The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
26th August 2019
#61
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumbergh
Are we sure Dre was using DAT? Studios I worked in '99 were mastering to 24(20?)/96 2Trk ADAT as a backup for tape ...
I'd be willing to bet that it was DAT, and either a Panasonic or a Sony.
26th August 2019
#62
Gear Guru

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter
I can promise you that nobody at the label was saying “let’s not get Hank to do the cutting because he has a DDL, but Susie uses a preview head so let’s get her to do it!”
I doubt that anyone in a mastering facility went out of their way to volunteer anything to a label that they weren't asked about directly.

And on a big release with multiple sets of parts being generated, the ME with his or her name on the credits would cut the approval acetates; those are just proof-of-concept. But he or she might not have been making the lacquers that ship to the plants at all. Preview, DDL, or whatever.

Last edited by Brent Hahn; 26th August 2019 at 07:33 PM..
26th August 2019
#63
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH
To me the difference between a low sample rate and a high sample rate is rather 3.1 vs 0.38, both when capturing an LP (PF, classical) cut before the DDL era or a live stereo mic feed. In terms of space and sound stage depth. With various ADDA chains.
I’m sure you have golden ears. But, I have sat in my studio and other studios with well respected engineers with amazing ears doing DOUBLE BLIND testing of sample rates on finished mastered
product and everybody fails miserably at identifying what was tracked/mixed at 96 vs. 44.1k (recent tests after basically all plugin makers started using oversampling).

As for comparing preview vs. DDL…. I cannot take any claims seriously as to the difference in sound quality. The reason is that the only way to know for near certain what used a preview head and what used a DDL would mean taking a 60s era record and comparing it to a 90s era record. Even if the same genre, there are such a plethora of other changes over the course of that time that you could never be certain what you are hearing is the DDL or something else.

