[interpolate]

 This proof will be amusing to some of us.  When we did recordings in the 1980's we learned a thing or two about analog recordings.  We did digital recording as early as 1982 - and universally liked the results - but didn't release anything mainly due to obscene cost of multitrack digital rigs. So multitrack-tape-to-vinyl remained the default until about 1990. 

 
You know what, your comment is a bit hollow, self-assured and a little aloof. This is the 2010's now and equipment with their other related technologies has moved on. Even prosumer equipment is far more suited to studio tasks, so you really need pull your head in a bit. Not everything you witnessed and believe is always the emperical answer and the same null. The same goes for me and whether you are a top sound engineer or 10 album producer doesn't matter to me.

 

[hogger129]

I would only say anything past CD quality (16-bits, 44.1khz, 1411.2kbps) is pointless since you won't hear a difference.  Some people say they do, but all the ones I've talked to will not perform a blind test and prove it.  I've heard something about filtering that can be heard with 44.1khz sampling rates, but I can't hear it.  Can you guys?  What's the point of 48khz if the ceiling of human hearing is around 20khz.

 

[interpolate]

48Khz is the frequency used to synchronise movie and other MTC commands in a lot of older MIDI equipment and other platforms. So whilst it has no direct correlation on our hearing it does have mathematical benefits.
 
People get to obsessed with small details; what happened to just enjoying music?

 

[StanD]

  48Khz is the frequency used to synchronise movie and other MTC commands in a lot of older MIDI equipment and other platforms. So whilst it has no direct correlation on our hearing it does have mathematical benefits.
 
People get to obsessed with small details; what happened to just enjoying music?

It appears for may that enjoying music takes back sea to shooting some BS with the flash mob of audiophiles and getting some attention. Why let the truth get in the way with BS? Hence Hires, DSD, etc.

 

[fiascogarcia]

  It appears for may that enjoying music takes back sea to shooting some BS with the flash mob of audiophiles and getting some attention. Why let the truth get in the way with BS? Hence Hires, DSD, etc.

Agreed!
 

 

[Gr8Desire]

   
You know what, your comment is a bit hollow, self-assured and a little aloof. This is the 2010's now and equipment with their other related technologies has moved on. Even prosumer equipment is far more suited to studio tasks, so you really need pull your head in a bit. Not everything you witnessed and believe is always the emperical answer and the same null. The same goes for me and whether you are a top sound engineer or 10 album producer doesn't matter to me.

 
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed when you felt compelled to reply to an obscure 3 week old posting?

I gave specific examples where vinyl recording technology was - and still is - lacking. You conveniently snipped that part.

If you had understood what you read, you might have realized that I was indeed implying that the recording equipment I use today is many times better than anything we used 35 years ago. Back in the day: We just thought very little of vinyl.  The fact that some of you have now chosen vinyl is certainly interesting. I can't wait to see what happens when you discover analog tape.

If I didn't think you were an adolescent troll looking for attention, I would probably add a few more examples.  For now, I will simply admit you are completely right and that I expect to learn a great deal from you.

 

 

[jonstatt]

   
 
Enjoy your vinyl - we never did.

 
 
Who is we?! I think analogue focused mastering engineers like Steve Hoffman would strongly disagree with that statement. In fact I posted a link earlier in this thread where Steve mastered as an experiment the same source tape to vinyl and CD and SACD and found a strong preference for the vinyl version being closest to the original master. But while there will always be some who dismiss this, Steve is not alone in a preference for maintaining a pure analogue path from source to end product media. Of course Analogue Productions tend to specialise in this and used the well known skills of mastering engineers like the late Doug Sax.
 
However, whether you agree or disagree, hear or don't hear the benefits of a pure analogue end to end path.....there is also the fact that the dynamic range capability of a CD is totally irrelevant for (at a guess) at least 90% of modern music releases. This is because of the loudness wars and the fact that a lot of modern music is squashed into 5 or 6dB of dynamic range. Even cheap turntable cartridge set-ups can cope with more dynamic range than that! In many instances the output is brickwall limited (hard limiter to keep the output near 0dB output on a CD). Of course this cannot be done with vinyl, so there are plenty examples of vinyl versions where the music has a bit more room to breath. In fact it is because the format is more limited, that perversely it seems to gain from some of the severe ruination that takes place on the digital media versions (as a result a lot of modern releases I find exhausting to listen to). Of course there are also examples of vinyl versions where it is the same as the CD just recorded quieter!!
 
