Some commonsense

[esldude]

Prokofiev’s “Lt. Kije”(Fritz Reiner, Chicago Symphony on RCA Victor)

 

Yes this is what is known as a good recording.  I only have it in the CD, but it is excellent.  

 

 

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I've tried a few exercises of reducing 16 bit audio to 8 bits - oh, the horror!! - with nothing else changing, just making sure the best subjectively pleasant dither was applied - and it was just like listening to exactly the same track, in a somewhat noisy environment. I didn't feel that I had lost anything of the music; no wheels fell off in the process ... .

Would be nice to post a few of those dithered 8 bit files for people to hear.  Just a snippet of 30 seconds or so.  I've done the same thing and it can remind you of tape hiss with the right kind of dither. 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

Agreed, I recently tried to downsample a 24/192 file to 16/44 and couldn't without ruining the SQ. 

How did you go about doing the down sampling?  Software and if so which one and what settings?

[esldude]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Frank

 The vast majority of Audiophiles are not in the least interested in doing what you and several others  are insisting that they should do, and this is supposed to be an Audiophile forum. other than the huge anti MQA thread, the REAL action in this forum is happening in other areas of the forum than the General Forum area, where many members are finding ways to get improved musical enjoyment from their equipment .

Isn't this what this forum is supposed to be about ?

 

Audiophiles mainly listen to whatever Music genre and format they get the most enjoyment from using their EARS.

 Like it or not, high res LPCM and DSD is here to stay, and there is NOTHING that any member here can say to  change people's  minds about the improvements that they hear, for whatever reason, including the more relaxed HF filtering of high res material.

 

Alex

Does Hires material use more relaxed filtering?  It is available to do so.  The bandwidth is there to use it.  But for the most part Hires files don't use more relaxed filtering.  They use the same steep filtering at a higher frequency. 

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Yes 24/96 is the norm, that delivers the best SQ. They have 16/44.1 setting but it doesn't sound as good, I wonder why? 

You sure about that?  24/96 being the studio norm. Referring to studios, the overwhelming majority work at 24/44.1 or 24/48 depending upon whether it is for audio or video.  Some small number work at 96 khz.  Even those may only do so sometimes at customer requests.  The reason no one uses 16 bit is 24 bit allows headroom for various processing that 16 bit wouldn't. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Which sums up the title of  this thread very nicely .

 It's a shame that so many people were ill advised to get rid of their vast CD collections after saving them as .mp3 files.

I've heard of people doing this.  I advised a couple people not to do this.  As for so many being told to do it, I think that is one of those old wives tales.  Those who did it didn't hear a difference or didn't understand.  There has never been a movement to encourage this anywhere I've seen.  You often see it repeated that MP3 is said to be indistinguishable from CD.  The creators of MP3 have never voiced such a claim.  

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, Rexp said:

The major studios use 24/96 and above. As you say, no studios record at 16/44.1 so all CD content has been down converted. 

Do you know that or is it a supposition or assumption?

 

I don't have personal knowledge of any other than two studios.  Both are 44 or 48.  

 

It is a question which comes up regularly over on Gearslutz.  And there are some that do higher rates, but way more than half of people in real commercial studios say 44/24 or 48/24.  Some make the case for 96, but I don't get the impression it is the norm. 

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, Rexp said:

I thought it was common knowledge, I might be wrong but I doubt it. It seems to me that some poor SQ from 16/44.1 might be down to the original recording being down converted. 

Okay, my best insight into it is gearslutz which is a forum for recording pros.  Not everyone there is a pro (like me being there and not a pro).  But if you look thru threads on sample rates, and they come up pretty often, those who you can confirm really work in a commercial studio over and over state 44 for audio and 48 for video.  

 

You of course see some of everything.  Two said they track in 48/24, do final summing and mixing on an analog console they then record the output of that to DSD.  ??????? What!  Then of course resample to CD or whatever their needs.  Yikes!

 

A fair number of pros are surprisingly under-educated about how digital works it would appear reading their thoughts.  But I assume they know what sample rate they use day to day in their studios.  