And why would we care anyway?? Vinyl is such a horribly inferior playback medium riddled with deficiencies as to make these comparisons absolutely meaningless. NOBODY listens to vinyl because it has higher fidelity than a CD or even a 320kbps mp3… or even a 192 mp3. The only people that do are a) audiophiles who need to justify the cost of their $4000 turntable, b) people who just want to feel cool playing a record (arguably, a decently good reason), and c) people who like hiss, distortion, clicks and pops and for the sound quality to get worse and worse every time you play the record and who don’t care that the songs on the inside sound worse than the songs on the outside. This is like arguing about cassette dupe at 1x speed and 2x speed. Who cares? It all sounded crappy! 26th August 2019 #64 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by chris carter NOBODY listens to vinyl because it has higher fidelity than a CD or even a 320kbps mp3… or even a 192 mp3. We agree to disagree here. And as I had to say I am a nobody earlier in this thread, so I must be the very NOBODY who does listen to vinyl since when done in a correct way it has resolution in depth (critical to me) which is completely missing in CDs. And I do not consider myself an audiophile, though I have a minimal quite transparent capture chain with a fine profile stylus and tube transformerless phono pre. 26th August 2019 #65 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by chris carter the sound quality to get worse and worse every time you play the record This is sort of the be-all/end-all of this argument for me. There is absolutely no way a fifty or sixty year old piece of used vinyl is going to exhibit greater audio resolution in any measurable way. If you're digging up decades-old LPs because you like the sound, that's of course totally fine and reasonable. I like the sound of old records too (and new ones, actually!). But to attribute it to superior resolution is nonsense. Not only did that resolution not exist back then, when the records were unplayed and hadn't suffered the better part of a human lifespan's worth of wear and tear and weather, it certainly won't exist today, after decades of use. DAH, with all due respect, what you're hearing isn't resolution. I'm not doubting you're hearing something that you're responding to, but you've led yourself into a bit of a wild goose chase with this "resolution" and sample rate business. 26th August 2019 #66 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by bgrotto DAH, with all due respect, what you're hearing isn't resolution. I'm not doubting you're hearing something that you're responding to, but you've led yourself into a bit of a wild goose chase with this "resolution" and sample rate business. How can you say that what I am hearing is not what I say I am hearing. High rates-induced "air" artifacts? I do not insist on "resolution", however I do insist on "depth", be it due to the DAC filters or some other reason. I have not led myself anywhere near gees chase, nor dogs or bats. I am fine with 96\24 vs what I hear at the scene\in the room. I posted the 8 out of 10 ABX 32fp to 24int bit dither vs truncation results, this being admittedly the best results. Not sure what can I say more. There is no need for me to be pretending, in fact I'd be glad to hear no depth destruction at lower sample rates. I just cannot unlearn. Ok, upsampling CD grabs to 96 and playing back at 96 works to some degree, but the native 96 clearly are better. 26th August 2019 #67 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe <Deleted by Moderator> I did not ask you to discuss anything with me, save the insulting tone. Last edited by Synth Guru; 27th August 2019 at 02:32 PM.. Reason: Insulting 26th August 2019 #68 Lives for gear Dare I say that according to DAH logic, the Edison cylinders through a pure acoustic playback large RCA horn (no electronics, no conversion, no RIAA curve) might be the deepest of the deep. 26th August 2019 #69 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by Bushman Dare I say that according to DAH logic, the Edison cylinders through a pure acoustic playback large RCA horn (no electronics, no conversion, no RIAA curve) might be the deepest of the deep. Half of you are putting your words into my mouth. Should I say GTFO every time someone twists my words around or ascribes me bat's hearing abilities? Come on, grow up. I just did say that the Redbook sample rate is not capable of "transparent and 3d enough" capture of analog signal. 26th August 2019 #70 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by DAH Half of you are putting your words into my mouth. Should I say GTFO every time someone twists my words around or ascribes me bat's hearing abilities? Come on, grow up. I just did say that the Redbook sample rate is not capable of "transparent and 3d enough" capture of analog signal. My post did not put a single word in your mouth. I wrote that according to your logic, “X” MIGHT be true. I didn’t claim that you said any such thing or agreed with it. Have you made any statement about the depth of non-electronic recordings that I have contradicted? 26th August 2019 #71 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by Bushman My post did not put a single word in your mouth. I wrote that according to your logic, “X” MIGHT be true. I didn’t claim that you said any such thing or agreed with it. Have you made any statement about the depth of non-electronic recordings that I have contradicted? What is "my logic"? Right there creating some entity and ascribing it to me. Please clear, what exactly constitues this "my logic". Claiming I must consider inferior old analog medium played back via an inferior old analog chain as better than (what?) is as pricky as ascribing to me claims of hearing ultrasonics which I never claimed. Ability to hear difference 44 vs 96 being related to ability of hearing ultrasonics is all your own (stupid) assumptions. 