Some commonsense

[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.  

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

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.  

 

That was implied in their blurb about perceptual encoding and supposedly only the removal of material that was masked.

 Neither did they say too much about the reduction in the maximum frequency response possible with .mp3 encoded files. at the recommended bit rate.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

 Can not say I have done an exhaustive survey, but the half dozen or so recording studios I have personal knowledge of are all recording at at least 24/96k these days. Why not? There is no financial advantage to recording at a lower rate. That includes audio mixes for video. 

[fas42]

An amusing side note ... I've compared the spectrums of YouTube audio retrieved at the best quality with an original track, and one can barely notice any variation, only starting to be significant at about 19kHz on. Comparisons of "CD quality" recording loops sometimes show more variation in the spectra than one what sees in those ... .

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

 Can not say I have done an exhaustive survey, but the half dozen or so recording studios I have personal knowledge of are all recording at at least 24/96k these days. Why not? There is no financial advantage to recording at a lower rate. That includes audio mixes for video. 

 

Some interesting comments here, https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-should-i-use-high-sample-rates.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

 Can not say I have done an exhaustive survey, but the half dozen or so recording studios I have personal knowledge of are all recording at at least 24/96k these days. Why not? There is no financial advantage to recording at a lower rate. That includes audio mixes for video. 

 Paul

 While I basically agree, there are quite a few recordings being marketed these days as high res which are only 24/44.1 !

 I wonder if this means that they weren't recorded originally at a higher Bit Rate ?

They include ones like Lady Gaga-Joanne and many others from Oasis, Depeche Mode, McCartney etc.

Regards

Alex

 

 

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

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. 

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. 

[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. 

[Rexp]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

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. 

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. 

[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.  

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Some interesting comments here, https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-should-i-use-high-sample-rates.

 

Interesting, but whom might Various be? 

 

Honestly, their technical reasons seem very specious to me, and I do not put a lot of credence into that article. 

 

[Paul R]

44 minutes ago, esldude said:

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.  

 

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.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Paul

 While I basically agree, there are quite a few recordings being marketed these days as high res which are only 24/44.1 !

 I wonder if this means that they weren't recorded originally at a higher Bit Rate ?

They include ones like Lady Gaga-Joanne and many others from Oasis, Depeche Mode, McCartney etc.

Regards

Alex

 

 

 

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. 

[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. 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

Apologies - I thought that was what you had been arguing? 44.1k or at most 48k is what recordings are being made at today? 

 

That is is not my experience, but my experience is far from definitive. What I have seen is 96k, 176.4k, 192k, and DSD. For live recordings with simple mic setups, DSD and 192k seem to be the top dogs.  For pretty much everything else, 96k works, but higher sample rates are used where the computers support it. 

 

I definitely did NOT say Redbook as a distribution format has been debunked - though I can see how you thought that. I meant ultimate as “nothing is or can be better.”

[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. 

 

[Paul R]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

 

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.

 

[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.  

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

the clipping is from beastly compression after it was mixed

 

Try the Beastly Boys.

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

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.  

 

 

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

 

Seriously, GarageBand is just a slightly limited Logic Pro. 

[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.