[kova4a]

Not true. Watch this (great info anyway), 10K-12K max compared to about 22K. We aren't meant to hear the recording media noise if reproducing the live session

You're mixing up dynamic range with frequency response. The dynamic range compression was introduced in the so-called loundness wars in order to make stuff sound louder on the crappy audio gear that the average consumer uses and is continuing to this date. It has nothing to do with the resolution of the file or anything.
A visual example is what HDR does in photography

When you have low dynamic range in audio you lose all micro details and everything sounds compressed and unrealistic. And that's a major issue in digital audio as you have hdtracks, tidal hi-res and a whole new emerging industry pushing you more expensive content that has no benefits compared to a standard CD. It sounds exactly the same because the compression during the mastering has ruined the audio information inside that could benefit a 24-bit playback - It can't be recovered.
And that's why a lot of people still hang on to stuff like vinyl - not hipsters but actual audiophiles who know their stuff and can't stand crappy audio being presented as the greatest thing ever.

 

[psikey]

You're mixing up dynamic range with frequency response. The dynamic range compression was introduced in the so-called loundness wars in order to make stuff sound louder on the crappy audio gear that the average consumer uses and is continuing to this date. It has nothing to do with the resolution of the file or anything.
A visual example is what HDR does in photography

When you have low dynamic range in audio you lose all micro details and everything sounds compressed and unrealistic. And that's a major issue in digital audio as you have hdtracks, tidal hi-res and a whole new emerging industry pushing you more expensive content that has no benefits compared to a standard CD. It sounds exactly the same because the compression during the mastering has ruined the audio information inside that could benefit a 24-bit playback - It can't be recovered.

No I'm not. You've not had chance to watch the hour long video. Audio dynamic range between tape/vinyl/digital is covered about half way through. Watch it first then convince me otherwise about real audio range on tape/vinyl.

He clearly states that a digital copy of a vinyl master is never going to be better than the original analogue master. You have to record at 24/96 or higher and keep that through the whole chain.

He has a big issue with the whole HD audio sphere due to the standard not defining the original source quality or even software, just hardware. Only the Japanese standard is along the correct lines.

 

[abitdeef]

Oh dear, strap that turntable and amp to your head and get back to me.

And the way stuff is mastered, well- well mastered stuff sounds amazing on digital equipment because it's well mastered. You're talking about mastering, not the delivery method.

Lots of wells there, we don't have to worry about going thirsty.
.

 

[psikey]

Oh dear, strap that turntable and amp to your head and get back to me.

And the way stuff is mastered, well- well mastered stuff sounds amazing on digital equipment because it's well mastered. You're talking about mastering, not the delivery method.

Lots of wells there, we don't have to worry about going thirsty.
.

If I recall from the video, one album he does mention as a true 24/96 Digital recording to Master transfer is the new James Taylor Album - Before This World

Not MQA on Tidal but is 24/96 on Amazon HD. Sounds great on the A105 even with that down playing the 24/96 to 24/48. And even then its not got much great dynamic range than the CD version.

Produced, engineered, and mixed the project using 96 kHz/24-bit PCM to a Pro Tools rig. The whole project was kept at 96/24 until the mastering stage

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=4904

 

[kova4a]

No I'm not. You've not had chance to watch the hour long video. Audio dynamic range between tape/vinyl/digital is covered about half way through. Watch it first then convince me otherwise about real audio range on tape/vinyl.

He clearly states that a digital copy of a vinyl master is never going to be better than the original analogue master. You have to record at 24/96 or higher and keep that through the whole chain.

He has a big issue with the whole HD audio sphere due to the standard not defining the original source quality or even software, just hardware. Only the Japanese standard is along the correct lines.

Again - you are misunderstanding me. I watched the video. I'm not arguing of the benefits of hi-res audio on paper and the potential dynamic range it can have. It does all that. But the reality is that the music you get pushed on tidal as hi-res and the hi-res files you buy from online stores doesn't get those benefits because the master quality is crap regardless of its bit rate. And for some odd reason a lot of the vinyl rips use different less compressed source and you end up with a lot better audio quality on vinyl.
That's a problem with the industry - the music producers, studios and such, but it is a fact. So in the end it doesn't matter if 24-bit audio can potentially have 144db if the so-called 24-bit albums released can't even reach 100db and the high-end Sony DAP playing those file can't too.

 

[abitdeef]

If I recall from the video, one album he does mention as a true 24/96 Digital recording to Master transfer is the new James Taylor Album - Before This World

Not MQA on Tidal but is 24/96 on Amazon HD. Sounds great on the A105 even with that down playing the 24/96 to 24/48. And even then its not got much great dynamic range than the CD version.

Produced, engineered, and mixed the project using 96 kHz/24-bit PCM to a Pro Tools rig. The whole project was kept at 96/24 until the mastering stage

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=4904

I bet it sounds great.

 

[kova4a]

If I recall from the video, one album he does mention as a true 24/96 Digital recording to Master transfer is the new James Taylor Album - Before This World

Not MQA on Tidal but is 24/96 on Amazon HD. Sounds great on the A105 even with that down playing the 24/96 to 24/48. And even then its not got much great dynamic range than the CD version.

Produced, engineered, and mixed the project using 96 kHz/24-bit PCM to a Pro Tools rig. The whole project was kept at 96/24 until the mastering stage

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=4904

That's not a good mastered album but it is decent and still compare that to the vinyl. Vinyl - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/92491. 24/96 "hi-res" - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/90819
And in most case the difference is even bigger

 

[psikey]

Again - you are misunderstanding me. I watched the video. I'm not arguing of the benefits of hi-res audio on paper and the potential dynamic range it can have. It does all that. But the reality is that the music you get pushed on tidal as hi-res and the hi-res files you buy from online stores doesn't get those benefits because the master quality is crap regardless of its bit rate. And for some odd reason a lot of the vinyl rips use different less compressed source and you end up with a lot better audio quality on vinyl.
That's a problem with the industry - the music producers, studios and such, but it is a fact. So in the end it doesn't matter if 24-bit audio can potentially have 144db if the so-called 24-bit albums released can't even reach 100db and the high-end Sony DAP playing those file can't too.

So when this decades experienced Music Engineer & producer says to someone in the audience that your never going to get the wide dynamic range of pure digital in an analogue tape/vinyl he's lying? This guy even produces the go-to reference files that people use to demo their kits dynamic range?

He does say producers do limit dynamic range when Mastering for modern music as that's what the masses want. To experience a real broad dynamic range listen to a 24/96 classical piece or jazz recorded at 24/96 and maintained through the chain.

In the table I linked he's showing range at 25.7 and 24 used not:

Track DR 12 11 11 12 14 12 12 11 12 11

Who to believe ?

 

[kova4a]

So when this decades experienced Music Engineer & producer says to someone in the audience that your never going to get the wide dynamic range of pure digital in an analogue tape/vinyl he's lying? This guy is even produces the go-to reference files that people use to demo their kits dynamic range?

Refer to my previous post and no, he is isn't lying, but he's referring to an ideal scenario, but the industry doesn't work like that. In a perfect world Chesky Records would be recording all music in the world with binaural microphones and high dynamic range but sadly this will never happen.

 

[psikey]

Refer to my previous post and no, he is isn't lying, but he's referring to an ideal scenario, but the industry doesn't work like that. In a perfect world Chesky Records would be recording all music in the world with binaural microphones and high dynamic range but sadly this will never happen.

I added a bit above, what the explanation of that ?

So, the statement that tape/vinyl can never deliver the higher dynamic range of well recorded/mastered digital is true.

 

[psikey]

Refer to my previous post and no, he is isn't lying, but he's referring to an ideal scenario, but the industry doesn't work like that. In a perfect world Chesky Records would be recording all music in the world with binaural microphones and high dynamic range but sadly this will never happen.

Also, don't take this the wrong way as not intended, but what's your background in the Sound Engineering or Music production industry? When I'm getting conflicting info I need to understand the persons credentials. This guy seems well qualified/experienced to know.

We aren't at odds on the quality of the recording or what they then do in Mastering, but analogue storage media cannot resolve as large a dynamic range as a 24/96 lossless digital file.

It was interesting when he refered to the Beatles Master tape that had been used that many times that lost track detail due to iron loss with wear & tear and had to recover detail back from the failsafe master backup.

It is true that an original old Vinyl can sound better if the newer digital copies have been badly produced. No argument there.

 

[kova4a]

I added a bit above, what the explanation of that ?

So, the statement that tape/vinyl can never deliver the higher dynamic range of well recorded/mastered digital is true.

What you see on dr.loudness-war.info is the RMS amplitude. The article you linked is not wrong though, I guess there can be some variations depending on the measuring equipment, but in fact the hi-res release is a couple of db better than the CD as reported: CD - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/134932; 24/96 - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/90819. Yet, the vinyl is still better http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/92491. And let's be honest - the CD quality can totally reproduce the dynamic range of the hi-res file but has been mastered differently as also stated in the quoted article, so th higher dynamic range of the hi-res release is bot because it's 24-bit, but because it was mastered differently.

Also, don't take this the wrong way as not intended, but what's your background in the Sound Engineering or Music production industry? When I'm getting conflicting info I need to understand the persons credentials. This guy seems well qualified/experienced to know.

Lol, I'm a lawyer with PhD in Criminology. I've just been in this hobby long enough and have done A-B-C-D comparison between different releases of one and the same albums with different bit-rate and different mastering. The difference between CD quality and hi-res in 99% is almost imperceptible and a bling test can easily demonstrate that. The difference between low and high dynamic range is extremely audible, first of all, because of the sound pressure level as compressed audio always sounds louder and, second, because if volume matched the one with the high dynamic range sounds more balanced and natural with better extension and more details.

Again, the issue here is that the music that's being released on CD, hi-res stores, streaming services, etc. for some reason keeps being very compressed. And for some reason vilyl releases often times use a different master and have better dynamic range. Of course, I can't blame sites like hdtracks and the likes as they just sell what they've been given by the studios, but it most cases you pay premium for the exact same quality as CD or a digital download.

 

[tradyblix]

The difference between CD quality and hi-res in 99% is almost imperceptible and a bling test can easily demonstrate that. .

If you have good enough equipment you can easily tell the difference. The 40th Anniversary walkman is not really good enough to make it as obvious, but I can still notice it even on that device. Saying stuff like Tidal isn't any good because they

dont' use good masters, it goes against what my ears tell me.

Is it enough for me to be able to tell someone what bit rate, sampling frequency or is something MQA or not on a blind ABX test ? Probably not. But that does not mean, as detractors constantly try to assert, that it is not there. It's there.

I see these arguments all the time and for years we've had them. There used to be a time where people would assert that you didn't need sampling rates beyond double the nyquist frequency, that redbook audio was the

last word in audio quality, that cassettes were better than CDs, that vinyl was better than digitial audio and always would be, all of that stuff now is kind of absurd, and or changes in the last 10 years to the equipment we have has changed it completely.

I still see it tho - from time to time - people saying stuff like dacs don't make any difference and things like that. Or instead of listening they want to use graphs and technobabble to come up with rationales to support their biases.

Or when I watch video reviews where someone tells me that their bluetooth headphones sound

"as good or better" than wired headphones - even with LDAC it's just not the case. But not everyone has access to the best equipment so it's understandable, and people carry their ideas and biases with them for a long time..

I feel at the moment we are in a golden age of audio reproduction, even just 10 years ago none of the equipment I use was even a thought. The legacy of the past still haunts us on these forums.

Anyway... we are going off topic.

 

[kova4a]

Yeah, we got really off-topic. Everyone can believe and enjoy whatever sees fit. Personally, I was really disappointed with a whole bunch of hi-res releases (as well as remasters of old stuff), so now I don't get anything before it has been measured and proven it has better dynamic range than the standard release. And as I said the bit-rate has nothing to do with the issues in the industry and the poor releases. I'm perfectly happy listening to 24/192 vinyl rips, I just won't pay 30 bucks for a hi-res release pretending to be better than the lossy google play or itunes files.

 

[psikey]

What you see on dr.loudness-war.info is the RMS amplitude. The article you linked is not wrong though, I guess there can be some variations depending on the measuring equipment, but in fact the hi-res release is a couple of db better than the CD as reported: CD - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/134932; 24/96 - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/90819. Yet, the vinyl is still better http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/92491. And let's be honest - the CD quality can totally reproduce the dynamic range of the hi-res file but has been mastered differently as also stated in the quoted article, so th higher dynamic range of the hi-res release is bot because it's 24-bit, but because it was mastered differently.
Lol, I'm a lawyer with PhD in Criminology. I've just been in this hobby long enough and have done A-B-C-D comparison between different releases of one and the same albums with different bit-rate and different mastering. The difference between CD quality and hi-res in 99% is almost imperceptible and a bling test can easily demonstrate that. The difference between low and high dynamic range is extremely audible, first of all, because of the sound pressure level as compressed audio always sounds louder and, second, because if volume matched the one with the high dynamic range sounds more balanced and natural with better extension and more details.

Again, the issue here is that the music that's being released on CD, hi-res stores, streaming services, etc. for some reason keeps being very compressed. And for some reason vilyl releases often times use a different master and have better dynamic range. Of course, I can't blame sites like hdtracks and the likes as they just sell what they've been given by the studios, but it most cases you pay premium for the exact same quality as CD or a digital download.

Thanks, I appreciate what your saying now.