 

I've said this often, but I don't think many people get it.  You are worried about downsampling ruining the recording when the only inaccuracy in good downsampling is the residual noise from dither.  The amount of processing between the mike and your released music file in any format is staggeringly complex and mucked about with.  No way is poor resampling to redbook a significant reason for the sound of almost any recording.  Like not even 1 in 100,000 recordings.  The idea this sounded great in 96/24 and they effed it up going to redbook is ludicrous.  If 96/24 is perceptible to some people on some systems it is a tiny difference.  If it weren't there would be no argument about it now 3 decades after CD.  Far more common, in fact I'd say very close to universal if there are significant differences in a recording in 96/24 vs redbook then one of them has been mastered differently.  Even worse, if it is a recent remaster of an older recording there is a high probability the 96/24 sounds worse.  

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Have to disagree there Dennis. It is not the worry about downsampling ruining something - pretty much everyone agrees that downsampling to redbook or 48k video is the best thing to do for distribution. But the old contention that CD quality is the ultimate format has certainly been debunked. I think so at least. 

 

Whether the reason is ultrasonics or filter mathematics, high res music often sounds better. Can we find some examples of recent works that were actually recorded at 16/44.1k, rather than that being the production format? It would be fun to listen to them and some CDs recorded and mixed in high res, even with a prod format of redbook.

I don't know where the 16/44 recording idea is coming from.  

 

I don't know that redbook being adequate as a distribution format has been debunked.  I've not seen examples of hires often sounding better than for any other reason except being mixed and mastered better.  2L downloads don't convince me the hires is some leap forward.  They are the most honest comparison files I know of available for people to listen for themselves.  I personally can't hear they are an improvement. But I'm old enough higher frequencies aren't going to be audible to me.  The mastering is much more believable and obviously audible versus all the other angels on the head of a pin debates. 

 

I'd agree redbook might not be the ultimate format.  And only then and only barely because there are edge cases where 24 bit with about 20 bit levels realized do have a chance to be barely audibly better.  I'd pick 24/48 and call it a day.  I'd not complain about 24/96 with the idea it will record pretty much everything that is there to record without cutting off anything.  Unfortunately I don't think most music goes in at 24/96.  Nor do I think if it suddenly all did we'd see any real benefit in the end product.  Mastering is a smoking garbage dump these days. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Could be - there are some dastardly frauds out there. I can not imagine the Gaga person recording in low res though. I may not like much of her music, but she definitely seems to be a production genius. 

Vocals off a laptop using a Garageband mic. 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lady-gaga-producer-making-born-193459

 

Her voice is so powerful, you can pretty much capture it with anything, whether a laptop or a mic. It's funny, even vocals recorded off her laptop with the GarageBand mic we ended up using on the album. Sometimes we sacrifice quality for performance because there's a magic moment where the vocal sounds just right. We worked very hard at repairing anything that needed to be repaired sonically.

 

Maybe they really used the quality Apogee USB mic for Apple products.  $200 and works at 44 or 48 and 24 bit. 

https://www.amazon.com/Apogee-MiC-microphone-iPad-iPhone/dp/B006W11TT2

[esldude]

Tom Elmhirst works with Mark Ronson who works withe Lady Gaga.  But she did one album on RTR tape to get away from all the processing. 

 

Now in any case, Elmhirst is a big believer in 96 k.  He converts everything he gets into it so he can do great mastering.  He won a Grammy or three for his work.  One of them was for his co-mastering on Adele's 25. Here is an example of his work.  This album had a DR 5 rating average.  This  track was DR4.  Death Magnetic by Metallica was DR7.  

 

 

I am so glad we get the benefit of 96 k with this Grammy award winning mastering work.  

 

Here I've reduced it 3 db to get a good look at how flat topped it is.  It left .01 db on the table in its original form.  Man I smell the benefits of 96 k from here even though my copy is 44. 

 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

Oh, I would guess more like a Yeti Pro. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004L9KLT6/ref=emc_b_5_t

 

Or perhaps an AT2020 https://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/50c0cbe703025c75/index.html

 

But more likely a Focusright, PreSonus, Or some other prosumer USB interface.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I think more likely it was as stated.  Some USB mic into garageband on her macbook.  And that is okay.  Good lively heartfelt takes can sacrifice some fidelity sometimes.  But it rather nicks the aura of superb signal processing and super fidelity at high bit rates when some of the vocals used on this album were USB mic, macbook, done in a reflective dressing room or some such.  

