24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

[theaudiologist1]

Most releases are DVD or blu-ray, not SACD any more.

1. You seem to consistently overlook the fact that this is the Sound Science subforum and science does NOT allow exaggeration! We can be a bit more forgiving here than science allows but still your assertions either need to be accurate (NOT exaggerated) to start with or you need to qualify your assertion; as a guess, opinion or a possible/probable exaggeration.
1a. Rock music is ALWAYS compressed and with say classical music, a release with a dynamic range of less than about DR20 probably means it's compressed. Although of course that depends on the piece and it's orchestration, an unaccompanied piano obviously doesn't have the same dynamic range as a full symphony orchestra. The question is therefore not if it's compressed but compressed by how much and whether it's an inappropriate amount? And that depends on the genre and individual composition. Again, DR6 is not "just bad", it may represent an appropriate amount of compression for some pieces, although probably relatively few.

2. Within in the range of human hearing, the highest resolution possible is 16/44 and "Hi-res" is nothing more than an invented audiophile marketing term. As such, it can mean pretty much anything any company (or audiophile) wants it to mean. Upsampled 16/44 is therefore "Hi-res", even a terrible old cassette tape from the 1970's, where the music is barely recognizable due to signal loss and hiss, could legitimately be described as "Hi-res" if you digitized it at say 24/96. So, pretty much anything goes, which is great if you're a distributor who wants to be able to sell a wide catalogue of "hi-res" material (at inflated prices)!

3. Just about every mix of the last 60+ years is a downmix, that's what the term "to mix" means; to mix channels together to end up with fewer output channels. It makes logical sense to start with the mix going to the most output channels and work your way down to the fewest (2 channel stereo), as it takes far less time and gives more consistent results than the other way around. There maybe some special case exceptions but that's the workflow in the vast majority of cases. I would be very surprised (though I don't know for certain) if there were not at least some stereo versions that were just automated downmixes from the multichannel original. When I work on multichannel and stereo versions I start with an automated mixdown from the multichannel, very occasionally that works perfectly, most of the time it works perfectly with a number of tweaks and very occasionally an almost complete remix is necessary.

G

1)I wasn't against all compression. I was against BRICKWALLING A SONG TO DEATH. If a rock or metal release had a CD in the 80s-early 90s it usually had a dynamic range of 10+, and the same release "remastered" now gets a dynamic range of 5-6. THAT IS BRICKWALLING. It will usually sound worse and more fatuiging than the original. In the case of rock, if a song has a DR of less than 10 and the original had a high DR, it will sound overcompressed.

2) That is true, but that doesn't mean you can sell someone a 16/44.1 recording, upsample it, anc call it hi-res. All it takes is taking the WAV/FLAC/WV file in Audition or Audacity and checking the frequency cutoff.

3)Aren't the majority of recording out there done in stereo?

 

[bigshot]

The majority of music is stereo.

I judge mixing and mastering by listening to it. A number can't describe what I am able to hear.

 

[71 dB]

1)I wasn't against all compression. I was against BRICKWALLING A SONG TO DEATH. If a rock or metal release had a CD in the 80s-early 90s it usually had a dynamic range of 10+, and the same release "remastered" now gets a dynamic range of 5-6. THAT IS BRICKWALLING. It will usually sound worse and more fatuiging than the original. In the case of rock, if a song has a DR of less than 10 and the original had a high DR, it will sound overcompressed.

I think pretty much everyone agree with this, but as mentioned before in these cases it is often wise to get one of the older and more dynamic releases. If anything, you have the choice between DR10+ and DR6, don't you?

However, newer music is likely to be produced with DR6 in mind rather than DR10+ and that's why it can sound good even at DR6. I think one of the secrets is to play with spectral content: The overall level of the music doesn't vary much, but what happens inside narrow frequency band does. So, if we analyse say the octave band 250-500 Hz, it turns out to be much more dynamic than DR6. Or if we investigate individual tracks many of them have large dynamic range. It just that putting everything together in the mix results in DR6.

Also, rock seems to be the most brickwalled music genre meaning other (originally dynamic) genres are less brickwalled.

2) That is true, but that doesn't mean you can sell someone a 16/44.1 recording, upsample it, anc call it hi-res. All it takes is taking the WAV/FLAC/WV file in Audition or Audacity and checking the frequency cutoff.

They can do that, because placebo effect makes the upsampled version sound better for audiophools.

3) Aren't the majority of recording out there done in stereo?

Depends on the genre I guess. Popular music tends to favour stereo while classical music productions do a lot of multichannel recordings.

 

[Sonic Defender]

1. So does pretty much everyone.

2. Any half decent BR player should do the job perfectly, assuming you're outputting the digital signal to a DAC. A BR player is obviously more future proof than a DVD player but you'd need an AVR to take advantage of all the audio formats that BR supports.

G

1. Yes I know, DACs have been able to be audibly transparent probably back in the mid 80s.

2. I am not interested in full audio format coverage, I would be only bothering with basic audio recordings, not worried about the whole coverage thing for formats.

 

[bigshot]

Most blu-ray players play most formats. The two that they may or may not play are SACD and DVD-A. Sony makes blu-ray players that play those audio formats.

 

[Davesrose]

Most blu-ray players play most formats. The two that they may or may not play are SACD and DVD-A. Sony makes blu-ray players that play those audio formats.

Or if all you're concerned about is audio transports (for stereo DAC), there are DVD players that fit that bill. I have an Oppo DVD player (upscaling HDMI DVD player) plugged into my DAC for handling CDs and SACDs. Can also handle DVD-A obviously. With SACD, it's converting to PCM for digital output. I also have an Oppo blu-ray player attached to my home theater setup that's serving for multi-channel SACD and region free blu-ray (though it's a pain that I have to switch my HDMI option in my 4K receiver to not have extended color space). Anyway, just bringing this up as used DVD players like my Oppo should be a cheap option for universal audio transport (unless you are one of the ones bent on digital DSD output). I'm also a cinephile, and have found blu-ray or new UHD blu-ray players are more for audio formats carried via HDMI for multi-channel surround sound.

 

[bigshot]

A standard DVD player can't access the lossless DVD-A tracks, only the compressed standard ones.

 

[gregorio]

1)I wasn't against all compression. I was against BRICKWALLING A SONG TO DEATH. [1a] In the case of rock, if a song has a DR of less than 10 and the original had a high DR, it will sound overcompressed.

2) That is true, but that doesn't mean you can sell someone a 16/44.1 recording, upsample it, anc call it hi-res.

3)Aren't the majority of recording out there done in stereo?

1. Who isn't against "brickwalling a song to death"? The problem is that's it's difficult to define what "to death" means, it's different for different songs/genres and in different listening environments.
1a. Now you're qualifying your assertion, "in the case of rock" and if the "original had a high DR", that's quite different from a blanket assertion that anything with DR10 or less is garbage.

2. Unfortunately, that's exactly what it means! There's no law or rule against it, the only thing that would likely stop them is the opinion of the vast majority of their customers but even that's not required or guaranteed.

3. No, virtually no recordings are recorded with just a stereo mic/pair, they are recorded with multiple mics which have to be mixed down to the distribution formats. Most commercial music is mixed down to stereo and no other distribution format but as mentioned, there are exceptions: Classical music is more likely to be mixed down to a multichannel format as well as stereo, EDM and other dance music is usually mixed to both stereo and mono and all genres of music destined for use in film and TV are usually multichannel.

G

 

[Sonic Defender]

A standard DVD player can't access the lossless DVD-A tracks, only the compressed standard ones.

Are there quite a few albums that have been put on DVD-A or are you mostly thinking about concerts and the like?

 

[Sonic Defender]

Or if all you're concerned about is audio transports (for stereo DAC), there are DVD players that fit that bill. I have an Oppo DVD player (upscaling HDMI DVD player) plugged into my DAC for handling CDs and SACDs. Can also handle DVD-A obviously. With SACD, it's converting to PCM for digital output. I also have an Oppo blu-ray player attached to my home theater setup that's serving for multi-channel SACD and region free blu-ray (though it's a pain that I have to switch my HDMI option in my 4K receiver to not have extended color space). Anyway, just bringing this up as used DVD players like my Oppo should be a cheap option for universal audio transport (unless you are one of the ones bent on digital DSD output). I'm also a cinephile, and have found blu-ray or new UHD blu-ray players are more for audio formats carried via HDMI for multi-channel surround sound.

Thank you, my brother has one of the Oppo's, probably 10 years old now, but still pretty darn good sound, generally speaking. I know that it was one model below another and you had to step up to the $1000 model one above his at the time to get a Sabre DAC section. Are Oppo still making any of their players or are they all from the used, or old new stock marketplace?

 

[bigshot]

DVD-A isn’t used a lot, but there are still multichannel mixes being released in the format. Steven Wilson’s prog rock multichannel releases are on DVD-A. (Yes, XTC, Jethro Tull, etc.)

Oppo has stopped making players. Sony makes a high end machine that is comparable.

 

[Sonic Defender]

DVD-A isn’t used a lot, but there are still multichannel mixes being released in the format. Steven Wilson’s prog rock multichannel releases are on DVD-A. (Yes, XTC, Jethro Tull, etc.)

Oppo has stopped making players. Sony makes a high end machine that is comparable.

Thank you. Cheers.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Sounds like it would be a huge waste of money to get a player unless movies were important to me and they really aren't. I can't imagine why anyone would pay the prices that are being asked to buy current movies. Some of the prices are outrageous and certainly for somebody like me who only watches movies once, maybe twice, far better to pay for single stream rentals.

Down the road I will look into things if my needs change.

 

[71 dB]

Sounds like it would be a huge waste of money to get a player unless movies were important to me and they really aren't. I can't imagine why anyone would pay the prices that are being asked to buy current movies. Some of the prices are outrageous and certainly for somebody like me who only watches movies once, maybe twice, far better to pay for single stream rentals.

Down the road I will look into things if my needs change.

What kind of prices are you talking about? Sure, new 4K UHD releases are very expensive, but I am into Blu-rays which to my eyes and on my small tv screen give perfect picture if the release is good. Blu-rays can also be pricy when released, but they tend to get cheaper fast, at least the movies targeted to masses. Some movies can be ridiculously expensive. This year I have spend about 30 euros (about $35) for two Blu-rays of French movies: Les Parapluies de Cherbourg and Irréversible. On the other hand I buy other Blu-rays much cheap (e.g. 3 or 4 Blu-rays for 20 euros ($24)).

 

[Sonic Defender]

What kind of prices are you talking about? Sure, new 4K UHD releases are very expensive, but I am into Blu-rays which to my eyes and on my small tv screen give perfect picture if the release is good. Blu-rays can also be pricy when released, but they tend to get cheaper fast, at least the movies targeted to masses. Some movies can be ridiculously expensive. This year I have spend about 30 euros (about $35) for two Blu-rays of French movies: Les Parapluies de Cherbourg and Irréversible. On the other hand I buy other Blu-rays much cheap (e.g. 3 or 4 Blu-rays for 20 euros ($24)).

Way to expensive for me. I have zero interest in collecting movies and the few people I know who have gone down that rabbit hole have eventually regretted how much room they took and how much money went into the collection. I see people liquidating their once prized collections at yard sales for pennies on the dollar so it keeps my desire to collect movies down to zero.

This isn't directed at you 71 dB. I think that some people amass these big movie collections and build a theatre believing that friends and family want to come over and spend their time in a room watching a movie, probably played too loud and with the host pausing to alert them to this great effect coming up that they just have to see and hear, or asking what they think of the video and sound quality. The guests politely agree and on their drive home talk about how into the gear the host was and that next time they should suggest maybe a quieter evening where people actually talk.

For me, the very last thing I would ever want to do when I am in a social setting that isn't a movie theatre, is watch a movie. I can watch television and movies anytime and when I do get together with friends I prefer talking or playing cards, movie watching is not very social and it makes people quiet and sleepy. Again, these are just my opinions, nothing more, nothing less. An exception of course is being at home with your partner. Once you're no longer in that lusty phase what better way to kill off the time than staring at a screen until bed?