Hi-rez analog?

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
I've been reading some of the forums over at CA and there was a discussion between Cookie Marenco (Blue Coast Records), Barry Diament (Soundkeeper Recordings) and Mark Waldrep (AIX) on what constitutes a Hi-rez recordings. Barry is adamant that anything from analog master tape is not hi-rez since "most" analog devices can't produce anything over 17-18k. (Of course my thinking is that these 3 people have an agenda because they each have something to sell.)

But as most people that have been to shows and some even being able to use first-hand, analog tape just has that magic. So what I'm asking people is what is the minimum needed in the digital domain to satisfy the inclusion of analog tape as "true" hi-rez?
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

I am solidly in the digital camp but I am OK with the concept of Hi-Rez from an analog master tape. Actually I would welcome such development on Classics such as the Mercury (I am not a fan of SACD as I have posted here) , Liryta, RCA, Verve, etc ... I would like the Master tape as close as possible. Hi-Rez digital is IMO the best way to get as close to the Master Tape.. Some would argue that it would be R2R, Iwil not get into that debate.. I know however it cannot be Vinyl...
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
To further expound on this, the discussion went on to a DSD vs. PCM debate. I have done years and years of testing taking simultaneous feeds from mics, mixing boards, analog tape machines and turntables and have found that DSD comes closest to the source.
They went on to say that WB has started archiving tape using AVID/Digidesign (LOL) converters at 24/192. Mind you, they had every known converter available to them, including Meitner and the PM2.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Bruce

Link? URL?
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Isn't the whole concept of hi-rez digital based on extension beyond Redbook's 22k ceiling? So wouldn't Barry Diamet, who said it can't be high-rez if it only goes to 18k be right? Irrefutably right? I don't care; I can't hear 18k anyway, but how can his position even be arguable?

Tim
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Isn't the whole concept of hi-rez digital based on extension beyond Redbook's 22k ceiling? So wouldn't Barry Diamet, who said it can't be high-rez if it only goes to 18k be right? Irrefutably right? I don't care; I can't hear 18k anyway, but how can his position even be arguable?

Tim

I didn't know that hi rez implied or stated that the high frequency content must extend above 20kHz. And, there are lots of hi rez downloads available that are sourced from the original master tapes (or one would hope). For instance, I downloaded Bill Evans Waltz for Debby which I believe is sold as 24/192.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Tim, hi-rez has more to do with timing/spatial issues than ultrasonic freq.

Tape machines and vinyl does have information above 18k though....
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
But as most people that have been to shows and some even being able to use first-hand, analog tape just has that magic. So what I'm asking people is what is the minimum needed in the digital domain to satisfy the inclusion of analog tape as "true" hi-rez?
Bruce, in order to avoid a food fight and a battle which (like many in this and other on-line fora) people are talking past each other due to semantics, would you be so kind as to give us your definition of true hi-rez?

I think you already started in your post responding to Tim's: "Tim, hi-rez has more to do with timing/spatial issues than ultrasonic freq."
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Tim, hi-rez has more to do with timing/spatial issues than ultrasonic freq.

Tape machines and vinyl does have information above 18k though....

Fair enough. I love analog recordings FWIW, but these days I usually love them as redbook files.

Tim
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

I suppose the idea is to use the most tranparent method to copy the Master Tape, then which one is it? The one constant is the Master Tape , if it is analog there is not much one can do about that. Now the question becomes which is the most transparent method. My opinion: I have said earlier NOT Vinyl. Now which of the digital approach it (The Master) best? in my opinion 24/x where "x" is a number at least twice 44.1 KHz ... Not DSD. IMO of course
 

RBFC

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
5,158
46
1,225
Albuquerque, NM
www.fightingconcepts.com
My two cents' is that hi-rez may be more than simply frequency extension. Dynamic range and lack of "medium-induced" audible distortion products are two criteria that come to mind. I anxiously await Bruce's more complete definition.

Lee
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
Do we know how much the Master Tape deteriorates over time? When we used magnetic tape for data storage in the old mainframe days, I still remember the ritual of re-dub - making a new copy to store. I know that vinyl doesn't deteriorate over time unless very badly stored, it does deteriorate with many plays, but with properly set-up cartridge, that should be negligible. Are there studies on deterioration of magnetic tape just sitting there and not played? I've already heard about "print through" when the tape is not stored tails out.

I know for example that the magnetic flux on a loudspeaker driver can deteriorate up to 20% over a 10 year period. The music on a magnetic tape consists of ferromagnetic particles that have been permanently aligned. I'm wondering what percent of that alignment can randomize over time. If so, would a 50 year old master tape still sound better than an un-played first pressing made from that master tape 50 years ago?