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Not sure what you are getting at - the clipping is from beastly compression after it was mixed, I think. Look for the high res super audio release to come out anytime. Won’t be as loud though.

 

Actually there is one.  192/24.  According to the DR database it has an average DR4 instead of 5. 

 

Its a sausage factory and we are arguing over whether we should use Edmund Fallot's dijon mustard or French's yellow on our hot dog.  

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

 

Those are LowEnd USB mics used with GarageBand, which handles 96k. 😁

 

Seriously, GarageBand is just a slightly limited Logic Pro. 

Would you rather have a Neumann U47 at 44.1 or a LowEnd USB microphone at 96 k?

 

Sample rate just isn't that important to the end quality.  It is a tiny cherry on top at best once everything is in really fine form. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Try the Beastly Boys.

Actually the Beastie Boys don't have any albums as compressed as Adele's with one exception.  It was a gold hits collection remastered and gets close to Adele's 25.  Most of their others have double digit DR numbers.  Surprise, surprise. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Totally depends. Why not use the U47 for recording at 96k, 192k, one even DSD?  I am not sure why you see it as an either or. 😁

 

Actually, sample rate at recording time is very important, depending upon how close you want to get to the microphone feed. YMMV, however, I do not believe it it is quite so cut and dried. 

Now don't stoop to sophistry.  You're ignoring the context to be obtuse.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

and BTW, I'd pick a Fallot mustard every time - unless I could use the best mustard from Provence* (or those ones in the foil tubes)

 

 

* yes, I DID do a blind taste test on the Provence vs. the Fallot - 2 different humans; 3 trials each

While I agree with your mustard choice anecdotally, neither of us are pros.  You can tell she is a pro because she wears a mustard colored scarf. 

 

https://www.foodrepublic.com/2015/12/03/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-mustard-sommelier/

 

 

Also never had a mustard tasting party. 

https://www.veggiesbycandlelight.com/how-to-throw-a-mustard-tasting-party-because-yes-you-really-should-have-one/

 

If its okay to use beer as a palate cleanser between tastings I might be convinced to give it a go. 

[esldude]

19 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I guess I do not do very well at trying to be politely inoffensive, but I do try.  

 

I absolutely hear sample rate differences when I record, and I believe I

hear those same differences when I listen to playback on Dacs that do not force an automatic up or down sample on all input. (Or when the

ample rate is such no SRC is done. 

 

I know mathematically why 16/44.1k reproduction is not an exact reproduction of what is recorded, and I am aware of the magnitude of the errors, as well as their

cause. While Redbook can and does sound very good, hi-res can and often

does sound better. Whether the difference is as significant to others as it is to me, that is a subjective decision most people need to make for themselves.  

 

Of course that decision is vastly complicated by differences in mastering, engineering, and production that can make a Redbook release sound glorious and

a high res release sound like trash. Nothing is ever simple or easy!

 

That better?😇

 

Halfway.  

 

My point is if given the chance to record Lady Gaga, or any good singer, and they said, we have this old recording interface, but it only goes to 48 khz.  It'll supply phantom power and we have a Neumann U47.  Or otherwise if you need 192 khz this Blue Yeti Pro is our other choice.  I'll take the Neumann thank you.  The various differences that might accrue with sample rate extension pales dramatically with difference in microphone quality, use by experienced people and mastering methodology.  It doesn't even reach to the level of tail wagging the dog.  

 

I'd take any recordings by Tony Faulkner on cassette tape over most people recording on anything. 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

U47 will very likely have detectable output signal beyond 24 kHz... You'd do a disservice to it by recording at anything below 96/24, at least... IMO, electronics after the microphone are not supposed to be the limiting factor in bandwidth or dynamic range. Instead, they are supposed to go far beyond what the microphone can do in any aspect to ensure that absolutely nothing is lost. This gets especially emphasized with things like diffuse-field compensated omnis.

 

I seem to be struggling to get across a very, very simple point. 

 

Microphones make a big difference in sound quality.  Almost as much as speakers.  Extra bandwidth above 20 khz isn't much of a difference.  You can sample as high as you wish it won't polish a turd of a microphone.  OTOH, even at pedestrian bandwidths a good quality microphone comes through as good quality.  If you loose something compared to adding ultrasonic bandwidth, by comparison it is rather small.  Sample rate choices are among the least impactful differences in sound quality.  

