HIGH RESOLUTION HI-RES AND MASTER RECORDINGS

[beerandmusic]

 

Are most new recordings these days still using cd rate recording bitrates or are new recordings typically higher now?

How do we know which hi-res tracks were made from hi-res recordings and which are just upsampled?

 

 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Are most new recordings these days still using cd rate recording bitrates or are new recordings typically higher now?

How do we know which hi-res tracks were made from hi-res recordings and which are just upsampled?

 

 

 

For some time, most new recordings (and the vast majority of classical) are recorded in 24-bit formats. A smaller number as DSD. HD downloads from HDtracks, eClassical, Naxos, Super Hi-Rez, Native DSD, etc, etc are appealing as, with the fading away of SACD and the failure of music-only Blu-ray to catch fire, usually there's no disc version available at the recorded resolution.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Are most new recordings these days still using cd rate recording bitrates or are new recordings typically higher now?

How do we know which hi-res tracks were made from hi-res recordings and which are just upsampled?

 

 

It’s all over the board. If the recording engineer needs tons of channels s/he will use 24/44.1. 
 

I think a service like Qobuz would be able to look at all the incoming data to determine the resolution. 
 

You’d have to analyze each recording to know if it was upsample. I’m willing to bet this doesn’t happen as often now because it’s the same price to stream 44.1 as it is 88.2. 

[ARQuint]

With better-than-Red Book resolution recordings, I'm of the opinion that it's the bit-depth that matters in terms of SQ, more so than the sampling frequency, and I know at least some recording engineers feel this way. At TAS, our working definition of "high-resolution" is a PCM recording with a bit-depth of 24, whether the sampling rate is 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, or 192—or any DSD-encoded master.

 

Andy Quint

[Rexp]

Haven't you heard? Schiit are about to release a CD transport that will prove what I have always believed, that 16/44.1was always enough. 

[beerandmusic]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s all over the board. If the recording engineer needs tons of channels s/he will use 24/44.1. 
 

I think a service like Qobuz would be able to look at all the incoming data to determine the resolution. 
 

You’d have to analyze each recording to know if it was upsample. I’m willing to bet this doesn’t happen as often now because it’s the same price to stream 44.1 as it is 88.2. 

 

The reason i ask about the "original recording", i still have trouble understanding why upsampling would make the analog signal any more accurate?  They may be able to "color" the analog signal where it may be more "pleasing" (subjective), but they can't make it more accurate.

 

Example ....just for discussion purposes...

 

If the original recording sampled live music 10 times per second, then you can't get any more accurate music than that.

If you upsampled to 20 times per second, the data that was put in those extra 10 positions is just a "guess" at what music was there, but the final d->a conversion during wave shaping would do the same thing?  It is impossible to make music more accurate than to sample at a higher rate than what the original recoding was. 

[beerandmusic]

16 hours ago, Rexp said:

Haven't you heard? Schiit are about to release a CD transport that will prove what I have always believed, that 16/44.1was always enough. 

 

To some degree, I believe this...although i believe 44.1K isn't quite optimal for all individuals...but very close, and "close enough" for practical purposes, but not in the world of "audiophilia" (which what this hobby is all about)....but I do believe that hi-res does take it up a notch....i just don't think the money is worth trying to squeeze 1%...but that is sacrilegious in this hobby.   (imho just buy atc speakers a good amp and be done with it)..

[beerandmusic]

20 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

For some time, most new recordings (and the vast majority of classical) are recorded in 24-bit formats. A smaller number as DSD. HD downloads from HDtracks, eClassical, Naxos, Super Hi-Rez, Native DSD, etc, etc are appealing as, with the fading away of SACD and the failure of music-only Blu-ray to catch fire, usually there's no disc version available at the recorded resolution.

 

I just want to know how you know which recordings were actually recorded in hi-res...most stuff is just upsampled 44.1K...

 

I still want to know if "most" music being "recorded today" is still using cd rate sampling recording?

 

Does anyone know what the studios use today?

 

I know there are a few that record in dsd, but i am talking main stream recording

[firedog]

What's main stream recording? I think most classical these days is recorded in some form of high res. Some jazz is too.

