Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Supposed 96/24 track compared to my own vinyl transcription
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supposed 96/24 track compared to my own vinyl transcription

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

I am sure this is going to be up for debate, but that's one thing that makes this interest... interesting. I bought Pat Metheny KIN in 96/24 from HDtracks.com. Here is a specro and chart from the first track.

 

 

And here is the same track from my vinyl transcription

 

 

My system is as follows:

 

Benz Micro Ruby 2 -> Linn Ittok LVII / Oracle Delphi mk 2 -> VTA PH15 with crazy high end parts -> dbx 386 ADC -> macbook pro / audacity -> adobe audition noise reduction

 

It's not ultra amazing but its not a bad system. I go to 96/24 and I wish I could share the results with you. are you allowed to post any short length of a recording for education purposes? If so I can post some of my transcription compared to the HDTracks.

 

You can see there is "some" information in the HD part of the spectrum. There is more in the vinyl transcription. I think the spectrogram is also picking up the non-linearity of the cartridge, with a dip around 18-20k.

 

I have my concerns about the HDTracks versions but it looks like there is consistency with energy up to about 28k, so 56k sample rate. I am not sure what to make of it. Other 96/24 tracks that are not mis- advertised, show more like in the vinyl transcription. with more energy well in the HD zone (as it were). 

 

I do have many examples of 96/24 purchases from HDTracks which are not 94/24 based on the same analysis. 

post #2 of 5

Fascinating post!  If the mods permit it, I would certainly be interested in hearing some comparative samples - as well as some of the live recordings you made as referenced in the flac thread!

post #3 of 5
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
 

Fascinating post!  If the mods permit it, I would certainly be interested in hearing some comparative samples - as well as some of the live recordings you made as referenced in the flac thread!

 

According to Section 107 of the Copyright Fair Use clause, its not copyright infringement if the copyrighted material is used for reporting, teaching and research use. So I think its fine to post clips of music in this context. its not about the music but rather research and learning and reporting on findings in the digital encoding of the music.

 

I can't find anything on the forum for rules about this. so i will leave the thread for a few days and and if no one posts to the contrary, I will post some clips for comparison of data quality under Fair Use.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

post #4 of 5

Unless there is a new mastering version using the original analog tape, where should any information in freq. above 20kHz come from? If an early generation digital master 16/44.1 with a filter cut off any information above that, there can't be any algorithm to make 0 information into something when up sampling to supposedly latest technology hirez file.

 

If a new recording is using the latest technology equipment, I could see possible advantages with higher rez formats. If the original recoding is "historic" then there is no point of going beyond 16/44 unless the orig. tapes are still in good shape.

 

For me the selection of the right mikes for the purpose and their positioning in the session room is much more important than how many bits. If the lowly 16 Redbook bits are really maxed out and not 4 bits wasted on headroom, this can sound absolutely excellent. The new higher bit rate equipment is now able to record what a 15ips open real machine "running hot" (like +3db) was able to capture.

Some VTL recordings (e.g. Karen Knowles "Moonglow" ) do sound absolutely fantastic. Similar like some Mapleshade Audio recordings. Fully authentic live session feeling.

 

I recently tried to turn down the volume on my e20 DAC to the lowest level where I could still hear something - not recognizable but different from nothing that was around -80db. (on Sennheiser HD800). Max level that I find not threatening to my ear drums is like -10db. So basically I have a usable dynamic range of 70db. Every discussion about dynamic ranges above 100db and theoretical advantages is pure marketing BS in my book. Just my $0.02.


Edited by icebear - 4/23/14 at 12:26pm
post #5 of 5
Thread Starter 

This is a new release from Pat Metheny, earlier this year (2014). It was likely recorded in 96/24 to 384/32 depending on the studio. I doubt it's analogue, there are very few artists still using analogue. although a well tuned recorder at 30 ips can record out to 30kHz and gentle slope down from there. I am not sure why the 96/24 flac from HDTracks has so much less ultrasonic energy. Possible ultrasonic distortion? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Supposed 96/24 track compared to my own vinyl transcription