26th August 2019 #72 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by DAH What is "my logic"? Right there creating some entity and ascribing it to me. Please clear, what exactly constitues this "my logic". Claiming I must consider inferior old analog medium played back via an inferior old analog chain as better than (what?) is as pricky as ascribing to me claims of hearing ultrasonics which I never claimed. Ability to hear difference 44 vs 96 being related to ability of hearing ultrasonics is all your own (stupid) assumptions. Possibly you have no logic. In that case, I apologize for writing that you seemed to have any. I was lead to my statement because in this thread, you seem to consistently say that analog audio is far superior, especially in “depth”, to digital audio at bit rates that were generally available in mastering rooms as delay for the cutting head, while the original audio was used in the preview chain to the groove spacing and depth control computer. Isn’t that your rationale in this thread? You didn’t state any concern about analog noise, wow, distortion, etc. in the old cutting systems and tape medium you referenced. Why is a 15 ips Dolby A tape not also an “inferior old analog chain”? How was I to know? You seemed to be focused on discernible “depth”, which term does not usually have a specific science-based audio measurement associated with it. Your definitions of acceptable audio don’t reference objective measurements, so EXCUUUSE MEEE if I didn’t intuitively grasp your exact meaning. 26th August 2019 #73 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by DAH I posted the 8 out of 10 ABX 32fp to 24int bit dither vs truncation results, this being admittedly the best results. Not sure what can I say more. What does bit depth have to do with the discussion at hand? Quote: Ok, upsampling CD grabs to 96 and playing back at 96 works to some degree 26th August 2019 #74 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by Bushman Possibly you have no logic. In that case, I apologize for writing that you seemed to have any. I was lead to my statement because in this thread, you seem to consistently say that analog audio is far superior, especially in “depth”, to digital audio at bit rates that were generally available in mastering rooms as delay for the cutting head, while the original audio was used in the preview chain to the groove spacing and depth control computer. Isn’t that your rationale in this thread? You didn’t state any concern about analog noise, wow, distortion, etc. in the old cutting systems and tape medium you referenced. Why is a 15 ips Dolby A tape not also an “inferior old analog chain”? How was I to know? You seemed to be focused on discernible “depth”, which term does not usually have a specific science-based audio measurement associated with it. Your definitions of acceptable audio don’t reference objective measurements, so EXCUUUSE MEEE if I didn’t intuitively grasp your exact meaning. My point was made right at the start: 44 or 48 are not adequate to capture analog signal such as a live muc feed. No need to resort to analog tape wow, noise and flutter since it can be eliminated by a direct cut for record production or live mic feed for hearing tests. Any digital delay line for the cut would still bear the wow, flutter and noise of the mastertape, right? I mean, a half inch master tape or even an LP cut from it has more depth than its 44/48 capture. I see the non-high res digital as the bottle neck of the production chain. You may be OK capturing single tracks and mixing with FX (creating a new 3d space, artificial one) at 96\in analogue and capturing it 96 or tape, but there is no sense recording a mix, a live stereotrack or cutting it to vinyl using 44/48. Just record or monitor ORTF or XY stereopair switching the sample rates. Not being able to explain what constitutes "my logic" based on my words basically means you tried to ridicule me based on your assumptions Last edited by DAH; 26th August 2019 at 11:53 PM.. 26th August 2019 #75 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by bgrotto What does bit depth have to do with the discussion at hand? That the difference lies at even lower levels than that of the 44 vs 96 artefacts, at -144 dbfs, still heard. Quote: Originally Posted by bgrotto It really does, 44 at 96 upsampled sounds better 27th August 2019 #76 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by DAH Just record or monitor ORTF or XY stereopair switching the sample rates. I've done exactly this multiple times, in a variety of professional control rooms full of professional audio workers, listening through a variety of analog and digital signal paths. Sometimes the differences were audible, sometimes they weren't. In the cases where they were, there was no objective "better" or "deeper" that anyone could agree on. Different SRs had different strengths and weaknesses, depending on the material we were listening to. Heck... I know some engineers who went on to choose sample rates based on the genre they're working in after these listening tests. 27th August 2019 #77 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by DAH . . . so I must be the very NOBODY who does listen to vinyl since when done in a correct way it has resolution in depth (critical to me) which is completely missing in CDs. Thanks for this post. It resolves for me that I will not consider as relevant any of your future posts regarding digital/analog issues. 27th August 2019 #78 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by robert82 Thanks for this post. It resolves for me that I will not consider as relevant any of your future posts regarding digital/analog issues. Mutually. 27th August 2019 #79 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by bgrotto I've done exactly this multiple times, in a variety of professional control rooms full of professional audio workers, listening through a variety of analog and digital signal paths. Sometimes the differences were audible, sometimes they weren't. In the cases where they were, there was no objective "better" or "deeper" that anyone could agree on. Different SRs had different strengths and weaknesses, depending on the material we were listening to. Heck... I know some engineers who went on to choose sample rates based on the genre they're working in after these listening tests. Heck, when "inyaface" sound is looked for, than no fancy "depths" are required. Still, folk, jazz, classical and other genres relying on accurate space transcription are released in high-res. Brostep, grunge, hip-hop any title? 27th August 2019 #80 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by DAH you tried to ridicule me based on your assumptions Close... 