advertisement


Vinyl is not obsolete, Will CD become obsolete ?

formbypc said:
Tell us the gear you use to do the conversion.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. I consider my approach proprietary, arrived at by many hours of experimentation. Furthermore, the approach varies depending on the precise nature of the conversion.
 
formbypc said:
In each and every case, the CD and hi-res versions are both in the same retail package, so it's reasonable to assume they were done as one project.
Click to expand...
You're still assuming and there's no need to. Easy and free means are available to do a guaranteed fair comparison.
Darren
 
formbypc said:
why not? In each and every case, the CD and hi-res versions are both in the same retail package, so it's reasonable to assume they were done as one project. Since they're in this form, they're not trying to sell the hi-res in preference to the CD, so what incentive would they have to master one from a different source to the other?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily (or even likely to be) from a different source, but not mastered in quite the same way. The CD these days is very likely to be near full-scale 0dB much of the time, with just a few dB of headroom above the average level, to make it sound "impressive", whilst the 24-bit version (which will not be playable on any standard CD player, but might work in a DVD machine) is more likely to be mastered nearer to the industry-standard -14dB average for DVD audio. Apples'n'oranges.

CDs used to be at lower average levels than most released in recent years...
 
Michael J said:
Not necessarily (or even likely to be) from a different source, but not mastered in quite the same way. The CD these days is very likely to be near full-scale 0dB much of the time, with just a few dB of headroom above the average level, to make it sound "impressive", whilst the 24-bit version (which will not be playable on any standard CD player, but might work in a DVD machine) is more likely to be mastered nearer to the industry-standard -14dB average for DVD audio. Apples'n'oranges.

CDs used to be at lower average levels than most released in recent years...
Click to expand...

Again - the CD and Hi-res DVD-A are in the same box set. What conceivable reason would there be to do this?

We're not talking radio-friendly acts here....
 
Plutox said:
Sorry, no. I consider my approach proprietary, arrived at by many hours of experimentation. Furthermore, the approach varies depending on the precise nature of the conversion.
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting we try and tell the difference between two files which you've converted or down sampled by unknown means?
 
formbypc said:
Again - the CD and Hi-res DVD-A are in the same box set. What conceivable reason would there be to do this?
Click to expand...
It is plausible that they mastered a digital version louder for "air-play" (mass-marketing) and destined for CD, YouTube, streaming and download; and another hi res version mastered for dynamic range. I'm not saying it happens all the time but I know it does sometimes.

But this is just supposition and speculation ... which is the point. We shouldn't assume anything, it's not safe.
Darren
 
darrenyeats said:
It is plausible that they mastered a digital version louder for "air-play" (mass-marketing) and destined for CD, YouTube, streaming and download; and another hi res version mastered for dynamic range. I'm not saying it happens all the time but I know it does sometimes.

But this is just supposition and speculation ... which is the point. We shouldn't assume anything, it's not safe.
Darren
Click to expand...

King Crimson don't get 'airplay' ... And I refer back to#204
 
formbypc said:
I've got a brace of King Crimson releases, and also the Donald Fagen box set, all of which include hi-res alongside regular CD versions. On the assumption that both have come from the same master source, and I see no reason they shouldn't be, the differences are clear on my modest system.
Click to expand...

Wrong approach. You should downsample the high-res and compare to the original. That's what I've used to test.

I actually go further. My preferred approach is to take the high-res original, downsample to 16/44, then upsample back to the same resolution as the original. Then I know the DAC is working in the same way, even though I've added lots of zero bits.

Have tried lots. Peter Gabriel, Linn samples, HDTrack samples, R.E.M. DVDAs, some classical of which I forget the details, lots of others.

Funniest was when I tried with a friend. Played A then B. Mentioned that one was 24-bit. Oh yes, sounds much better he said. Not realising that the one he preferred was the 16-bit. Hmm.

Tim
 
formbypc said:
So you're suggesting we try and tell the difference between two files which you've converted or down sampled by unknown means?
Click to expand...

No, I think the suggestion is that you compare the original unsullied high-res with the conversion. So only one unknown!

Tim
 
formbypc said:
King Crimson don't get 'airplay' ... And I refer back to#204
Click to expand...

No. King Crimson has fanatic followers. Fanatics will buy everything, and buy it over and over again if there's a sniff of it being 'better' somehow. You can sell a King Crimson fanatic the album on LP, then again on CD, then again on hi-res and once again with all of the above bundled with a booklet, some additional art and hundreds of hours of outtakes.

If you have an album that costs £10, and you are trying to sell the same people the same album for £30, make it an outstanding master. The trouble is, no one is going to pay a £20 premium for 'an outstanding master', but if they are told they are 'Master Tape Quality Studio Special 24/192 Audiophile Limited Carlos Fandango Edition', they will.

I've no doubt the premium-cost Supreme Balls-Out Super Special Version sounds great, and better than the CD master. But it's more likely sounding great because it's the premium-cost Supreme Balls-Out Super Special Version, not because of a greater bit depth or a higher sampling rate.
 
formbypc said:
I've got a brace of King Crimson releases, and also the Donald Fagen box set, all of which include hi-res alongside regular CD versions. On the assumption that both have come from the same master source, and I see no reason they shouldn't be, the differences are clear on my modest system.
Click to expand...
Not saying that this would be the reason, but one of the things mentioned about possible differences is that not every DACs do the proper job at 16 bits 44.1kHz.
Check this part from this previously mentioned article:

It’s a series of tradeoffs, but even at 44.1, we can deal with this challenge. Designers can oversample signals at the input stage of converter and improve the response of filters at that point. When this is done properly, it’s been proven again and again that even 44.1kHz can be completely transparent in all sorts of unbiased listening tests.

But that doesn’t mean that all converter companies keep up with what’s possible. Sometimes different sampling rates can and do sound significantly different within the same converter. But this is usually because of design flaws – purposeful or accidental – at one sampling rate or another.

A better converter that takes fewer design shortcuts might easily out perform the higher sample-rate converter, regardless of what sampling rate is chosen. For people in their 30s, 40s and beyond, what differences are left in the form of high frequency roll-off should be impossible to distinguish. What might be easy to distinguish however, are flaws in the design of the 44.1 converter or distortions introduced by a poorly-filtered higher rate.

So, if you are ever using a converter and find it sounds dramatically better at a higher rate, don’t get excited about the sample rate. Get suspicious of the design shortcuts instead!


Michael
 
The only reason I can see to downconvert a 24 bit to 16 bit and compare it with the original 16 bit recording is to see whether there is a difference in mastering which is normally quite audible...
Doing "destructive" DSP is just silly in any other case...
NO dsp is trivial at any rate , I have had dacs like the PS audio in which I can select various sample rates and I can clearly hear a difference between them , I have a Z-sys digital pre (and had a meridian 518) in which you can change the bit depth up or down and add various flavours of dither and there are definitely audible sonic differences between them.
 
What does it mean "sound better"? Why do people say "it sounds better"? What makes them say "it sounds better"?
 
Disbeliever said:
Not true because both 24 bit & SACD sound better than most 16 bit CD's to many over 50's and I am one of them
Click to expand...

Then it's for reasons other than capturing frequencies above 22 kHz.

Check your hearing. Bet you can't hear anything above 15 kHz, and you'll be lucky if you can hear that high.
 
darrenyeats said:
The difference can be explained by different mastering, rather than the bit depth or sampling rate.
Darren
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Many CD versions sound better than so called HD. The latter having been taken from inferior masterings. Amazing the sales power of numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top