Say, I have heard many times, even by some "Gurus" that doing music about the "Loudness War", and they say that when we all be moving to 24/96 it won't be a problem cause there will be much more "space" for the dynamic, so even if the sound it more compress, it still be good.

What do you think about it? and that claim ?

Quote:



I think the whole point of the G-man's post was directed at things like the "loudness war". Why would a recording company artificially "louden" a record anyway? There as absolutely no point to it, as if I wanted loud music, I'd crank my volume knob. If there was no "loudening" we would not need to switch in the first place!

I am with you here !
I hate this all LOUDNESS things, but like I have said, many claim that by going to 24/96 it will have less problems and no clipping and so on, is it true or what ?!

And why all the "hype" over 24/96 if it doesn't matter ? and does it matter when it come to transfer a Vnyil to a PC music file ? (like FLAC)

Yes, it would probably reduce clipping of (the bass frequencies of) "loudened" records. But again, why louden in the first place? 24/96 in this case would be a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

There is a lot of hype over things that don't really matter
eg. fast cars. I don't really care about fast cars, as I can't go over 110km/h on a highway. =/
Okay, that was a bad example.

fwiw, I don't know how going to 24/96 versus 16/44.1 is going to make any difference with respect to loudness. Loudness is compressing the dynamic range of the record so that it sounds good over the radio, iirc. I don't see how going to a format that has greater dynamic range is going to make any difference to this whatsoever. I mean, if they're already compressing the dynamic range below the theoretical maximum dynamic range of a CD already, what possible benefit can there be?

I am with you here dude, I HATE when my music it to loud from the record, I think now days almost every thing is bad at music when it comes to final production.

But still, I just wonder if 24/96 will make it better/

clutz, I don't know what you're referring to when you say compress. Maybe my terminology is bad.

Loudness war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me like the waveforms are just boosted.
EDIT: just re-read wikipedia, you're right, I'm confused.

clutz: I guess in an ideal world, people would feel less of a need to destroy their music to get them sounding loud because there is the potential for it to be louder already.
Likely it wouldnt make much a difference because the source material we receive would still be crap.

Quote:



Why would anyone feel less of a need to compress dynamic range when they already compress it to 1/10th what redbook can handle?

Quote:



24/96 won't help with a "loud" production because that extra headroom will be an insane amount lower than the average volume of the music. The album would be just as compressed, any buzzy bass notes would still be there (much louder than the noise floor of the CD already), etc. These things aren't caused by the limitations of 44/16 audio. They are conscious choices by an engineer trying to please a client.

The thing that really gets me is the loud remasters! It's kind of hard to believe it is the vision of the artist when the artist released the same album 30 years early and it was 80% softer with louder snare drums and less bass! But how is one supposed to decide which artist to listen to based on the quality of the production? It gets to the point where you just aren't buying music anymore, but the kiddies are still buying their itunes.

http://patches.sonic.com/pdf/white-p..._dvd_audio.pdf





Quote:



coz each time you drop 6dB, you lose 1bit ?
very low music would be 8bit
of course that's a worst case scenario, and no excuse for the loudness war.
Quote:



the lower the resolution/sampling freq, the more audible the crackles...at least from my tests, don't shoot

I understand what you're saying, but my point was, if they're doing it with redbook, they'd still do it even if they have more potential than redbook.

Edit: The charts you posted are an argument for 96 vs 44 not 24 vs 16 if I've read this thread correctly.

all they say is that an higher fidelity can be achieved by increasing either the sampling freq, the resolution or both.

this is a white paper on DVD-A from Sonic, not exactly your average marketing clowns...but what do they know..

Quote:



Second that.

R2R sounds right to my ear.

Honestly, I tried to hang with the OP and some of his more vocal fellows-in-thread ... but they lost me very quickly.

Bottom line and from a simpleton?

A digital recording is PRODUCED (point of origin and what not) with only so much data inherent to the recording ...

Any affectations to that orignal recording, oversampling, upsampling, etc. is just effect ... it's just an attempt to adjust or manipulate the originally recorded data ... whether that sounds better or not to one's ear is the same as whether the use of an EQ improves the sound to one's ear or not ...

Myself?

I prefer to listen at the same bit depth and sample rate that the recording was made at.

Therefore, I use a R2R DAC design for my digital translation (MHDT Labs Havana) ...

Compared to listening through my soundcards DAC (Prelude) or my CD Player's DAC (Sony) ... the Havana is much more relaxed and natural and analogue sounding.

...

Quote:



agreed, from my experience they all add distortion and make the sound brighter
I fix my phones resonances w/ some EQ though, but in 32float and then dither down to 24...but still in 44.1Khz

sinc upsampling is terribly bright...I don't quite understand why they enforce it in this EQ plugin :
Refined Audiometrics Laboratory