While I do remain totally open minded on whether there is any sonic benefit to hi-res digital media versions vs CD, it is pretty clear those benefits don't come from the dynamic range capability as no music even uses the max DR a CD is already capable of.

 

[interpolate]

Well that got a reaction.....
 
I'm just sick of people mixing up sample rate and audible frequency ranges and adding ABX test graphs. Of course, we can't hear anything beyond the average range. Unless you are Superman or some fictional Marvel hero.
 
When I listened to vinyl the overall sound just never sounded so clinical. Hi-Res was meant to bridge this gap  however it's caused hours and pages of needless arguments about inaudible infrasonic sound.

 

[interpolate]

Digital is great really..binary logic and of that. However some randomness makes life more interesting, no?

 

[interpolate]

@Gr8Desire I don't think I was quoting you.

 

[icebear]

As a replay medium the redbook format offers totally sufficient potential.
 
Take a look or better listen at some JVC xrcd releases e.g. Art Pepper "Live in Tokyo '79" or Sarah Vaughan "How long has this been going on". To me this is absolutley as close to live as it gets. Yes, sure there is totally crappy stuff out there on CD but that is someone's particular responsibility because the producer or whoever had the say, decided it that way. It is NOT the fault of the format itself.
 
Using higher rez equipment for recording, mixing and mastering and then converting the end result to 16/44 makes total sense. When you work on a picture in LR or Photoshop for best results you start with the original DNG file of max. resolution and bit depth, not with an already compressed JPG. You will always loose some information along the way, so start with the best you can possibly get. If all the care has been taken in all steps along the way then surprisingly little is lost ...JVC K2HD examples.
 
As a 35 year old format (CD) of course marketing want to get rid of it and instill the latest and greatest high rez as waaay better, just to sell something new. They have sold quite a few DACs, didn't they

?  And of course all examples picked will show that it sounds better in presentations. Getting the playing field level and down sampling the identical high rez file to lower rez formats doesn't lead to easy to pick differences, how come

?
 
Nevertheless I immensely enjoy cheap classic and jazz SACD's that you can pick up for small money as the format is "dead" in terms of consumer perception. So nobody wants them anymore. Of course the remastering was done with great care because at the time they wanted the new format to sound better. Analogue Production or MOFI releases are a real joy. Yes, I am old fashioned, I like to have a disc that I can listen too when my internet service is not working

 

 

[Gr8Desire]

  @Gr8Desire I don't think I was quoting you.

Don't mention it.

I wouldn't give you even a moment of consideration. 

 

[interpolate]

@Gr8Desire Very droll and not very necessary. At least I know where we stand now.

 

[kar13]

I dont want stir the hornet's nest, but can't resist the action..

despite all the arguments against High res audio, at the end of the day only
A/B ing the recordings matters.Listen to Take five(Dave Bruebeck) in 24/96 and 16 bit flac.
The noise floor is drastically less and the dynamic range pounces on you like a tiger.I have A/B ed these 2 tracks on systems without any tube amp or desktop amps or dacs and still could identify the versions without guessing, 100% of the times adjusted for the individual gains.
Thats why listening experience is and will always remain the king

and rest of any arguments based on engineering is feckless.
On other hand badly mastered recordings like LP of Aerosmith's Sweet emotion have much of distortion and noise) which is also audible.
Thus, even though I agree with them logically and technically, I dont quite agree with the article based on my experience.

 

[earthpeople]

  I dont want stir the hornet's nest, but can't resist the action..

despite all the arguments against High res audio, at the end of the day only
A/B ing the recordings matters.Listen to Take five(Dave Bruebeck) in 24/96 and 16 bit flac.
The noise floor is drastically less and the dynamic range pounces on you like a tiger.I have A/B ed these 2 tracks on systems without any tube amp or desktop amps or dacs and still could identify the versions without guessing, 100% of the times adjusted for the individual gains.
Thats why listening experience is and will always remain the king

and rest of any arguments based on engineering is feckless.
On other hand badly mastered recordings like LP of Aerosmith's Sweet emotion have much of distortion and noise) which is also audible.
Thus, even though I agree with them logically and technically, I dont quite agree with the article based on my experience.

 
What about when you take your 24/96 and convert it to 16/44? Make sure your lower res copy is created from your higher res version and compare those two.