"For analog master tapes, we have captured bias frequencies on tape as high as 150kHz. If a tape can contain frequencies that high, that's "hi-rez" in my book."
I am not a cheerleader for either side. It is mastering that makes the most difference. I've heard DTS of say Pat Metheny (i probably butchered his name) that sounds better than almost anything lossless I have. Same goes for Lalo Schifron (boy im going to catch hell for not spelling these right). Gillian Welch makes magic in 16/44. Black Keys make an artform of compression. Not music to my ears and 24 whatever is still compressed so high res is not at all helpful to them. Brothers is a great example. The DTS of Young Americans is nearly faultless so even lossless music can be made very well. I'd prefer anything that is mastered well in any format. I've heard sublime SACDs. I've heard some that sound worse than a CD or cassette for that matter. I've heard some of apple's compression scheme and must say for some music it does not sound bad at all. Not my cup of tea but it goes to show that anything can be made musical if the intent is to do that from the beginning. So I will always sit on the fence and enjoy the best of whatever music comes along. Sure, I prefer good high resolution copies if they benefit the experience. High res Black Keys? Not a whit of improvement. Norah Jones newest? High res helps the overall loudness of the CD version and makes it less distortion prone at higher volumes. Nice, but small improvement.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM, lokkerman <phil.steeples@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't even know where in the the thread that 1970's analogue tape
recording was mentioned but perhaps it was in making the point that
96/24 and indeed 192/24, go a long way to capture that "sound" where
perhaps (caveate - to my ears) RBCD never did and lossy never will
do.
Cases in point, DSOTM, WYWH - 70's analogue tapes that do sound better
at higher res to most folks - see all the discussion on this last
year.
Mastering to me is just where in the master chain that you define -
that you stop messing with the original signal. DSOTM was case in
point. The Guthrie mix appeared to adjust the digital masters at multi-
track source (kind of later denied) and ended up with a pastiche of a
mix which many folks on this forum complained about, perhaps you too
if I remember Brian?
Perhaps the reason that, and this is a generalisation, knowing some
awful analogue mixes, some analogue recordings are so cherished is
because care had to be taken of qualiity (of recording) over quantity.
My TEAC X-1000M (not the best R2R) cost around $1500/£1000, twenty
years or so ago which would be, 5 times more at the equivalent cost
today. This was a stereo master mix-down machine for the normal
impoverished studio. Today my HTPC can handle 48 track mix down like a
multi track machine and costs less than a grand and still do the mix
down - it means that track quality is not a priority and so studio
skills are now aimed at getting sounds out of little boxes and ear
buds not hi-fi nuts like us.
As a Stevenism (Sorry Steven I'm becoming one of your supportesrs so I
joke) 96/24 gives and un-filtered bandwidth of 48khz before any of
the Nyquist/Shannon laws apply. Therefore 22khz is there if it's not
removed.
So to my point; I'm a firm believer in digital too (listen to early
digital like "Swing of delight" [what bitrate/frequency?] by Devadip
Carlos S on CD and vinyl) but as ever source is so important, and
perhaps this is what drives the great sound debate more than anything
(apart from DNR which has set hi-fi back years). Some of my favourite
listens are AoQ's R2R recordings that have such a pure simplicity
( Simon & Art BOTW) that they make some of the latest HR downloads
sound sterile. But guess what - these are simple source recordings
taken with lots of care.
On Jun 21, 12:20 am, Britre <britre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I cut out all the quoting just to keep my comment clean so to speak....
>
> In relation to the Dire Straits, I have a first pressing vinyl, this is a
> good master to begin with and I and I am sure many others would follow it
> is a nicely mastered albumto begin with, high in detail and dynamics. I am
> sure when carried over to RBCD and/or SACD the lack of surface noise
> may allow other noise good or bad not heard before or not masked by
> mechanical reproduction.
>
> I must say that to boldly state a late 1970's analog tape recording has
> more detail just because it is on a 96/24 capable format is a bit obtuse.
> You may be hearing things you never heard before because..... Well you
> never heard them before and in the process of transfer and filtering and
> yes mastering the digital brings out certain things you pleasure stronger.
> But I suggest this, the original tape and vinyl photocopy through diferent
> techniques can and will be more detailed with effort. Your 96/24
> reproduction on the otherhand will never sound any better than it does
> currently. You can never extract more s/n or frequencies above 22 khz or
> lower than 20 khz. Are they there? Don't know but you will never know
> because digitally it has been formatted to sound the way someone else
> intended it to be not letting it fly free and see where it goes crappy or
> not.
>
> Food for thought and in this case Steven is nuts on.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
No comments:
Post a Comment