Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit to 16bit, what is the best way to do it ?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24bit to 16bit, what is the best way to do it ?! - Page 3

post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleatoris View Post
Nah, more like AI programming is for a computer scientist, in the eyes of a computer scientist. As a note, most of the comp sci students that I know... Know nothing about computer hardware.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. However, if you feel like following anybody's advice to keep your hands off things you don't understand...

I for one don't care if Gergorio thinks my hobbyist sound-editing occupation be something to sniff at. I'd just be disappointed if he get some more support from people with that low self-confidence and self-esteem.

Quote:
More like how your average consumer who buys a pro-level camera still isn't likely to create pictures appreciably better than what they could with a decent consumer-based camera.
I happen to be interested in photography as well -- and I have a fairly good photo setup, sufficient for ambitious photography. I would have a hard time understanding an approach stating that it isn't a good thing to provide everybody access to (semi-)professional cameras -- and be it just for the sake of a «fair generalization».

Quote:
As I said, it was a fair generalization which, of course, allows for exceptions. There is plenty of room there for the preservation of egos.
You may not know, but the ego (= the self-esteem) is something which needs some support and refreshment now and then -- e.g. from the occupation with a beloved hobby or even a passion resulting in personal successes --, and it's certainly nothing to belittle.
.
post #32 of 43
It's exactly like saying amateur photographers shouldn't have access to pro cameras. Elitist crap.
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
[...]However, if you feel like following anybody's advice to keep your hands off things you don't understand...

[...] I'd just be disappointed if he get some more support from people with that low self-confidence and self-esteem.

[...]I would have a hard time understanding an approach stating that it isn't a good thing to provide everybody access to (semi-)professional cameras -- and be it just for the sake of a «fair generalization».
You are not fairly representing what was said in your replies above. Don't impute meaning than isn't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
You may not know, but the ego (= the self-esteem) is something which needs some support and refreshment now and then -- e.g. from the occupation with a beloved hobby or even a passion resulting in personal successes --, and it's certainly nothing to belittle.
.
I'm hardly belittling the ego. The ego is a precious, sometimes fragile, thing.
post #34 of 43
I am not saying that all of you can't or are unable to learn to use the tools. What I'm saying is the situation is more complex than it appears and that as a hobbyist or amateur you may not have the time available to learn all you need to know and you may not have access to experts who can help to guide your learning.

Think of it like playing chess. There is a certain amount of time required to learn the rules of chess but for most people an hour or less is all that is required. However, understanding how to implement those rules and move your pieces strategically in order to beat opponents is beyond the desire and time constrains of the vast majority and to do it really well may require a lifetime of learning.

The same is true for mixing and mastering. I could quite easily explain the function of each option in a particular processor but explaining how and when to use these options to create or enhance a mix would require an apprenticeship.

There is a great deal of science behind what we do but ultimately mixing and mastering is an art form and the application of the science is only a means to an end. For example, I could tell you to use a certain combination of processors for processing a vocal channel on a particular mix and it might sound great. Use those same processors and settings on a vocal channel in a different mix and you might get a completely different result (good or bad). The sound of every element in a mix is reliant on the sound of every other element in the mix and no two mixes are identical. This is why it's an art form, there is no simple formula for a good mix.

I've been in the business for 25 years and many would consider me an expert. I don't feel like an expert though, because I realize that I've only learned a fraction of what there is to know. I don't doubt, given the time and the environment, that any of you could learn what I have or more. What I question is the average consumer's ability or desire to put in that much effort and to have access to the guided learning and an appropriate environment. There will always be some few that can answer yes to all the above but the vast majority will not and will make mistakes and mis-judgments based on those mistakes.

G
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
I am not saying that all of you can't or are unable to learn to use the tools. What I'm saying is the situation is more complex than it appears and that as a hobbyist or amateur you may not have the time available to learn all you need to know and you may not have access to experts who can help to guide your learning.

Think of it like playing chess. There is a certain amount of time required to learn the rules of chess but for most people an hour or less is all that is required. However, understanding how to implement those rules and move your pieces strategically in order to beat opponents is beyond the desire and time constrains of the vast majority and to do it really well may require a lifetime of learning.

The same is true for mixing and mastering. I could quite easily explain the function of each option in a particular processor but explaining how and when to use these options to create or enhance a mix would require an apprenticeship.