If you are talking about major labels and popular forms of music, there seems to be quite a bit of 24 bit recording, because it enables preservation of dynamc range and bit depth with all the post processing and mixing involved. 

How can you know how it was recorded? You can't unless the info is made available to you. The classical labels tend to make this info readily available; the others not so much.

Some of the dowload sites do a pretty good job of telling you that information, if you look. 

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I just want to know how you know which recordings were actually recorded in hi-res...most stuff is just upsampled 44.1K...

 

 

The section in bold is not accurate. These days it is rare to find upsampled material sold as high rez.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The section in bold is not accurate. These days it is rare to find upsampled material sold as high rez.

 

 

what is main stream studio recording done at these days?  Do you know?

I am not talking about the 2 or 3 DSD recording studios that i have heard of....I am talking about the vast majority of mainstream recording studios?  And is there a list of actual high resolution recordings somewhere? 

Also some may be recorded at 96k and then upsampled to dsd? 

I Would like to know two things...

 

1. if there is a list somewhere of high res recordings and what they are actually recorded at

2. What does mainstream studio recordings that do the mass recordings use these days?

[Norton]

28 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

i still have trouble understanding why upsampling would make the analog signal any more accurate?

Important to recognise that the digital signal is not the music, but rather something from which the music is reconstructed.  As I understand it, the argument for upsampling is not about improving on the recorded information, but rather  improving the accuracy with which that information  is reconstructed from digital data .   But then again I’m a Social Science  graduate so I may have it completely wrong...

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

what is main stream studio recording done at these days?  Do you know?

 

No idea but I'm pretty sure it isn't produced at 16/44.1.

 

[beerandmusic]

16 minutes ago, Norton said:

Important to recognise that the digital signal is not the music, but rather something from which the music is reconstructed.  As I understand it, the argument for upsampling is not about improving on the recorded information, but rather  improving the accuracy with which that information  is reconstructed from digital data .   But then again I’m a Social Science  graduate so I may have it completely wrong...

the digital signal is a representation of a sampling of the music.  You can't improve on accuracy by taking samples more frequently than the recording was first recorded....you just have a sample of some guess, not of anything actually recorded....any software can have a logarithm that can guess and some may do a better job at guessing, but it cannot be any more accurate than the actual sampling.  The d-a conversion wave shaping will also "connect the dots", and it is possible that wave shaping "could" be more accurate than what the alorithm "guessed". But there is never anything more accurate than the recording, and there can never be a more knowingly accurate digital signal than the rate the original recording was sampled at.

[beerandmusic]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

No idea but I'm pretty sure it isn't produced at 16/44.1.

 

if you google...what sampling rate do recording studio sample at

 

I found 44.1 in 2011

 

Then in 2015 I find....48k in many cases for a/v...  but don't find anything concrete for today...but i am still searching.

 

2015

If 44.1kHz Captures More than We Can Hear, Why Use Higher Sample Rates?

There are a couple of reasons that higher sampling rates can be advantageous; the first is that while 44.1kHz is the standard for audio CDs, 48kHz is the standard for audio for video. Studios who regularly work in film and television may use 48kHz as their in-house standard. But higher sample rates such as 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz, and even higher may have a purpose — and maybe not the one that you think it is.

 

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

 

Then in 2015 I find....48k in many cases for a/v...  but don't find anything concrete for today...but i am still searching.

 

 

 

Good luck in your quest!

 

I purchase music in the best available resolution. Ideally the resolution that it was produced at.

 

As an example:

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/408-carmen-gomes-inc-dont-you-cry

 

Quote

Original recording format DXD 352,8 kHz - Premium
All other formats are converted versions of the original.
This recording is made using only one microphone; Josephson C700S

 

I don't knowingly purchase music that I know was upsampled.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Good luck in your quest!

 

I purchase music in the best available resolution. Ideally the resolution that it was produced at.

 

As an example:

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/408-carmen-gomes-inc-dont-you-cry

 

 

I don't knowingly purchase music that I know was upsampled.