 

So I'm not saying extra bandwidth will not make any difference in a good mic.  I am saying that it won't make a poor mic sound good and that a good mic still sounds very good without it.  Because the extra bandwidth is at best a minor improvement.  

 

And all of this grew out of my saying the major studios usually still work at 44 or 48 rates not 96 khz.  And the whole thing about someone with great production genius being found to use whatever is handy when the mood strikes.  Good production isn't primarily a good gear issue.  Adequate gear and genius are plenty.  

[esldude]

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

I defer to the judgement of the mastering engineer, regarding processing and resolution. As I said: I want a copy of the Master when possible. 

 

With the mastering these days I want the original recorded tracks and let me mix it.  I actually think this is an untapped niche market that is likely bigger than the hires audio niche.  Especially for pop recordings.  I imagine there is a group of people who might like getting the initial tracking and assembling it in various creative ways themselves.  I can imagine younger people taking to this where some pop artists release at least a song or two  from every album and have a contest where fans compete to come up with the best sounding track.  Sort of like American Idol contests only different.  You start with some selected results and present it for fans to vote on.  Leading to big winners in the end.  Then again maybe I'm crazy.  

 

I most definitely agree with you I most prefer the native format in which a recording and/or mastering is done.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Actually,. the Lady Gaga recording is not representative of most general releases these days, as it is far less compressed than most pop releases these days.

Joanne actually isn't representative of Lady Gaga recordings or how things are done these days.  She'd grown unhappy with all the huge over-processing and this one album was done all analog on reel to reel tape until the final digitizing.  Oh, and supposedly all her studio work was done nude on this album.  Makes for a more natural feeling I suppose. 

 

Now no reason you can't get the above result with a totally digital production.  Other than people can't resist the temptation to slam it, cram it to the max, and process the holy hell out of it.  Considering the results I don't get it. 

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

The Record Companies are never going to let that happen.

They would probably rather see their storage vaults burn down than release that material for others to profit from, including  the original artists too. 

I agree, but that is why maybe if it makes them money, they might do this with one song per album released.  Sort of free publicity and extended attention in the marketplace.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

See, here we disagree. I don’t think you are hearing all a mic truly has to give at 16/44.1, when you listen to the mic feed and the 44.1k recording, they sound different.  The mic feed and the recording do not start sounding the same until at least 88.2 or higher, and often much higher.

 

Even with mics that are considered mediocre. (USB mics are different in my ears). 

 

If 16/44 sound different than mike feeds, do they sound more different than a quality mike vs a cheap USB mike?

I'm going to presume you know the answer is no.  That should illuminate what I'm thinking here.  

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

not sure, but your mix might escape their copyright - i.e. "a new work"

 

 

I think the judicial rulings against DJ rappers just sampling prior songs as input to their new creations would apply. So though new work, the new work is based upon work owned by others, and copyright does apply.  

[esldude]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

I'd like to expand on the idea of overspec'ing

 

@esldude -- yes by all means get the best microphones possible and the microphone should have a range well beyond the highest frequency you need to capture,

 

similarly your interface: it should capture well outside the microphone range (as @Miska says),

 

similarly your power supply: it should handle well out side your maximum draw, same for your amplifier, it should handle way more than the maximum SPL you listen to. same for CPU etc etc etc

 

same for measuring equipment, we typically try to use equipment with 10x the resolution of the signal we are measuring

 

The point is that most every system starts degrading at the limit of its stated performance so you get the best results if the system can handle more than you expect to throw at it.

 

Overengineering is common sense.

 

Of course if you don't have $$$ then you cut corners and live with it.

You guys keep twisting what my posts on this are about to make it fit your ideas.  I don't disagree with your overspec'ing.  The posts I've had in this thread on the subject aren't about that at all.  Merely that higher rates don't make for big differences.  If the great mike sounds better at higher rates than 44 the difference is small, not a deal breaker, not a night and day difference, not nearly so large as having the great mike instead of an average one.  Mike choice is far more important than choice of sample rate.  Of all your important choices for quality recording results, sample rate is going to be the bottom of that list.