I'm eagerly awaiting for the new Quality Records pressing of Tea for the Tillerman because I have the album from the 70's and if I recall, the sound quality was excellent. I'm heading home to Singapore this Summer, and I hope to be able to dig it up and bring it over. If the pressing is as good as it is supposed to be, it might be really close to the master in the current condition (40 years). That might make interesting comparison......
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Would I be correct in thinking that the lower the recorded level the more extended the frequency response for tape? In other words, at 40dB down one could record and retrieve somewhat beyond 20k?
Frank

I don't think this is the case, though I do know, especially with DSD, that recording at a lower amplitude sounds better to me. Whereas recording in PCM, you start to loose bits, this is not the case with DSD. It's still 1-bit at -80dB or at -0.1dB
 
Last edited:

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I don't think this is the case, though I do know, especially with DSD, that recording at a lower amplitude sounds better to me. Whereas recording in PCM, you start to loose bits, this is not the case with DSD. It's still 1-bit at -80dB or at -0.1dB

Wouldn't recording to tape at significantly below 0 db significantly lower the signal to noise ratio?

Tim
 

fas42

Addicted To Best
Jan 8, 2011
3,973
3
0
NSW Australia
I don't think this is the case, though I do know, especially with DSD, that recording at a lower amplitude sounds better to me. Whereas recording in PCM, you start to loose bits, this is not the case with DSD. It's still 1-bit at -80dB or at -0.1dB
Thanks for that, Bruce ...

I'm puzzled about you saying PCM loses bits, as far as I was aware there is a tradeoff between sampling frequency and measuring absolute level between the 2 techniques, but if the filtering is doing its job properly there should be no loss of bit encoded information.

Frank
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Wouldn't recording to tape at significantly below 0 db significantly lower the signal to noise ratio?

Tim

sure would... then low signals like reverb tails and spatial ques will get lost in the tape noise.

I'm puzzled about you saying PCM loses bits, as far as I was aware there is a tradeoff between sampling frequency and measuring absolute level between the 2 techniques, but if the filtering is doing its job properly there should be no loss of bit encoded information.
Frank

Sorry... I'm not an EE. I'll leave the techno jargon to Don and others who can explain it better.
I'll include a quote from the other forum and let the EE guys tell me if it passes muster.


from bdiament:

"I see a lot of posts about the limits of human hearing above xkHz, yet I believe the advantages of wide bandwidth are not about supersonics but reside well within the audible range.

Even with purely analog signals, KEF showed decades ago, how proper time response (i.e. rise time, settling time) is tied to wide bandwidth. According to their work, proper time response at frequency x requires a bandwidth of 5x.

My own experience has been that wide bandwidth makes for more convincing reproduction and that bandlimiting doesn't. I would have to hear exceptions to this before anything else would make sense to me. So far, I haven't heard a single exception.

That's the "horizontal". Now to the "vertical", the number of bits.
Unless one is going to compress musical dynamics, some parts of real music are not as loud as other parts. The quieter parts might be 20, sometimes 40 dB down from the loudest peaks.

With a 16-bit system, this means the quietest parts will utilize 13, sometimes only 10 bits of "resolution". Instrumental (and vocal) harmonics are down in level from the fundamental notes being played (or sung). These harmonics will therefore be represented by considerably fewer than 16 bits. Anyone ever listen to a fine cello recorded at 8-bits? As I've said elsewhere, it is well on its way to sounding more like a kazoo than a cello.

Spatial cues too, are considerably lower in level than the sounds from the instruments and voices making the music. With this in mind, I don't find it surprising that comparing the same recording at high res vs. 16/44, it feels like the lights in the room have been turned off and most of the air sucked out of the space.

Now lets look at those same parts represented with a 24-bit system. The parts that are 20 dB down from maximum will utilize about 21 bits. The even quieter parts at -40 will utilize about 18 bits. We still have more resolution than the loudest peaks on a 16-bit recording. In my experience, this is plainly audible on any decent system. The quietest parts on a dynamic recording (the most difficult for digital to capture faithfully) are reproduced with appreciably greater fidelity on a 24-bit system than the loudest (easiest) parts are on a 16-bit system. For me, 24-bit decisively wins the race"
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Isn't Barry sort of contradicting himself here? I mean, tape may not have the frequency extremes but resolution is consistent pretty much through it's range right? So if the equivalent resolution of , let's say +4 tape is 18 bits for the softer passages, doesn't it make it high-rez?
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Isn't Barry sort of contradicting himself here? I mean, tape may not have the frequency extremes but resolution is consistent pretty much through it's range right? So if the equivalent resolution of , let's say +4 tape is 18 bits for the softer passages, doesn't it make it high-rez?

Well my opinion is that tape IS hi-rez, because you cannot capture it at 16/44.1 Even a monkey could pass that blind test!
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing