Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

SACD and CD

Expand Messages
  • Robert Greene
    One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium has a high dynamic range, one can leave
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 31, 2008
      One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to
      do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium
      has a high dynamic range, one can leave more headroom
      for unexpectedly loud moments in, e.g., live recordings
      where you have only one take, perhaps.
      When you go to make the finished product, you can "peak bit"
      the result but when recording you cannot a priori, since
      you have no really exact idea of what the peak level is going to be.


      Re: formats in general

      Back when I was reviewing vinyl in my "On the record/For the record"
      columns in TAS, I used to get occasionally vinyl for review that
      seemed to me on sonic grounds more or less obviously to come from
      digital tapes, without anyone saying so on the cover or anything.
      I would then ask the manufacturer to confirm that the tape was
      either digital to begin with or had gone through digitization en
      route to the LP, which in practice always was confirmed. Then I
      would not review the recording or, if it was sufficiently
      interesting musically and sonically, I would review it but I would
      say it was from digital sources.

      I found it interesting in this context to watch other vinyl
      reviewers for other organizations ,often people who claimed that
      digital was unlistenable and made your hair fall out or whatever,
      review such items without noticing that the recording was in fact
      digitally sourced. Often they praised the digitally-sourced items as
      prime examples of the wonders of analogue.

      This sort of thing makes one think. Anyway, it was surely part of my
      education in the ways of audio.

      REG
    • Uli Brueggemann
      I always dream of a direct comparison test between a digital source and a turntable where the listeners would see either running the CD player by the remote
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
        I always dream of a direct comparison test between a digital source and a turntable where the listeners would see either running the CD player by the remote control or the turntable by manual positioning of the pickup on the LP.
        But in fact in both cases simply the digital music should be played, maybe in case of the turntable the digital playback fooled by a software like http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/

        I'm always wondering how many people would praise the advantages of analog playback as a result of such a test :)

        Uli

        On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Robert Greene <regonaudio@...> wrote:


        One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to
        do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium
        has a high dynamic range, one can leave more headroom
        for unexpectedly loud moments in, e.g., live recordings
        where you have only one take, perhaps.
        When you go to make the finished product, you can "peak bit"
        the result but when recording you cannot a priori, since
        you have no really exact idea of what the peak level is going to be.

        Re: formats in general

        Back when I was reviewing vinyl in my "On the record/For the record"
        columns in TAS, I used to get occasionally vinyl for review that
        seemed to me on sonic grounds more or less obviously to come from
        digital tapes, without anyone saying so on the cover or anything.
        I would then ask the manufacturer to confirm that the tape was
        either digital to begin with or had gone through digitization en
        route to the LP, which in practice always was confirmed. Then I
        would not review the recording or, if it was sufficiently
        interesting musically and sonically, I would review it but I would
        say it was from digital sources.

        I found it interesting in this context to watch other vinyl
        reviewers for other organizations ,often people who claimed that
        digital was unlistenable and made your hair fall out or whatever,
        review such items without noticing that the recording was in fact
        digitally sourced. Often they praised the digitally-sourced items as
        prime examples of the wonders of analogue.

        This sort of thing makes one think. Anyway, it was surely part of my
        education in the ways of audio.

        REG


      • ofer_r.geo
        Recording today is done in 96Khz/24bit, 88.2Khz/24bit, and even 192Khz/24bit 176.4/24bit all the processing and mixing is also done this way, just in the end
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
          Recording today is done in 96Khz/24bit, 88.2Khz/24bit, and even
          192Khz/24bit 176.4/24bit
          all the processing and mixing is also done this way, just in the end
          process, the data is downsampled to 44.1khz/16bit
          The recording at 88.2Khz/24bit or 176.4/24bit are more easy to
          downsample, because there is a factor of 2 or 4

