|
|
Post by popmann on May 24, 2016 11:20:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 24, 2016 12:50:49 GMT -6
How does it sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 24, 2016 13:07:04 GMT -6
the same as 48khz lol :-P
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 24, 2016 13:21:49 GMT -6
Sounds great. WALL of P bass w/Flats.
I was never in love with the CD. I have the vinyl....and what sucked is that while the vinyl sounded better as a whole, the more intimate stuff makes surface noise hard to ignore....and his "belt voice" distorts my cartridge too much.
I think it's beautiful. Unlike the other two, which I bought in HD on release day, so I have no comparison for those between versions and made 48k AAC for my phone. You know--the only two digital files formats that I think should be delivered at all--full studio rez....48k MP4.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 24, 2016 13:29:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 24, 2016 14:56:34 GMT -6
You miss my point. 16/48khz MP4** sounds better by a long shot to me than linear 16/44. But, for the majority of the public, size matters--including me on my phone. There is value in giving the consumer a "convenient" choice. It HAPPENS to also sound better than the 35 year old standard? Bonus. But, there's no such thing as lossless 48khz unless you recorded at 48khz. Which, if you did, IS what you deliver: store.acousticsounds.com/d/100709/YouMe-rose_ave-FLAC_48kHz24Bit_DownloadThat sounds noticeably cleaner and nicer than the CD, which I also have because the HD didn't come out at the same time. that's what I mean by two formats: 1) full studio rez.....and 2) 48khz mp4. That might be a 50mb file or a 220mb file on the studio rez....but, it will be a 7-10mb one for the 48khz mp4. You end up using SO little "extra space" over a 44.1 mp3 it's the stuff of trivia, and yet sonically, it's far better. **technically, there is no bit depth for mp4 as it dynamically allocates that as needed, but it doesn't end up being considerably larger than a 16/44 mp3 like is currently sold my Amazon and Co. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 24, 2016 15:11:15 GMT -6
I was just messing with the various Radiohead - A Moon Shaped Pool sample rates for sale.
It turns out I could hear a significantly better sound with the 48 kHz 24 bit version over the redbook audio. I was kind of surprised.
Anyway I set my Cubase project rate to 48K now... I'm probably like, really behind the times to finally do that. I swear that my stuff is sounding better, but I can't prove it, I just hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 24, 2016 19:31:37 GMT -6
48 came before 44.1, for the intent of professional application. 50khz technically before that.
For DELIVERY, 48khz is wonderful. I've said forever that there's more difference between 44 and 48 than 48 and 88. And the 24bit is mostly a useless waste of space FOR DELIVERY. I can SHOW you it literally nulls--you don't get to argue that it sounds better or worse, because it literally sounds the same.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934 
|
Post by ericn on May 24, 2016 21:16:12 GMT -6
What really matters is what was it mastered at? Up sampling above that is usesless.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 25, 2016 11:10:21 GMT -6
Yeah, look at the people involved. The only open question is how much analog tape was involved BEFORE it got transferred to 96khz digital.
There IS actually benefit from using higher sample rates down the line from tracking, but I was really just pointing out that this is out for the RGO collective who gush over it regularly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 25, 2016 11:59:01 GMT -6
Is there any benefit to use Windows 10 audio output to upsample to say, 48 kHz 24 bit output for my audio player? (Foobar 2000) I don't know why but my playback is sounding really good today.
I think I will leave it there for my hi-res FLAC and WAV files. I don't think there's any harm in playing redbook files through this signal path is there? I'm not hearing any artifacts. I might even switch it to 96 kHz and see what happens. I only have a handfull of 96K sampled albums though.
I found an article on a google search where a guy analyzed the Windows 10 "audio stack" and its upsampling and it wasn't really changing anything for the better. I don't know if any of you all have tested this. I might be able to find the link.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 25, 2016 12:56:30 GMT -6
You should set any upsampling to the highest your DAC supports*. But, if you're not also doing any DSP, there's little benefit in upsampling....I guess I should clarify my comment....I mean in the production process--even if you started with 16/44 tracks--if you're mixing with an nice sounding analog desk, that should be captured higher because there's benefit--basically to simplfy, any time you capture analog audio, double rate will give you a more accurate capture. So, as another example, if you're mastering from 16/44 DAT (who used that?), you'r going to transfer digitally to the DAW because who wants to risk playing a 25 year old DAT more than once? You're going to play that back however it sounds best (which might involve an upsampling and might not-depnding on are you doing DSP)....pipe it out through the analog compressor and EQ....and capture that back at 24/88...now, THAT file will get used to do the final digital limiting and gain staging tweaks....
So, you have a 24/88 master. Is it a true HD recording? Hell no. But, the sample rate police who tell you that because that started with a 16/44 DAT it should now be returned to 16/44 for release are valuing a specific brand of "honesty" over what sounds best in practice on a majority of playback systems. Which irks me.
*though a modern DAC is likely already doing that....so, you're kinda testing whether the hardware upsample or software sounds better....YMMV....but, I don't see any reason to set it to 48 on hardware that supports higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 25, 2016 15:08:40 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the help popmann.
I think this whole time, I've been ignoring the Windows audio properties, and all my HD audio has been getting downsampled by Windows to 16/44.1. Not for my DAW but for my listening/pleasure stuff, which I use constantly. Glad to finally get that sorted out. I don't know if this is peculiar to foobar2000 or what.
It's also possible that the balanced H-pads I just installed in my monitor path sound better than the Naiant pads I had been using there before. I'm not sure what's inside those things.
Anyway, I am getting some pretty spectacular audio from my rig here, and it's making me happy. Some of this HD stuff is blowing my mind. I guess I am an audiophile after all.
I might have to run a session at 96K and see how it goes. At least 48. My ADAT/SMUX rig could get me up to 96 though. (Apollo and Presonus DP88.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stratboy on Jun 1, 2016 6:33:34 GMT -6
Yeah, look at the people involved. The only open question is how much analog tape was involved BEFORE it got transferred to 96khz digital. There IS actually benefit from using higher sample rates down the line from tracking, but I was really just pointing out that this is out for the RGO collective who gush over it regularly. What is the benefit of using higher sample rates down the line from tracking, Popmann? If I track at 48/24, when would I change to say, 96/24 and why? |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 1, 2016 10:50:36 GMT -6
Yeah, look at the people involved. The only open question is how much analog tape was involved BEFORE it got transferred to 96khz digital. There IS actually benefit from using higher sample rates down the line from tracking, but I was really just pointing out that this is out for the RGO collective who gush over it regularly. What is the benefit of using higher sample rates down the line from tracking, Popmann? If I track at 48/24, when would I change to say, 96/24 and why? Number of reasons. The simplest I'll sum it up with: any time you need to convert to analog and back....anytime you're compensating for flaws in the tracking filters....anytime you need to run certain types of DSP digitally--you're better off doing it at double rate. Once you've done it at double rate, it IS lossy to go back. Scenario A: If I mix 48khz tracks on a desk--I'm going to work around the filters in a number of ways--including simply the saturation of the board easing the actual filter and adding overtones above 23/24khz (depending on what 48k DAC)....not to mention, I'm panning mostly mono tracks into a stereo image, I'm EQ'ing away some shrillness caused by the tracking (admitted more a 44 thing) or brightneing the top or cutting low mids to counteract the tracking filters. So, if you recapture at 48, you will double apply the side effects of the filter, lose all the information above Nyquist being generated in mix, and compromise the stereo imaging/center image. Secnario B: You can even have an old 16/48 DAT or similar earlier digital 2 track that catured your mix....in mastering, that must be converted to analog--that needs to be done with whatever gives the best sound, be that running X converter at 48 or upsampling it so that you can run Y at 96--at that point, you're not gaining anything but FUNCTION by upsampling, but that function is you can use a more flattering DAC. Then you can break it into sum/difference before it comes out said DAC so that you can manipulate the image on the desk or analog M/S matrix, and you'll obviously be using some combination of analog compressor/EQ and likely a digital lookahead limiter. The analog will add above....and the lookahead will upsample it internally if YOU DON'T so it can be more transparent. Scenario C: I've mentioned how so many plug ins upsample. This is the all digital reason. Some of these do it for ISP level accurracy....some so that their high frequency EQ shelves sound like an ACTUAL high shelf sounds in the analog world--a 48khz shelf is NOT traditionally correct, because it's not just a shelf, but a shelf boosting into a brick wall filter. If I'm mixing on a desk, I don't mind 48 nearly as much as when I'm mixing digitally. Many of the high profile proponents of "above 48 doesn't matter" still mix analog and mix down to either a DSD deck, double rate PCM, or analog tape. All of the above, more resolution than the 44.1 or 48 that comes in the form of the tracks. It's not unlike why 44.1 recordings sound so much nicer on vinyl. The cartridge distortion on peaks and the analog RIAA high shelf after said distortion work to make that extention more natural sounding...and it's being decoded from M/S in the analog world, so the center channel imaging is stronger. You need to use double rate digital to accurately capture that--despite it tracked, mixed, and mastered at 44.1. I've got albums that contain 44.1 tracking along side 88 and 96....but, it's all been mastered to the double rate. I can ABX the 2x master from 1x master with nearly 100% accurracy....but, I don't hear anything particularly "lesser" in the 2x master of the ones tracked at 44.1. I've actually written before about how I think we live in a little bit of a "too much disclosure" scenario in the high rez world. I feel like there are people who won't buy a 24/96 master because they know it was "digitally recorded"--not knowing that A)48/50 is "more better" than 44 than 88 is "better" than 48 and B) the principles above. If you are sitting in the mastering room and you've got it dialed in just how you want it, 24/96 will deliver that "as intended" to more people than 44. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 1, 2016 10:54:13 GMT -6
Also, since the subject got changed, I want to be clear....I have no reason to believe that the Stapleton was handled this way. Vance isn't going to touch single rate digital with a ten foot pole. So, the only question in this particular case is whether it was 96k tracks mixed analog back to 96khz....or analog tape mixed to analog tape and 96khz at the same time, I would think.
|
|
