Studio Master?

[Julf]

We can not ignore that signals were initially analog

Of course not.

Although up sampling does not have more information, practical implementations in real world can sound better than no up sampling.

Yes, but in that case the upsampling is used as a technique in the digital-to-analog conversion process. The upsampled material as such is not in any way "better" than the original, un-upsampled material.

But only listening will tell you which gets better results.

Absolutely - as long as account is taken of perceptual bias and subjective preference factors. Just because something sounds better to *you* doesn't mean it is better in an absolute, universal sense.

And although opinions are just opinions, we weight opinions according to people experience and shown public evidence of the quality of their work.

IMHO it is impossible to separate quality of a format from implementation. But when we have some systematic in the opinions emitted by several people we can trust we consider this opinion as plausible and it becomes accepted by many people. Surely skeptics can have different views, but unless they present something new, other than the usual "what matters most is the recording" and "all formats have quality enough for me" I do not loose my time with it. YMMV.

How you spend your time is of course your own decision, but you seem to present a world view where everything is just "opinions", but some opinions carry more weight than others based on who is presenting that opinion. It is, unfortunately, a very common world view these days. My background is mostly in engineering and applied science, where opinions don't matter much unless backed by verifiable, repeatable evidence. I don't care how famous or revered some person is, if he or she is making some claim, he/she better be able to present evidence to support the claim.

 

[Julf]

This thread's (right here) main origin and goal is to explore the digital world; more explicitly the 24/44.1 hi-rez music files (downloads) in order to evaluate if it makes sense that they are advertised as "Studio Masters".

Indeed. It is ironic, considering how the original poster reacted against thread hijacking earlier on in the thread, how this thread has now been hijacked into an anti-digital tirade.

Speaking about "Studio Masters", the vast majority of modern recordings are done in the digital domain, without ever touching tape. While there are still producers and recording engineers who use tape, it is most often to achieve "that great 60's/70's sound", thus using the tape as a processing device for artistic reasons. Thus the "Studio Master" is in most cases a digital file, and what many of us hope for is an ability to download that digital data without too many additional processing and resampling steps applied to it.

 

[Julf]

I don't have to. The fact remains that going a/d is flawed. No digital frontend can re-create the soundstage, spatial cues, timbre and dynamics of music originally mastered in analog. It's an approximation, good as it can be. I'll take the non format converted version.

A/D might be flawed, but with the vast majority of modern recordings it is an inevitable step. Apart from acoustic and classical music, most modern music is generated digitally, and has to go through a D/A conversion if it needs to me mixed or recorded in the analog domain.

 

[Drikus]

Indeed. It is ironic, considering how the original poster reacted against thread hijacking earlier on in the thread, how this thread has now been hijacked into an anti-digital tirade.

I value Myles and Christian's opinion and from what I read I don't think that they are anti-digital like you are anti-analog, they just prefer analog souces and I can fully understand that. Myles is a pro and Christian has the world's best stuff at his disposal, so they know what they are talking about. Your talk is based on 35 years of audio electronics you say, what does that even mean? And that experience shouldn't factor into it? How can you talk about something that you don't have experience with?

 

[Julf]

I value Myles and Christian's opinion and from what I read I don't think that they are anti-digital like you are anti-analog, they just prefer analog souces and I can fully understand that.

Oh. I was referring to comments like this:

I don't have to. The fact remains that going a/d is flawed. No digital frontend can re-create the soundstage, spatial cues, timbre and dynamics of music originally mastered in analog. It's an approximation, good as it can be. I'll take the non format converted version.

I read that as a fairly strong anti-digital position. Am I reading it wrong?

Myles is a pro

Aren we all?

Christian has the world's best stuff at his disposal

How have you determined that his gear really is the best in the world?

Your talk is based on 35 years of audio electronics you say, what does that even mean?

What do you think it could mean?

And that experience shouldn't factor into it? How can you talk about something that you don't have experience with?

Of course experience is important in forming your opinion. But if I say "cows can fly - trust me, I have 35 years of experience with cows", you'd be better off checking the facts rather than relying on the experience of the person making the claim.

To quote Your Logical Fallacy Is: Appeal to Authority: "It is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."

 

[Drikus]

Oh. I was referring to comments like this:



I read that as a fairly strong anti-digital position. Am I reading it wrong?

Yes.

Aren we all?

No.

How have you determined that his gear really is the best in the world?

By using your method, checking the facts.

What do you think it could mean?

You work at Media Markt?

Of course experience is important in forming your opinion. But if I say "cows can fly - trust me, I have 35 years of experience with cows", you'd be better off checking the facts rather than relying on the experience of the person making the claim.

So basically what you’re saying here is that your 35 years of experience means nothing?

 

[Julf]

By using your method, checking the facts.

And how do you know what gear is "the best in the world"?

You work at Media Markt?

So much for checking the facts. I would suggest two easy tools - wikipedia and google.

So basically what you’re saying here is that your 35 years of experience means nothing?

Basically what I am saying is that you should judge claims based on factual evidence.

 

[rockitman]

A/D might be flawed, but with the vast majority of modern recordings it is an inevitable step. Apart from acoustic and classical music, most modern music is generated digitally, and has to go through a D/A conversion if it needs to me mixed or recorded in the analog domain.

who cares about modern music ? I know I don't. If that floats your boat musically, more power to you. I listen 98% of the time to music mixed and mastered originally in analog. That being the case, it makes no sense to listen to digital versions of the analog masters.

 

[Julf]

who cares about modern music ? I know I don't.

In that case I totally understand your preference for analog, and wanting it to sound just as it has always sounded.

 

[microstrip]

Of course not.

Yes, but in that case the upsampling is used as a technique in the digital-to-analog conversion process. The upsampled material as such is not in any way "better" than the original, un-upsampled material.

How do you know that is does not sound better in most implementations? The objective of sound reproduction is creating emotion and enjoyment in listeners when listening to the recordings passing a message.

Absolutely - as long as account is taken of perceptual bias and subjective preference factors. Just because something sounds better to *you* doesn't mean it is better in an absolute, universal sense.

Ok. It is why we have debates and expose opinions. IMHO we do not want to persuade others - we just use WBF to share opinions. There is no "better" in an absolute, universal sense in sound reproduction. Just keystones of references that are created by statistical analyses of listener preferences.

How you spend your time is of course your own decision, but you seem to present a world view where everything is just "opinions", but some opinions carry more weight than others based on who is presenting that opinion. It is, unfortunately, a very common world view these days. My background is mostly in engineering and applied science, where opinions don't matter much unless backed by verifiable, repeatable evidence. I don't care how famous or revered some person is, if he or she is making some claim, he/she better be able to present evidence to support the claim.

The usual fault of some engineers who believe that their technical mind and knowledge can solve every problem better than any others. Unhappily perceptual sciences are usually outside their scope. And yes, in this particular field once opinions are weighted and statistically processed they become audio science. BTW, my background is similar to yours - applied science and engineering sciences.
And yes, I care about the CV of the candidates and opinions of others.

 

[Drikus]

And how do you know what gear is "the best in the world"?

Ok, you win, I know nothing and I won't bother to reply anymore because it really shows that you must know every fact in audio if you end up with a set like yours after 35 years.

 

[Julf]

How do you know that is does not sound better in most implementations?

Because the controlled, blind listening tests I have seen (as well as performed) seem to show that a mere upsampling doesn't as such improve the sound.

The objective of sound reproduction is creating emotion and enjoyment in listeners when listening to the recordings passing a message.

That is one view, and I can understand that view very well. At the same time, there is a view that the objective of sound reproduction is to reproduce the sound created by the original artits(s) as faithfully as possibly. They might not have intended their music to be enjoyable in the first place.

Ok. It is why we have debates and expose opinions. IMHO we do not want to persuade others - we just use WBF to share opinions.

I agree.

There is no "better" in an absolute, universal sense in sound reproduction. Just keystones of references that are created by statistical analyses of listener preferences.

Again, there are others who take a different view, stating that a more accurate reproduction of the original signal is "better" than one that might be deemed more pleasing by a majority of listeners.

The usual fault of some engineers who believe that their technical mind and knowledge can solve every problem better than any others.

While they can't solve every problem, it us good to recognize that sound reproduction systems are designed by engineers, based on applied science. It would seem somewhat reasonable that those engineers who design the equipment are in the best position to solve the actual problems with those systems.

Unhappily perceptual sciences are usually outside their scope. And yes, in this particular field once opinions are weighted and statistically processed they become audio science.

Yes, when processed, averaged over significant numbers and controlled for bias etc. - something very far from an individual opinion of one person.

 

[Julf]

Ok, you win, I know nothing and I won't bother to reply anymore because it really shows that you must know every fact in audio if you end up with a set like yours after 35 years.

I have no idea why you seem so hung up with that 35 year thing. If I was to claim that "as the current through a resistor increases, the voltage drop decreases" or that "a typical magnetic tape recorder has a better intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio and less harmonic distortion than a 16/44 digital system" it wouldn't matter if I had 5, 50 or 150 years of industry experience, or if I was the owner of the Universal Music Group, first cousin of Bono, or the personal sound system advisor to the Pope - I would still be wrong.

On the other hand, if you were to say "I know that looking at the raw numbers, the digital system is far superior, but I prefer the sound of the tape recorder", there would not be any disagreement and we could discuss the reasons why people might prefer the sound of tape.

Can we now get back to our regular broadcast, and discussing the concept of "Studio Masters"?

 

[Bruce B]

On the other hand, if you were to say "I know that looking at the raw numbers, the digital system is far superior, but I prefer the sound of the tape recorder", there would not be any disagreement and we could discuss the reasons why people might prefer the sound of tape.

What you actually meant to say Julf are the standard digital "measurements" are better than the same analog tape measurements.

 

[Julf]

What you actually meant to say Julf are the standard digital "measurements" are better than the same analog tape measurements.

Bruce, I can agree with your statement if we remove the quotes from the word 'measurements'.

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce, I can agree with your statement if we remove the quotes from the word 'measurements'.

As you would. There is no best...

 

[rbbert]

...I listen 98% of the time to music mixed and mastered originally in analog...

So you choose format over content for your listening choices? And of course there is a significant amount of excellent music recorded in analog but only commercially available in digital formats.

 

[Drikus]

I have no idea why you seem so hung up with that 35 year thing.

Facts are facts, and experience shouldn't factor into it, but my opinion in this case is based on university-level training in digital signal processing and 35 years of audio electronics.

??

 

[Bruce B]

So you choose format over content for your listening choices? And of course there is a significant amount of excellent music recorded in analog but only commercially available in digital formats.

And also all the great digital titles by Channel Classics, Pentatone, Telarc, BIS and others.....

 

[Julf]

??

You seem confused. Anything I might help clarify?