          Ofer



          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Greene"
          <regonaudio@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to
          > do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium
          > has a high dynamic range, one can leave more headroom
          > for unexpectedly loud moments in, e.g., live recordings
          > where you have only one take, perhaps.
          > When you go to make the finished product, you can "peak bit"
          > the result but when recording you cannot a priori, since
          > you have no really exact idea of what the peak level is going to be.
          >
          >
          > Re: formats in general
          >
          > Back when I was reviewing vinyl in my "On the record/For the record"
          > columns in TAS, I used to get occasionally vinyl for review that
          > seemed to me on sonic grounds more or less obviously to come from
          > digital tapes, without anyone saying so on the cover or anything.
          > I would then ask the manufacturer to confirm that the tape was
          > either digital to begin with or had gone through digitization en
          > route to the LP, which in practice always was confirmed. Then I
          > would not review the recording or, if it was sufficiently
          > interesting musically and sonically, I would review it but I would
          > say it was from digital sources.
          >
          > I found it interesting in this context to watch other vinyl
          > reviewers for other organizations ,often people who claimed that
          > digital was unlistenable and made your hair fall out or whatever,
          > review such items without noticing that the recording was in fact
          > digitally sourced. Often they praised the digitally-sourced items as
          > prime examples of the wonders of analogue.
          >
          > This sort of thing makes one think. Anyway, it was surely part of my
          > education in the ways of audio.
          >
          > REG
          >
        • Robert Greene
          Absolutely, and a very nice thing it is, as noted. The 96 or so dB of CD is enough for music but not really quite enough for maximum convenience in recording,
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
            Absolutely, and a very nice thing it is, as noted.
            The 96 or so dB of CD is enough for music but not
            really quite enough for maximum convenience in recording, on account
            of the "headroom" issue already noted.
            But it makes sense to distinguish between recording and playback
            ends of the chain, as noted.

            REG

            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "ofer_r.geo" <oferab@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Recording today is done in 96Khz/24bit, 88.2Khz/24bit, and even
            > 192Khz/24bit 176.4/24bit
            > all the processing and mixing is also done this way, just in the
            end
            > process, the data is downsampled to 44.1khz/16bit
            > The recording at 88.2Khz/24bit or 176.4/24bit are more easy to
            > downsample, because there is a factor of 2 or 4
            >
            > Ofer
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Greene"
            > <regonaudio@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to
            > > do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium
            > > has a high dynamic range, one can leave more headroom
            > > for unexpectedly loud moments in, e.g., live recordings
            > > where you have only one take, perhaps.
            > > When you go to make the finished product, you can "peak bit"
            > > the result but when recording you cannot a priori, since
            > > you have no really exact idea of what the peak level is going to
            be.
            > >
            > >
            > > Re: formats in general
            > >
            > > Back when I was reviewing vinyl in my "On the record/For the
            record"
            > > columns in TAS, I used to get occasionally vinyl for review that
            > > seemed to me on sonic grounds more or less obviously to come
            from
            > > digital tapes, without anyone saying so on the cover or
            anything.
            > > I would then ask the manufacturer to confirm that the tape was
            > > either digital to begin with or had gone through digitization en
            > > route to the LP, which in practice always was confirmed. Then I
            > > would not review the recording or, if it was sufficiently
            > > interesting musically and sonically, I would review it but I
            would
            > > say it was from digital sources.
            > >
            > > I found it interesting in this context to watch other vinyl
            > > reviewers for other organizations ,often people who claimed that
            > > digital was unlistenable and made your hair fall out or
            whatever,
            > > review such items without noticing that the recording was in
            fact
            > > digitally sourced. Often they praised the digitally-sourced
            items as
            > > prime examples of the wonders of analogue.
            > >
            > > This sort of thing makes one think. Anyway, it was surely part
            of my
            > > education in the ways of audio.
            > >
            > > REG
            > >
            >
          • Goran Finnberg
            ... While some may do this then 99.5 percent of what I get is firmly at 48/24. The unofficial standard for classical is also at 48/24 if I am to believe the
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
              Ofer:

              > Recording today is done in 96Khz/24bit, 88.2Khz/24bit,
              > and even 192Khz/24bit 176.4/24bit

              While some may do this then 99.5 percent of what I get is firmly at
              48/24.

              The unofficial standard for classical is also at 48/24 if I am to
              believe the very few doing this.

              --
              Best,

              Goran Finnberg
              The Mastering Room AB
              Goteborg
              Sweden

              E-mail: mastering@...

              Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
              make them all yourself. - John Luther
            • ofer_r.geo
              Hi Goren This is interesting I am working at Waves, and the PlugIns that we made are intended to run up to sample rate 96khz, and very few of them are running
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
                Hi Goren

                This is interesting

                I am working at Waves, and the PlugIns that we made are intended to
                run up to sample rate 96khz, and very few of them are running up to 192khz

                Still the recording are done in 24bits, which give a lot of headroom,
                and in the end process they are converted to 16bits, for me, and today
                ADC and DAC, number of bits is more impotent then sample rate

                For people who don't know, PlugIns are effect on the sound track, like
                EQ, Compressors, and other interesting effects, we have a PlugIn, that
                if a singer has mistakes in the notes, we can fix them after the
                recoding with the PlugIn

                Also an interesting point is that SACD is very hard to work with in
                the mastering and mixing, I don't know of any PlugIn that is working
                on SACD

                Ofer

                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Goran Finnberg <mastering@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Ofer:
                >
                > > Recording today is done in 96Khz/24bit, 88.2Khz/24bit,
                > > and even 192Khz/24bit 176.4/24bit
                >
                > While some may do this then 99.5 percent of what I get is firmly at
                > 48/24.
                >
                > The unofficial standard for classical is also at 48/24 if I am to
                > believe the very few doing this.
                >
                > --
                > Best,
                >
                > Goran Finnberg
                > The Mastering Room AB
                > Goteborg
                > Sweden
                >
                > E-mail: mastering@...
                >
                > Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
                > make them all yourself. - John Luther
                >
              • Tom Mallin
                On recordings with quiet moments, it would take a darn good turntable and a very clean, quiet LP to not be able to instantly hear the LP source s greater and
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
                  On recordings with quiet moments, it would take a darn good turntable and a very clean, quiet LP to not be able to instantly hear the LP source's greater and different noise.  LP noise is totally obvious on even my bedroom system playing WFMT-FM radio (they use Shure V15 cartridges and SME arms) through a 1980s Sony receiver and 1970s AR-5 speakers at levels which are just above background levels.  Pops and clicks are dead giveaways even at that level and turn the level up and the LP noise exceeds the background hiss of the station and has a periodic quality to it that is another dead giveaway.  Even old analog material such as 1950s open reel tape recordings of the Mercury Living Presence catalog are instantly recognizable when played on WFMT as either the CD version or LP version since the CD's hiss is so much more constant and unwavering, while LPs have a periodic swish added plus clicks and pops.
                   
                  Just today, WFMT is playing old interview recordings in memory of Chicago fixture Studs Terkel who died yesterday.  The difference between the LP recordings from the Smithsonian label and others and the WFMT tapes is instantly obvious.

                  >>> uli.brueggemann@... 11/1/2008 4:52 AM >>>
                  I always dream of a direct comparison test between a digital source and a turntable where the listeners would see either running the CD player by the remote control or the turntable by manual positioning of the pickup on the LP.
                  But in fact in both cases simply the digital music should be played, maybe in case of the turntable the digital playback fooled by a software like http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/

                  I'm always wondering how many people would praise the advantages of analog playback as a result of such a test :)

                  Uli

                  On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Robert Greene <regonaudio@...> wrote:


                  One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to
                  do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium
                  has a high dynamic range, one can leave more headroom
                  for unexpectedly loud moments in, e.g., live recordings
                  where you have only one take, perhaps.
                  When you go to make the finished product, you can "peak bit"
                  the result but when recording you cannot a priori, since
                  you have no really exact idea of what the peak level is going to be.

                  Re: formats in general

                  Back when I was reviewing vinyl in my "On the record/For the record"
                  columns in TAS, I used to get occasionally vinyl for review that
                  seemed to me on sonic grounds more or less obviously to come from
                  digital tapes, without anyone saying so on the cover or anything.
                  I would then ask the manufacturer to confirm that the tape was
                  either digital to begin with or had gone through digitization en
                  route to the LP, which in practice always was confirmed. Then I
                  would not review the recording or, if it was sufficiently
                  interesting musically and sonically, I would review it but I would
                  say it was from digital sources.

                  I found it interesting in this context to watch other vinyl
                  reviewers for other organizations ,often people who claimed that
                  digital was unlistenable and made your hair fall out or whatever,
                  review such items without noticing that the recording was in fact
                  digitally sourced. Often they praised the digitally-sourced items as
                  prime examples of the wonders of analogue.

                  This sort of thing makes one think. Anyway, it was surely part of my
                  education in the ways of audio.

                  REG


                • Richard Tuck
                  Hi Uli Much as I admire other Izotrope products, I think this is one for gallery of useless inventions. Richard _____ From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
                    Hi Uli
                     
                    Much as I admire other Izotrope products, I think this is one for gallery of useless inventions.
                     
