely flat response. I've tried them before. The problem is the small diaphragms, while giving an amazingly accurate transient response, have a trade off more inherent self noise - around 20db - which makes them pretty unusable for classical recording, IMO, because that is a noise level that is audible in very quiet sections when micing from a distance. 

 

And honestly, they are a little too clinical sounding for my taste. 

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

Good point

 

Yes, the Earthworks are condenser mics and have very small diaphragms and an extremely flat response. I've tried them before. The problem is the small diaphragms, while giving an amazingly accurate transient response, have a trade off more inherent self noise - around 20db - which makes them pretty unusable for classical recording, IMO, because that is a noise level that is audible in very quiet sections when micing from a distance. 

 

From the Sound on Sound review, that particular mic seemed to be more of a live performance mic.

 

Quote

And honestly, they are a little too clinical sounding for my taste. 

 

Well, if you're in love with "silky," flat FR sounding "clinical" makes sense. 

 

[Jud]

What interests me, in the context of the beginning of the thread and the acknowledged measured accuracy of digital reproduction, is that your taste in mics seems as if it's intended to take the edge off a subjective harshness.  Am I wrong in thinking that's what your preference is?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well, if you're in love with "silky," flat FR sounding "clinical" makes sense. 

 Hi Jud

 That doesn't tie in with the broad -10dB  droop in  FR around 10 KHZ which you showed in your FR graph.

 Perhaps it isn't the same microphone ?

 

Regards

Alex

[bachish]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

From the Sound on Sound review, that particular mic seemed to be more of a live performance mic.

 

 

Well, if you're in love with "silky," flat FR sounding "clinical" makes sense. 

 

 

I see, the Earthworks would be amazing for live sound. And they are still a very good mic.

 

Actually, I'm not always looking for silky. For piano recordings I prefer small diaphragm condenser omnidirectional mics.

 

I am saving up for  my next mic purchase and I am choosing it because it is also very neutral (a slight lift in the high frequencies, mainly in the ultrasonics).  It is the Sennheiser MHK8020 (about $2400 a set). Not to be snobby or anything, but the earthworks are about half the price   The Sennheisers have a wider frequency responce of 10 Hz-60Khz  and low self noise of 10db (I think) - in contrast to the Earthworks 20db of self noise.

 

https://en-us.sennheiser.com/recording-condenser-microphone-onmi-directional-guitar-acoustic-bass-brass-mkh-8020

 

So it really depends on the instrument, the hall, and a lot of factors. It's all quite fun and very related to what you all do with your stereo systems.