 

Sounds great and nice site especially if you like carmen gomez...

 

i am going to guess that most recording studios for mass stereo recording these days still record in 2 channel 44.1k or 48k unless i find differently....especially since it is mostly universally accepted that recording at higher than cd rate is beyond most people's hearing capabilities.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Sounds great and nice site especially if you like carmen gomez...

 

i am going to guess that most recording studios for mass stereo recording these days still record in 2 channel 44.1k or 48k unless i find differently....especially since it is mostly universally accepted that recording at higher than cd rate is beyond most people's hearing capabilities.

 

You may find the results of this survey of interest:

 

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2019/4/5/poll-what-sample-rate-do-you-record-at-when-recording-and-mixing-in-your-studio

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

2. What does mainstream studio recordings that do the mass recordings use these days?

I believe this question has already been answered.

 

”most stuff is just upsampled 44.1K...”

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

I believe this question has already been answered.

 

”most stuff is just upsampled 44.1K...”

 

i believe that most hi-res out there is just upsampled 44.1k, esp when you consider all the hobbyists these days that are upsampling. I don't believe most mainstream recording studios record at higher than 96K PCM. 

 

That said, i am rethinking what i want.  DLNA also does seem to hiccup where usb PCM just seems so much more "solid".

 

After being a hardcore dsd over enet for 7 or 8 years now, I am actually rethinking what i want now is just 192k  pcm via a quiet usb.

 

7 or 8 years ago, I have always thought that native dsd over dlna sounded better than pcm over usb...it very well may have been that it was just due to noisy usb running directly from my pc. (this was before all the hoopla of usb toys) I have always used dsd over dlna since then, even after trying numerous usb dacs.  Since i have always professed DSD over DLNA (even before the advent of all the usb toys and enet toys) when many laughed at DSD I have stuck with that solution (DSD over DLNA) using very cheap solutions which i touted as sounding better than much more expensive dacs.  I even suggested that DSD was here to stay and that AVRs would support it and enet would be the default solution and was laughed off the board. 

Anyway, after rethinking everything since back then, I have come full circle, now that engineering has taken things into consideration like improved clocks, ps, galvanic isolation, and now even SCHIIT is regenerating the signal within the dac without the need for "usb toys".  All of this shoud have been done a long time ago, but it's nice to see that technology is finally catching up in low priced solutions.  I am ready to just use USB again, for the "conveniency" purposes.    People, including myself, can subjectively debate if one solution sounds 1% better than the other or not (which i doubt most could tell the difference in a blind test, provided quality solutions were use in both the usb vs enet solutions.).  For me anyway, i believe the technology is "close" enough to warrant just going with the solution that is more convenient for your purposes.

[Kal Rubinson]

 

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

I purchase music in the best available resolution. Ideally the resolution that it was produced at.

And that is why I prefer this:

 

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes and that is why I appreciate this:

 

I do believe that higher than 192K is audible in recordings (regardless of theorems), but there is just so little of it in mainstream.

I even have a failrly large library of native dsd.  I will maintain dsd over dlna for when i get the "itch", just like i maintain a PL550 for when i get an "itch" for vinyl...but for the "masses" i am going to just resort back to 192K PCM via usb.

 

Nice to see 2 different supporters of 2 different native dsd sites though (wink).

[Kal Rubinson]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I do believe that higher than 192K is audible in recordings (regardless of theorems), but there is just so little of it in mainstream.

That's not the point.  If you are obsessed with this issue, buy from reliable sources that will tell you what the provenance of the recording is.  Otherwise, assume the worst.............................or just leave it alone.🎲

[kumakuma]

36 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

i believe that most hi-res out there is just upsampled 44.1k

 

 

This has not been my experience.

[beerandmusic]

40 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

That's not the point.  If you are obsessed with this issue, buy from reliable sources that will tell you what the provenance of the recording is.  Otherwise, assume the worst.............................or just leave it alone.🎲

"My" point is that I am moving more toward audio/video currently and that said, the majority of what i am listening to now is less than 192K, and i am moving toward pcm via usb.