                    Richard


                    From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Uli Brueggemann
                    Sent: 01 November 2008 09:52
                    To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] SACD and CD

                    I always dream of a direct comparison test between a digital source and a turntable where the listeners would see either running the CD player by the remote control or the turntable by manual positioning of the pickup on the LP.
                    But in fact in both cases simply the digital music should be played, maybe in case of the turntable the digital playback fooled by a software like http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/

                    I'm always wondering how many people would praise the advantages of analog playback as a result of such a test :)

                    Uli

                    On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Robert Greene <regonaudio@...> wrote:


                    One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to
                    do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium
                    has a high dynamic range, one can leave more headroom
                    for unexpectedly loud moments in, e.g., live recordings
                    where you have only one take, perhaps.
                    When you go to make the finished product, you can "peak bit"
                    the result but when recording you cannot a priori, since
                    you have no really exact idea of what the peak level is going to be.

                    Re: formats in general

                    Back when I was reviewing vinyl in my "On the record/For the record"
                    columns in TAS, I used to get occasionally vinyl for review that
                    seemed to me on sonic grounds more or less obviously to come from
                    digital tapes, without anyone saying so on the cover or anything.
                    I would then ask the manufacturer to confirm that the tape was
                    either digital to begin with or had gone through digitization en
                    route to the LP, which in practice always was confirmed. Then I
                    would not review the recording or, if it was sufficiently
                    interesting musically and sonically, I would review it but I would
                    say it was from digital sources.

                    I found it interesting in this context to watch other vinyl
                    reviewers for other organizations ,often people who claimed that
                    digital was unlistenable and made your hair fall out or whatever,
                    review such items without noticing that the recording was in fact
                    digitally sourced. Often they praised the digitally-sourced items as
                    prime examples of the wonders of analogue.

                    This sort of thing makes one think. Anyway, it was surely part of my
                    education in the ways of audio.

                    REG


                  • Fred
                    Anybody try that Winamp upsampling plugin I mentioned? ________________________________ From: Richard Tuck To:
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 1, 2008
                      Anybody try that Winamp upsampling plugin I mentioned?


                      From: Richard Tuck <rtuck@...>
                      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, 1 November, 2008 20:46:07
                      Subject: RE: [regsaudioforum] SACD and CD

                      Hi Uli
                       
                      Much as I admire other Izotrope products, I think this is one for gallery of useless inventions.
                       
                      Richard


                      From: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:regsaudiofo rum@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Uli Brueggemann
                      Sent: 01 November 2008 09:52
                      To: regsaudioforum@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] SACD and CD

                      I always dream of a direct comparison test between a digital source and a turntable where the listeners would see either running the CD player by the remote control or the turntable by manual positioning of the pickup on the LP.
                      But in fact in both cases simply the digital music should be played, maybe in case of the turntable the digital playback fooled by a software like http://www.izotope. com/products/ audio/vinyl/

                      I'm always wondering how many people would praise the advantages of analog playback as a result of such a test :)

                      Uli

                      On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Robert Greene <regonaudio@aol. com> wrote:


                      One of the main points of higher bit rate digital has to
                      do with ease of recording, rather than playback. If a medium
                      has a high dynamic range, one can leave more headroom
                      for unexpectedly loud moments in, e.g., live recordings
                      where you have only one take, perhaps.
                      When you go to make the finished product, you can "peak bit"
                      the result but when recording you cannot a priori, since
                      you have no really exact idea of what the peak level is going to be.

                      Re: formats in general

                      Back when I was reviewing vinyl in my "On the record/For the record"
                      columns in TAS, I used to get occasionally vinyl for review that
                      seemed to me on sonic grounds more or less obviously to come from
                      digital tapes, without anyone saying so on the cover or anything.
                      I would then ask the manufacturer to confirm that the tape was
                      either digital to begin with or had gone through digitization en
                      route to the LP, which in practice always was confirmed. Then I
                      would not review the recording or, if it was sufficiently
                      interesting musically and sonically, I would review it but I would
                      say it was from digital sources.

                      I found it interesting in this context to watch other vinyl
                      reviewers for other organizations ,often people who claimed that
                      digital was unlistenable and made your hair fall out or whatever,
                      review such items without noticing that the recording was in fact
                      digitally sourced. Often they praised the digitally-sourced items as
                      prime examples of the wonders of analogue.

                      This sort of thing makes one think. Anyway, it was surely part of my
                      education in the ways of audio.

                      REG



                    • charles452003
                      RE: WFMT Chicago and radio in general. While the noise levels reproduced are different, most of the programing that is prerecorded is all digiitized via a PC D
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 2, 2008
                        RE: WFMT Chicago and radio in general.
                        While the noise levels reproduced are different, most of the programing
                        that is prerecorded is all digiitized via a PC D to A converter card.
                        And then all of that is sent via microwave to the downtown transmitter.
                        So, the analogue days of prominent stations in major markets having an
                        analogue line to there transmitter (spec. WFMT) are bascially gone.
                        And they have been using Technics direct drive turntables with as I
                        remember a single post arm (perhaps an Audio Technica) for many years,
                        no longer an SME. And as I remember, the arm was not mounted
                        correctly. And by now they may have the entire library digitized,
                        since all the program host would do is use a touch screen
                        to select the next number from the program directors list.
                        Analogue is dead at all major stations. At the Clear Channels studio,
                        the audio boards are all more like digital workstations. No real audio
                        in them. That is all at the equipment rack.

                        Norm
                      • Tom Mallin
                        What you are saying about radio stations these days may generally be true, but WFMT is not that automated. You can frequently hear the announcers fiddling
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 3, 2008
                          What you are saying about radio stations these days may generally be true, but WFMT is not that automated.  You can frequently hear the announcers fiddling with CD cases.  There are occasional battles with CD players which get hung up on a particular balky CD and refuse to play past a certain point.  Sometimes the announcer will interject an apology and attempt to fix the problem with that machine or try playing the CD in another machine, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.  There are also occasional mistakes where the host announces what he is playing next and the music starts, then stops again because the announcer or machine made a  mistake in programming the track and what started to play was not what was intended.  If the station were as automated as you say, this stuff would all be edited out.  Also, members of the WFMT Fine Arts Circle (who provided nearly half of the station's financial support) often have an opportunity to tour the studios and meet the hosts and sit in the control rooms with the hosts while they are live on the air. 

                          >>> ncrelich@... 11/2/2008 2:04 PM >>>
                          RE: WFMT Chicago and radio in general.
                          While the noise levels reproduced are different, most of the programing
                          that is prerecorded is all digiitized via a PC D to A converter card.
                          And then all of that is sent via microwave to the downtown transmitter.
                          So, the analogue days of prominent stations in major markets having an
                          analogue line to there transmitter (spec. WFMT) are bascially gone.
                          And they have been using Technics direct drive turntables with as I
                          remember a single post arm (perhaps an Audio Technica) for many years,
                          no longer an SME.  And as I remember, the arm was not mounted
                          correctly.  And by now they may have the entire library digitized,
                          since all the program host would do is use a touch screen
                          to select the next number from the program directors list.
                          Analogue is dead at all major stations.  At the Clear Channels studio,
                          the audio boards are all more like digital workstations. No real audio
                          in them.  That is all at the equipment rack.

                          Norm



                          ------------------------------------

                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/

                          <*> Your email settings:
                              Individual Email | Traditional

                          <*> To change settings online go to:
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/join
                              (Yahoo! ID required)

                          <*> To change settings via email:
                              mailto:regsaudioforum-digest@yahoogroups.com
                              mailto:regsaudioforum-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              regsaudioforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                        • charles452003
                          WFMT autiomation. while its been 2 or 3 years since my last visit, I don t think they have dropped all the automation. The chief engineers long term goal at
                          Message 12 of 12 , Nov 9, 2008
                            WFMT autiomation.
                            while its been 2 or 3 years since my last visit, I don't think
                            they have dropped all the automation. The chief engineers long term
                            goal at that time was to have there entire library avaialble on the
                            touch screen. And the program director really has the say so for
                            regular programming, excluding the syndicated Midnight show which is
                            taped live in the daytime and rebroadcast, or the Midnight Special
                            Program which is also generally pretaped and programmed by the host.
                            So, the host just hits the item on the touch screen that is already
                            in the computer as programmed by the program director. A friend of
                            mine who is the chief engineer at WLS AM and FM, our local ABC
                            station, has told me several years ago that all the songs that are
                            played at their station , are also played from the computer. Once
                            they are in the computer, he does not have to worry about errant CD
                            players. And this is the standard in the
                            industry these days for major stations. Though WXRT,a CBS Disney
                            station as is WLS, has been an exception for many years, who knows
                            if they won't also begin to put the songs on the computer with the
                            moving of their studio from the original location at 4949 w. Belmont.
                            Norm
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.