27th August 2019 #81 Moderator Quote: Originally Posted by DAH That the difference lies at even lower levels than that of the 44 vs 96 artefacts, at -144 dbfs, still heard. It really does, 44 at 96 upsampled sounds better If this were true universally, the logic behind the sampling theorem is flawed. But it works in practice, so that can’t be the case. Also - upsampling an mp3 back to WAV would “restore quality “. 27th August 2019 #82 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by psycho_monkey Also - upsampling an mp3 back to WAV would “restore quality “. Just make sure you use 96k 27th August 2019 #83 Lives for gear Dah, I think you are hearing something you like and it’s very real. I think where you are running into a problem is you are misidentifying the REASON you like what you hear. In science you may have heard the terms “correlation” and “causation.” Correlation means two things may occur together, but one doesn’t necessarily cause the other. Causation means one causes the other to occur. By way of example, people think you get sick because you are out in cold weather. People do in fact catch colds and the flu more when the weather is very cold. But this is only correlation because being cold Doesn’t make you get sick. In fact, the colder the weather, the HARDER it is for the viruses to survive and get you sick in the first place so you should get sick LESS in cold weather. So although there is correlation, there is no causation. The cause of getting sick in the winter is because people congregate indoors more so you have closer contact in the same enclosed airspace making it easier to transmit air-born viruses – that’s the causation. Make sense? So there is something you hear in certain kinds of records that you like, and it may be that many of these records were done before digital or before DDLs in vinyl mastering, or whatever. But that doesn’t mean they are the CAUSE of what you are hearing. So to be clear, I believe you are hearing things you like. I just think they are caused by things other than what you are describing. 27th August 2019 #84 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by chris carter Dah, I think you are hearing something you like and it’s very real. I think where you are running into a problem is you are misidentifying the REASON you like what you hear. In science you may have heard the terms “correlation” and “causation.” Correlation means two things may occur together, but one doesn’t necessarily cause the other. Causation means one causes the other to occur. By way of example, people think you get sick because you are out in cold weather. People do in fact catch colds and the flu more when the weather is very cold. But this is only correlation because being cold Doesn’t make you get sick. In fact, the colder the weather, the HARDER it is for the viruses to survive and get you sick in the first place so you should get sick LESS in cold weather. So although there is correlation, there is no causation. The cause of getting sick in the winter is because people congregate indoors more so you have closer contact in the same enclosed airspace making it easier to transmit air-born viruses – that’s the causation. Make sense? So there is something you hear in certain kinds of records that you like, and it may be that many of these records were done before digital or before DDLs in vinyl mastering, or whatever. But that doesn’t mean they are the CAUSE of what you are hearing. So to be clear, I believe you are hearing things you like. I just think they are caused by things other than what you are describing. I am saying once again, ABing different sample rates via an ADDA chain off a live mic feed, not a record, gives the same results. 44 - flat, 96 - realistic 3d sound as the source. There are no other variables at play, so that correlation is causation. Probably, just the relaxed DAC filter mode at high rates causing this (which may explain the heard benefits of upsampling). 27th August 2019 #85 Lives for gear Quote: Originally Posted by psycho_monkey If this were true universally, the logic behind the sampling theorem is flawed. But it works in practice, so that can’t be the case. Also - upsampling an mp3 back to WAV would “restore quality “. mixing up things. 44 may be good per se, but the DAC at 44 may introduce more artifacts in the audible range. When upsampling, the original data are not degraded save for upsampling artifacts, but the DAC artifacts get eliminated (moved to ultrasonics). 27th August 2019 #86 Gear Head https://loudmastering.com/loud-vinyl-mastering/ John Dent (RIP) one of the most renowned disc cutters from England advertised the fact he didn't use ddl. Anyway I'm basically on the "who cares what was used if it sounds good" side of the discussion but I must say on the slightly separate issue of vinyl playback I have to disagree with what Chris Carter said and point out in my experience the increase in sound quality with CD players/Dacs is very little compared to the increase in sound quality you get with more and more expensive turntables/arms/cartridges and phono stages. I know we all hear differently and I believe different people value different aspects of sound reproduction as more or less important so no matter how much scientific comparison we can make there is always a subjective aspect to the conversation but I did think what was said about vinyl playback was a bit unnecessarily dismissive and in my experience sounds like the opinion of someone who is very familiar with excellent digital playback but perhaps not so familiar with very high quality vinyl playback (some of those$4000 turntables with \$4000 cartridges and arms lol can be pretty amazing actually). Theres a lot more variables when it coms to vinyl quality of press, how clean the vinyl and stylus are kept, alignment etc etc but if you get it all right hiss, pops and clicks are negligible and you get a lot of plays from a disc before you would notice any deterioration imo.
27th August 2019
#87
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH
I am saying once again, ABing different sample rates via an ADDA chain off a live mic feed, not a record, gives the same results. 44 - flat, 96 - realistic 3d sound as the source. There are no other variables at play, so that correlation is causation. Probably, just the relaxed DAC filter mode at high rates causing this (which may explain the heard benefits of upsampling).
DAs always output oversampled audio, since the very earliest CD players. I’d venture a guess that its safe to say virtually none of us have ever heard actual 44.1k audio.
27th August 2019
#88
Lives for gear