There is a great deal of science behind what we do but ultimately mixing and mastering is an art form and the application of the science is only a means to an end. For example, I could tell you to use a certain combination of processors for processing a vocal channel on a particular mix and it might sound great. Use those same processors and settings on a vocal channel in a different mix and you might get a completely different result (good or bad). The sound of every element in a mix is reliant on the sound of every other element in the mix and no two mixes are identical. This is why it's an art form, there is no simple formula for a good mix.

I've been in the business for 25 years and many would consider me an expert. I don't feel like an expert though, because I realize that I've only learned a fraction of what there is to know. I don't doubt, given the time and the environment, that any of you could learn what I have or more. What I question is the average consumer's ability or desire to put in that much effort and to have access to the guided learning and an appropriate environment. There will always be some few that can answer yes to all the above but the vast majority will not and will make mistakes and mis-judgments based on those mistakes.

G

We are all in the process and we learn through our own experience... and this is why we are here
post #36 of 43
gregorio

so are you saying any pro software will do so long as it is done in the proper fashion?

ie: 24/96 -->16/48 w/ dithering. and no i have no plans to touch the mastering.

i am going to try diamond cut 7 as it seems to be used in vinyl restoration projects.

i don't care about getting pro results, i just want to downsample my high res files in the most simple way with the least amount of fidelity loss.
post #37 of 43
If you're going to a record cutting machine, just use a good 24/96 dac and send analog to the cutter.
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by panda View Post
so are you saying any pro software will do so long as it is done in the proper fashion?
Essentially, yes! The best you can hope for is to test your files using the different tools and settings you have available and see which sounds best to you. It may or may not sound really good once it's cut to vinyl but you will have done the best you can with what you have, can't ask for more than that.

Grawks's advice is also potentially sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post
We are all in the process and we learn through our own experience... and this is why we are here
Very true. In addition, it's worth mentioning that there has been so much learned over the decades that it really helps to have access to an experienced expert once in a while. There are so many tricks and tips that one cannot hope to discover many of them simply through trial and error. A really good system and environment also help with the really fine details.

G
post #39 of 43
in this interview, Jean Michel Jarre says a few interesting things : Jean Michel JARRE, Oxygène 7-13

-that the glassmaster can vary greatly between each factory, and that they are pretty reluctant to send a "Test" CD prior to run the production. When possible they wanna make it from an Exabyte tape because it works much faster than realtime, but is also very prone to digital errors. He also says than even though the U-Matic wasn't as accurate as a premastered CD, it sounded better : U-matic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-in 1996 he was making his masters in 16bit on DAT, and it got off the mastering house in 20(much better than 16 from what he says ). He had a choice between UV-22 Apogee & Sony Super Bit Mapping to dither to 16 and preferred the Sony algorithm.

I'm listening to his 1976 Oxygene Album as I type this, it says "24/96 remastered" on the case...and it sounds really awesome

am I being a victim of loudness war at work

I guess it'd sound better coz they remastered in 24/96 and did some heavy dithering to 16/44.1 as loud as possible to use all the available headroom? I would need to rip the CD and open it in Wavelab or sumthing
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
in this interview, Jean Michel Jarre says a few interesting things : Jean Michel JARRE, Oxygène 7-13

-that the glassmaster can vary greatly between each factory, and that they are pretty reluctant to send a "Test" CD prior to run the production. When possible they wanna make it from an Exabyte tape because it works much faster than realtime, but is also very prone to digital errors. He also says than even though the U-Matic wasn't as accurate as a premastered CD, it sounded better : U-matic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-in 1996 he was making his masters in 16bit on DAT, and it got off the mastering house in 20(much better than 16 from what he says ). He had a choice between UV-22 Apogee & Sony Super Bit Mapping to dither to 16 and preferred the Sony algorithm.

I'm listening to his 1976 Oxygene Album as I type this, it says "24/96 remastered" on the case...and it sounds really awesome

am I being a victim of loudness war at work

I guess it'd sound better coz they remastered in 24/96 and did some heavy dithering to 16/44.1 as loud as possible to use all the available headroom? I would need to rip the CD and open it in Wavelab or sumthing
I used U-Matics once or twice. they could be used in two ways, either to store digital data, in which case it's just data and certainly should not make any difference whatsoever. The other way is to use it as it was designed with the analogue audio tracks. This should have sounded considerably worse than a glass pre-master as the specifications for the audio tracks was really quite poor, not much better than VHS. I don't have much experience with u-matic though so may be there is something I'm missing but more likely there was a problem with the glass master.

UV22 and Sony bit mapping were the main dithering tools used in the mid 90s. By about 97 or 98 much higher quality noise-shaped dither programs became available and both UV22 and the sony bit mapping seemed to die out quite quickly.

As far as the 24/96 remix is concerned, it's difficult to know exactly what has been done. Have they re-recorded the whole thing at 24/96 or is it purely a remix of the original 16/44.1? If it is just a re-mix then all frequencies above about 20kHZ have already been removed and there can be no real benefit to higher sample rates, with the possible exception if they have used some processing which artificially adds additional frequencies, such as an aural exciter but this would not really be noticeable. There would be no benefit of the final master being in 24 bit. Without examining the files and probably having a conversation with the re-mix engineers it is impossible to know exactly what they have done as there are so many possible reasons. There is a good chance that the improvement you are hearing is just because of better limiting (loudness) but it's just as likely to be one or more other factors in addition to the limiting. For example the higher quality of today's digital processors (EQ, echo, compression, automation, etc.).

Sorry I cannot be more definitive.

G
post #41 of 43
so what are the best dithering algorithms these days then?

well I was also talking about the 24/96 remasters from STAX, I've got a few albums in that serie...and they just sound really awesome!

they basically make new transfers from the original 2" mastertapes in 24/96 then remaster them(remove hiss, re-EQ) and use some top-notch dithering to go CDDA....and it shows, the SQ is simply amazing

well at some point I was working in a mastering house for a little while, and we were mostly giving "premaster" CD-R's to our customers...that would be checked for errors and used to create the glassmaster at the mastering house. We were using Sonic Solutions on MAC at this time.

Well I'd guess that reading Exabyte tapes at top speed is like reading a CDDA in burst mode...it's very prone to errors/jitter/etc, and same goes for digital U-Matic?

OTOH I hacked a PC DAT streamer to read audio DAT, it's very fast and very efficient! really great stuff...too bad the best software to do it was on linux, but linux is not that hard and very satisfying when it gives
post #42 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
I used the L2 for quite a few years, it can't be too agressive as it's completely adjustable. I don't think I've heard the UV22HR version but my guess is that at normal listening levels it's indistiguishable from any other professional dither. There must be some other factor at work, levels for example but there are a number of other potential factors.

The world has changed, just a few years ago consumers had no access to hardly any of the tools we used professionally. With all due respect to you and others, I'm not sure that putting professional tools in the hands of consumers is such a great idea. They will generally not have the experience or technical knowledge to apply them to best effect. At the end of the day, all these processes and processors are just tools and as such only provide their expected performance in the hands of a craftsman. I'm not trying to be condescending, just realistic as regardes the vast majority.

G
Well, indeed, the L2 is better and improved technology than the L1. But still, we're in 2009 and L2 is already considered old. I stopped using the L2 a couple years ago. It has the ARC, which is a really great improvement, but it's sound characteristic is what makes it seem aggressive. I just need something more flexible and more transparent. I think the trick here is flexibility and transparency.

Wave just needs to make more of an effort to catch up with the future.
post #43 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acix View Post
Well, indeed, the L2 is better and improved technology than the L1. But still, we're in 2009 and L2 is already considered old. I stopped using the L2 a couple years ago. It has the ARC, which is a really great improvement, but it's sound characteristic is what makes it seem aggressive. I just need something more flexible and more transparent. I think the trick here is flexibility and transparency.

Wave just needs to make more of an effort to catch up with the future.
Well, it's a matter of opinion. I personally find the L2 to be one of the most transparent and flexible of dithering limiters available and it has a great track record with users like Bob Katz. I have found that using more than about 3 or 4dB of gain beyond threashold does start to negatively affect sound quality but I don't use more than this anyway. Fortunately, there are quite a few different professional dithering limiters on the market now so it shouldn't be to difficult to find one with a sonic signature which you do like. I don't know what your monitoring environment is like but of course it will have a massive impact on how you judge the sound quality from mastering limiters.

G
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit to 16bit, what is the best way to do it ?!