|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 29, 2014 0:14:36 GMT -6
Oh dear...I might not be able to go back. Gregory Porter "Liquid Spirit" and Steely Dan "Gaucho"...Wow. Both 24/96...Obviously it has been mastered by thte top dogs in the business...but man, that GP album might be a poster child for recording in higher sample rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 29, 2014 0:33:41 GMT -6
lol, yeah i'm hooked as well, i'm currently reeling in the 20th anniversary release of Soundgarden's Superunknown, the files are so much nicer to listen to, especially through playback systems like most of us here have, don't be surprised if you sound like Chris Cornell through your new mic, it's about all it's heard while i've been working on it 8)
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 29, 2014 11:19:05 GMT -6
Updates, slave!
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 29, 2014 14:51:17 GMT -6
....it has to be mentioned that the Soundgarden has been crushed beyond all hope of sounding good....
HDT 24/192 = DR6....original CD=DR10....vinyl DR11.
And Gaucho is taken from a 44.1 master with several DB removed for loudness.
I am editing because I got long winded--but, the point being--there are factors at play here much greater than digital file resolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Dec 29, 2014 15:01:39 GMT -6
lol, yeah i'm hooked as well, i'm currently reeling in the 20th anniversary release of Soundgarden's Superunknown, the files are so much nicer to listen to, especially through playback systems like most of us here have, don't be surprised if you sound like Chris Cornell through your new mic, it's about all it's heard while i've been working on it 8) Just thinking about re-buying this album (last one was lost,stolen, or permanently borrowed?). Incredible album and band. Cornell was the best singer to come out of that era/genre. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 29, 2014 16:37:39 GMT -6
So - that's actually a question I wanted to ask. What "sample rate" was tape? Obviously, I know it doesn't have a sample rate because it's analog, but are these converted straight from the original tape at like 24/96? You're saying that gaucho was previously converted from tape at 44.1 and then converted to 96? I noticed Gaucho is pinchy as hell, but lacks the huge bottom. The Gregory Porter recording is great - although on my monitors, his vocal seems to be the slightest bit harsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 29, 2014 16:57:48 GMT -6
Well, tape is analog. So, N/A.....but, my understanding is that Gaucho, along with most of of those old SD recordings were transferred to digital in the early 80s....and I could be wrong--it could be 48khz....but, it would've been 16bit. I don't know if the original tapes were already in bad shape or Nichols just wanted to capture them well before they got that way.
Regardless, if you look, the vinyl, Japanese SACD (they're in general the sticklers for leaving stuff alone), and the Mobile Fidelity CD all have 14db of dynamic range. The HDT has 9. Far from "crushed to all hell" like going from DR10/11 to DR6, but....also not even the original intended dynamics.
The Eagles stuff is transferred from the original analog tapes through a JCF ADC. Those have a huge bottom....for 70s records at least. In general, you won't see big bottoms until the early 90s, when vinyl was stopped.
Do you find Porter's voice harsher at 96khz than 44.1? Or just that it's got some hint of harshness? I've never pulled it up on mix monitors. I generally can't stand to listen to music on them. It's like living in an operating room....shadowless bright hard light illuminating every crack and pore....GREAT for surgery....not kind to your brain seeing that all the time everywhere....
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 29, 2014 18:58:10 GMT -6
insert code hereThat was supposed to be "punchy" not pinchy. I might have to buy hotel California on hd tracks. Harsh might not be the right word for it - not sure what that means as a standard. I am defining it as pointy in the 2-4kHz range. The rest of the recording is so good it makes me think that it's my monitoring problem more than the actual sound of the album. I know when dandeurloo brought his amp over, things seemed smoother on top. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 30, 2014 17:50:26 GMT -6
Punchy. Ha. I was actually scratching my head going "what does pinchy sound like?" I will say that when they master old recordings for loudness, the side effect is weird resonances that would never bug you at the original DR14. The Elton John SACDs are absolute unlistenable...and they're about DR8 or 9, if memory serves--down from 13 or 14 originally. That was the first time I think I ever bought a high rez disc and went "wow....that sounds worse than my CD"....it wouldn't be the last. The Linda Ronstadt Hasten Down the Wind--the 24/192 is markedly worse than the Mobile Fidelity CD master from a couple years back. They brightened it--and her vocals are so sibilant. It's a dark album--left dark, those esses don't bother anyone....put a big old high shelf on there to make it sound more "modern" (and they didn't actually do much loudness processing) and now they needed a deEsser that they didn't employ.... Always the content before format. That's why people who say vinyl sounds best are often both correct in that the vinyl is the best sounding version of X album....and wrong in the implication that vinyl is the best sounding or most lossless delivery format. You know? That's why really the best test, if you want to do it....is to take that Porter at 24/96....and make it 16/44....I can attest that mastering engineers have swung in both directions trying to differentiate it--Journey's Hits is LOUDER (more limited) on SACD than CD. Sheryl Crow's Globe Sessions, Jonatha Brooke's Steady Pull--many others have a few extra DB of dynamic range (quieter? man I hate loud/quiet terms)....Faith Hill's Cry is that way. I always thought the 24/96 was SO much more alive....yeah--it's about 3db more alive.  |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 30, 2014 19:47:15 GMT -6
What I found with the GP album (that was the one I was talking about that had bitey parts in the vocal) is that it is super dynamic - which I'm sure has to do with it being a jazz album. Almost to the point that I wish it had a little more limiting. Soft passage crescendoing into piercing vocal...
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 30, 2014 19:48:55 GMT -6
and when I say piercing, I'm being a bit hyperbolic...it's just brighter than I would prefer. Minutae though.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 30, 2014 22:37:11 GMT -6
Well, it's sad that DR10 is considered super dynamic....maybe don't listen on mix monitors. I can't imagine doing my pleasure listening on mine....it's like fucking in an operating room. I mean, there are times when bright fluorescent lights are not your friend. I also wouldn't want someone doing surgery on me by candlelight, so....turn, turn, turn, you know....?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 1, 2015 19:10:46 GMT -6
The question has been posed and postulated these past two decades:
What bit rate and sample rate equates to the same resolution as analog tape?
The answer is not straightforward, but we can determine dynamic range comparisons and sort of drwa the conclusion that the frequency response is what would be derived from a 48bt sample rate and the dynamic range of a well-aligned noise-reduced 1" or 2" analog tape multitrack master is somewhere around 20 bits. THUS, 20/48 is a analogous comparison.
What does 24 bit/96khz actually achieve from an analog master? Sweet Shag All. But it is a way to ensure that nothing is lost from the original master.
JMHO
|
|