I don't know what specific artists cut from tape with a preview head. When the CD came out the most common master format was the Sony1630. No matter what format the mixes came in on they were often mastered to and cut from 1630. There was a Sony companion DDL to the 1630 with a digital SDIF input. If cutting from 1630 and using their DDL there wasn't an extra AD/DA like with an external DDL. Just like today most master to wav files and cut from those. Before the CD came out I'd say cutting from tape was more common.
27th August 2019
#89
Lives for gear
You folks are driving me nuts with vinyl.

If you LIKE the sound of vinyl, that’s fine. Depending on the genre, I like the sound of vinyl too. But vinyl is not as accurate as a CD.

Please don’t give me mumbo-jumbo about non-real world listening conditions with super turntables. I’ve actually been there and done that. You want a high end stylus? I’ve actually listened to records on an audiophile turntable with a freakin’ LASER stylus; it doesn’t even touch the vinyl! I can’t remember what it cost, but it left a stain in my pants. You can argue all you want about the CAPABILITIES of vinyl, but then there’s the real world. And in the real world vinyl just isn’t a very accurate medium.

This was common knowledge back in the day that some people seem to have forgotten. Engineers used to ALWAYS complain that the vinyl records didn’t sound like what they made in the studio. They also complained about analog tape doing this as well, although it wasn’t nearly as drastic (reels; not cassettes). I can tell you from personal experience that none of my vinyl records I mixed sound like the mixes. You could double blind me and stick cotton in my ears and I could STILL pick the wax version 100% of the time. Now if you want to argue that 16/44.1 PCM doesn’t sound like my mix either, then more power to you, but compared to the vinyl on a super high end system it STILL was no contest – the vinyl record was obviously less accurate to the source.

Like I said, if you like the sound of vinyl, that’s great. But let’s not ascribe properties to the format that just don’t exist and never existed.
27th August 2019
#90
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH
mixing up things. 44 may be good per se, but the DAC at 44 may introduce more artifacts in the audible range. When upsampling, the original data are not degraded save for upsampling artifacts, but the DAC artifacts get eliminated (moved to ultrasonics).
Yeah. Nah. That’s not how it works....I’m with Chris, you might be hearing “something” but what you’re hearing is not how you’re explaining it.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump