[castleofargh]

well the easy way to keep archives was to copy onto newer tapes, but that was not helping the resolution for sure.

 

[Joeybgood]

  Hilarious, LOL

.... it's very simple:
After high rez marketing hype made a lot of consumers buy new DACs capable of 24/96 to 192 or even 32/384, DSD 1234 xyz or what have you, there had to be software on offer to feed all these new gadgets and make the respective LED's light up or displays tell the resolution. And then people were hearing that they got their money's worth

.
 
The classic recordings you mention do sound spectacular already on CD (living stereo, living presence etc.). These are analog recordings and given the age of the tapes, the sound that was captured is just astounding. Unless the orig. master tapes are newly A/D transferred with a higher resolution, then the old "CD master" are just upsampled to make the DAC display say 24/96. Everybody should be able to decide if that's worth paying for or stick with "lowly RB" at 16/44. The age of these tapes makes it very questionable if renewed transfer will give better result than what has been done 20 or 30 years ago. A new mastering of the orig. transfer files might help in certain cases when producers have been over eager to make the CD sound "obviously better than analog". The age of early digititis

. The tapes don't really improve with age. At some point another playback will destroy them completely. What hasn't been archived into a new format already, might be lost at some point.

gotcha.. tks!

 

[twsmith]

As a general comment -- I have a small number of CDs that I also downloaded as hi-res (DSD, PCM) files from various sources.  I perhaps naively concluded that the high res version would sound much better.  I was initially surprised by what I heard but having read through this thread, I shouldn't have.   In almost all instances, I found no (or very little) differences between the 44/16 and higher rez files, and what differences I did hear I attributed to the use of possibly a different master or (vice versa) maybe slight compression of the CD version.   What was even more interesting was that there were several instances where the CD version actually sounded better than the downloaded "hi-res" file -- go figure.   This is not to say that there may be some value in downloading a hi-res file, simply because the mastering may truly be better.   Some of these older CDs (as pointed out here) may have been mastered from analogue tapes using ADC converters that would now be considered obsolete, and then you add in the fact that engineers didn't know how to equalize the masters properly for the digital format.   In some cases, these older CDs have been remastered as new CDs and it is here that I find absolutely no difference in SQ between the CD and hi-res version.  As many have commented, there may be good reasons for studios to use 24 bit and sampling higher the 48 kHz in the initial production and mastering process, but if the downsampling to 44/16 is done properly, I see no advantage to purchasing a higher res version.   Actually my biggest beef with hi-res downloads is the limited repertoire available in this format, especially for those of us whose musical tastes deviate from the norm.  

 

[sonitus mirus]

I'm all for making the CD obsolete and moving all media to 24/96 or better.  What I don't want is for a premium price tag to be placed on whatever format is decided upon.  I know the goal is to try and get everyone to repurchase all of their music again, and it was a great ride for the music industry for several decades, but the Millennials have made it clear that they don't care about anything but convenience.  Being caught in the middle, and armed with the knowledge we have, a few of us are taking advantage of the situation and finding cheap, convenient ways to enjoy tons of music at a great quality for practically nothing.
 
Shuffling through a few thousand LPs and CDs at a local shopping mall's record store 30 years ago, I would have never dreamed of the scenarios we have today with music availability and sound quality.  It's insane...and absolutely wonderful.

 

[RRod]

Well said, sm. The paradigm of the engineers using high specs and the end-user using well-made lossy files is actually quite remarkable. They get more leeway for getting the recording done right, and we get smaller files that sound just as good and that we can stream easily and download as needed.
 
People like to say "oh file sizes don't matter." But consider this scenario: I want to play music constantly at work (where I can't just stream all day or guarantee hard-drive space), 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, ~4 weeks a month. If we suppose that streaming FLAC/ALAC gets you ½ file sizes, then uncompressed 24/192 content would require about 2.6TB of bandwidth for the month. Streaming 256 AAC, on the other hand, would require 147GB. Which one do you think is more viable via mobile streaming + DAP storage? So yes, if there is no audible difference between the 2 why the heck are we so concerned to have the former, especially if we're talking streaming?

 

[sonitus mirus]

When it comes to streaming music, I want the smallest file size that offers transparency.   I stream at work, on my commute, at home, visiting friends or family, at airports, at hotels for business or travel, and practically anywhere I have to park my butt for an extended time.  For me, it has not been about storage needs or even cost.  Granted, I live in Ashburn, Virginia, a cushy suburb of Washington DC, and our internet infrastructure is extremely robust in this region, so others may not have a similar experience, but a working internet connection is more reliable than tap water.  Except for one time when the power was out for a few hours from a nearby lightning strike, I have had constant access to the web and my streaming music for over 5 years.

 

[XenHeadFi]

So yes, if there is no audible difference between the 2 why the heck are we so concerned to have the former, especially if we're talking streaming?

In reference to streaming, I want a codec with the smallest data rate (file size) that is transparent. 256kbit AAC or 64kbit MPQuantum512LAFU, doesn't really matter. Of course when we really get unlimited wireless data (100% wifi coverage), then it won't matter.
 
For my own reference and storage, I want lossless. I would rather not transcode from lossy to lossy. Flashbacks to the horrors of magnetic media (Cassettes and VHS/Beta).

 

[goodyfresh]

Flashbacks to the horrors of magnetic media (Cassettes and VHS/Beta).

OH GOD DON'T REMIND ME ABOUT THE HORRORS OF CASSETTES!  *breaks out in a cold sweat*

 

Speaking of old-fashioned technological horrors and monstrosities, anybody remember 28 and 56K dial-up internet?  LMAO!

 

[OddE]

Speaking of old-fashioned technological horrors and monstrosities, anybody remember 28 and 56K dial-up internet?  LMAO!

Oh, we used to DREAM of 28k... (My first modem, which in all fairness never saw a http request pass through it, was a 75 baud acoustically coupled monstrosity.

You could actually read the data as it was being downloaded.

Curiously, streaming music was not very widespread in the early eighties. (A couple of months later I got a slightly less despair-inducing 2400bps modem. Blistering speeds!

 

[RRod]

  In reference to streaming, I want a codec with the smallest data rate (file size) that is transparent. 256kbit AAC or 64kbit MPQuantum512LAFU, doesn't really matter. Of course when we really get unlimited wireless data (100% wifi coverage), then it won't matter.
 
For my own reference and storage, I want lossless. I would rather not transcode from lossy to lossy. Flashbacks to the horrors of magnetic media (Cassettes and VHS/Beta).

 
Back when lossy was, let's admit it, pretty bad, it sure made a lot of sense to keep a lossless version around, as it let you transcode to the latest, greatest codec. Now that the codecs have gotten so transparent, the need for transcoding is diminishing. I keep all my FLAC rips around too, but when I really think about it, I have nary a device that doesn't support VBR AAC. My hanging on is partially a combination of habit and mistrust of the industry, fed by things like the loudness war and the current hi-res money-grab.

 

[XenHeadFi]

   My hanging on is partially a combination of habit and mistrust of the industry, fed by things like the loudness war and the current hi-res money-grab.

Loudness War is by far the most important reason why I keep my CD's and FLACs. Trying to find an old master of an album or track is just a stupendous pain in the *****. Pretty much invisible unless you look for a "mark": a new copyright date, a second difference in length, etc. Kinda like how Enya's "Book of Days" was silently "upgraded" to "Far and Away Theme", I grabbed the entire stack of used CD's, took them to the counter and played each one to find the one with "Book of Days" on it. They had a sticker, but it was on the plastic wrap, which was long gone by the time I even thought about picking up the album.
 
That is what makes the Loudness War so insidious; the changes are nearly invisible until you listen to it. Maybe that's just a new cover for an old album or may be its the old cover on a secretly boosted CD. Evil. Then comes streaming...you are at the mercy of the streaming master (most here in Sound Science know bit-rate is usually swamped by the quality of the master), with no recourse except to not play that song from that service.
 
Dream format - 24-bit/48khz lossless (compress those zeros!), DRM-free. Dunno if multichannel sound would need more bits at a higher frequency or they just add data tracks so 24/48 is way more than enough.

 

[RRod]

  Loudness War is by far the most important reason why I keep my CD's and FLACs. Trying to find an old master of an album or track is just a stupendous pain in the *****. Pretty much invisible unless you look for a "mark": a new copyright date, a second difference in length, etc. Kinda like how Enya's "Book of Days" was silently "upgraded" to "Far and Away Theme", I grabbed the entire stack of used CD's, took them to the counter and played each one to find the one with "Book of Days" on it. They had a sticker, but it was on the plastic wrap, which was long gone by the time I even thought about picking up the album.
 
That is what makes the Loudness War so insidious; the changes are nearly invisible until you listen to it. Maybe that's just a new cover for an old album or may be its the old cover on a secretly boosted CD. Evil. Then comes streaming...you are at the mercy of the streaming master (most here in Sound Science know bit-rate is usually swamped by the quality of the master), with no recourse except to not play that song from that service.
 
Dream format - 24-bit/48khz lossless (compress those zeros!), DRM-free. Dunno if multichannel sound would need more bits at a higher frequency or they just add data tracks so 24/48 is way more than enough.

 
Personally I'd love if some compressed ambisonic-like format became a standard; combine that with the new standards for HRTF formatting and you could have yourself an adaptable system that used minimal bandwidth. Arguing over bits/sample specs, to me, is missing what audio truly could be doing.
 
I've used discogs + loudness-database to hunt down non-loudness masters, and yeah it's a painus-in-the-anus. Thankfully as a classical guy I am usually outside of such issues, but there seems to be some creep happening. Part of the problem is the seemingly large % of people these days for whom music just isn't a top priority, so I can't entirely blame the industry I guess for just giving them loud, loud, loud. And like you said, it's not always plainly evident that anything is wrong unless you have the side-by-side.

 

[KeithEmo]

There are several reasons why this is going to be very slow to happen....
 
One reason is "marginal cost"... An actual CD (with the box and the label) costs abut a buck to make in quantity. So, by NOT giving you the CD, they save about a buck. The problem is that most people "see" the CD as having more value than that; a lot of people who pay $12 for a CD wouldn't be happy paying $11 for the download; they would expect it for less. In other words, people "see" $12 for a CD - which includes a jewel case and all the rest - as being more of a bargain than an $11 download, and so are more willing to buy it. (This isn't just a matter of "well, I'm just going to rip it anyway, so who cares"; it's more a matter of the fact that, to most people, getting an actual box, with an actual disc, and a printed label, "feels like you're getting more than a substanceless download".)
 
Another factor is "piracy". Regardless of what the actual numbers are, a certain number of people who buy CDs are never going to RIP them - or share them with their friends; this means that physical CDs reduce music bootlegging - at least a little bit - that way. And, believe it or not, having the actual piece of plastic, and the booklet, really are the reason why some people buy CDs - which also means that some people who might not see a huge moral distinction between buying a download copy and "sharing" or "borrowing" one from a friend might still be willing to buy the CD to get the "whole experience" including the booklet and the jewel case. (And, yes, a few old timers still like to sit there and read those liner notes - ON PAPER - while they're listening to the album.)
 
The single biggest force opposing the "physical CD mindset" is probably Amazon Prime (with Amazon Prime, they pay the shipping instead of the customer; which gives them several dollars worth of incentive to get you to buy the download instead, which gives them more incentive to sell it to you at a lower price).
 
Personally, I think one thing that could be done to encourage this would be to provide nice "digital extras" with the download copy. With the download, you should at least receive a nice high-quality scan of the album cover and liner notes. They could even take this further and, much like when you buy a DVD of an old movie, give you "digital extras" like extra notes, or more information, or alternative album cover artwork.... Simply, they should give you something that you DON'T get with the CD. With the video market, it seems to be pretty well accepted that one way to sell re-issues and remasters is to provide additional content (directors' cuts; interviews; making of's....; bonus tracks; etc); one of the biggest topics of discussion in DVD and Blu-Ray reviews is the extra content included with this or that version....
  Quote:

  I'm happy with a CD.  I would like to see online retailers like iTunes, Amazon and Google start selling CD-quality lossless downloads.  The storage space is available for most people and the bandwidth is there, unlike 10 years ago when lossy downloads came on the scene.

 

[KeithEmo]

Unfortunately, the answer isn't totally simple..... and not quite as simple as a lot of people seem to prefer to think.....
 
The digital masters from which many early CDs were made probably were only themselves created at 16/44k or 24/44k.
Simply converting those digital masters to a higher resolution digital file has no real benefit.
However, most of the content on those early CDs was originally recorded on analog master tape, so re-converting it at a higher resolution might be an improvement.
Likewise, because some of the early converters were somewhat flawed, even a modern conversion at the same sample rate might be an improvement.
And, yes, it's possible that converting an old digital file to a higher resolution might bring improvements - if additional processing or restoration was involved. 
 
The important point there is that those are all POSSIBLE improvements; the information you need to determine whether any of that possible improvement exists in a particular situation, you pretty much need to know the same information as you would about any other re-master (basically, you need to know how good the original master was, how good the original issue version was, and what the differences are between the original and the re-master). You certainly should NOT assume that the quality is better simply because it's "a high-res reissue".
 
Most modern music is mastered at higher sample rates (most video sound tracks are at 48k or higher; most audio at 24/96k or higher). But, again, whether there's anything present on those masters that would result in better sound at their native resolution rather than after being down-sampled to 44k depends on a lot of things. Without getting into the argument of whether you can hear it if it's there or not, some master recordings (digital or analog) contain content that can be reproduced more perfectly at 96k than at 44k, while others do not. (And, if there's absolutely no useful information there that can't be reproduced perfectly at 44k, then there's no benefit to be had by using a higher sample rate.)
 
Quote:

  My uninformed butt is trying to understand something. HighRes DL sites(HDTracks specifically) offer all these classic cds that were recorded in the 50s,60s 70s at different levels of 24bit. Since these albums were not likely recorded in 24bit, how could upsampling/inflating  them to this resolution level make any bit of difference? I mean, all this space is filled with what? Certainly not actual music data that originated from the artist when it was recorded. correct? Is it just meaningless filler that they are adding and then asking much higher prices for them? Please be so kind as to help me understand what it is that these sites are offering here. Regards, Joey

 

[RRod]

 

 
He was asking about bit depth and you seem to be addressing sample rate. I task you to find a 24-bit master made from analog tape that doesn't null to noise when truncated down to 16 bits.