Studio Master?

[mep]

None, if you had read the opening post you should have known this, that's why I asked an expert opinion. I don't know you or the other person so I wanted to know if either of you were also experts, that's all. By asking this question you have already given me the answer.



This was not aimed at you because you tried to give Bob some answers but at the other person who felt that he had to hijack this thread with his pointless nonsense.

I knew this was coming-it was just a matter of time.

 

[Steve Williams]

well rather than bickering let's just stay on topic and everyone enjoy the weekend

 

[NorthStar]

Most of Linn's hi-res downloads seem to be either 24/44 or 24/48.

I don't have any Linn's hi-res music files, but I do have few Linn CDs, and I'm not impressed at all with the sound.
I think Linn also likes HDCD. ...Or used to.

Considering 20 bits is already -120 dB, you are rather unlikely to hear the difference between 20 and 24 bits (yes, theoretically 24 bits would be -144 dB, but can you find any source material or system with a SNR better than 120 dB?).

Yes, correct. And that's one of the points of Bob Stuart, among others. ...Even 18 bits, if implemented properly should suffice, but 20 bits is a safer bet. ...You always lose couple bits, more or less.

There still doesn't seem to be any solid proof that humans can hear anything much beyond 20 KHz or so, but a higher sample rate does allow you to use less aggressive filters. Designing a filter that brickwalls anything above 22 kHz, but has no audible impact at 20 kHz is complicated. A sample frequency of 96, 88 or even 48 kHz gives you much more leeway with your filtering.

And you just confirmed the main point of my presence here in this thread; regarding the priority importance of the sampling rate over the bit depth.
Sony, with SACD (DSD), went all the way up; with 64 times that sampling rate of 44.1 kHz (RedBook CD). ...But only using a single bit (1 bit depth).

According to Bob (Stuart), 88.2 kHz is sufficient and easier to implement (2 times 44.1) than 96 and other multiples of 48 (DAT).
I guess it all depends of who's at the mixing control of things and how well he can strut his stuff.

Multiples of 22, like 44.1 from the CD, are easier to play with and less error's prone, generally. ... 88.2, 176.4, 352.8, ...
Multiples of 24, like 48 from the DAT tape, are from a little more expansion (in the frequency range), and used on movie soundtracks (Blu-rays) a lot,
and also on some other music formats. ... 96, 192, 384, ...

The upsampling rates from different audio components (CD players, DACs, ...) vary, and depending of their implementation, they also vary in sound quality (measured, and/or preferred).

In digital audio, like in analog, the less intrusion, the generally better. ...Less mathematical calculation usually results in better sound.

There is no doubt in my mind that a CD can sound wonderful. ...There are so many techniques now that we have to listen more experimentally.
Some people prefer this technique over that one, and from one music recording to another (different music, or the same music), and depending of its origin, and how well the process was implemented, remains a perpetual moving target (there is always something better coming down the pipeline eventually).

SACD is also a wonderful thing. And even more so because it jumps the boundaries of simple stereo. And so is Blu-ray (video, and audio).

The Studio Master... We all want the very best one, don't we? ...And at a reasonable cost, and with a wonderful sound quality (best, or not).
If it can do with 24-bit/44.1 kHz fine, and if it can with 24-bit/176.4 kHz fine too. ...But does it? ...Only if we compare with the original master tape that we can assess this determination with more accurate acumen.

Bruce is a digital audio expert here, and I read everything that he has to say, and try to analyse it too. But I certainly don't have his set of ears, and don't have either his gear and instrumentation. I can only compare his writings with other expert's writings.

And Mike (Lavigne) is my audio guru too to go to (analog, and digital, and music content).

Studio Master? Yes, we all want it! ...And the right music too; the one that we are in great contentment of listening to.
...Our preferred genre of music first, quality sound second. ...At least for me anyway.

 

[Ronm1]

I don't have any Linn's hi-res music files, but I do have few Linn CDs, and I'm not impressed at all with the sound.
I think Linn also likes HDCD. ...Or used to.

Bob

I have quite a few Linn cd's and hybrids. Everyone that I have, the cd layer is HDCD. Plus I have a completely diff take on the sound quality. Top self in my book.

 

[NorthStar]

Bob

I have quite a few Linn cd's and hybrids. Everyone that I have, the cd layer is HDCD. Plus I have a completely diff take on the sound quality. Top self in my book.

That's why I mentioned HDCD Ron.

As for the sound (quality); ok, let's get a little bit deeper here. I think that I don't have the proper gear (and room) to truly benefit from the high swing dynamics (micro to macro). I can sense it, but not fully appreciate it. And, there is the music itself; chorales that are not always fitting the mood of the moment.
I only have few CDs Ron, and I should have been more specific. Linn's sound is different, and it is an acquired taste. IMO

This thread is interesting for the fact of what Bruce said earlier; regarding 24-bit/44.1 hi-res audio files (Studio Master, as described by others),
and great sounding according to Bruce. It's something new to me, and the more merry.

___________________

* I'd like to hear more from other members here on Linn record label, and also BIS music record label.
...Albums, or CDs, or SACDs, or Hi-res downloads; it don't truly matter to me, it's still Music to my ears.

 

[Bruce B]

It's 7:00 on a Saturday morning. The AC is not running. There is nothing audible coming from outside. The nearest road carrying any traffic this time of day is a half mile away. I shut the laptop, waited for the the hard drive to stop, held my breath and took a reading.

The noise floor of my bedroom is 40 db. Tim

You have a noisy room. How the hell can you sleep in that? It's mid-day here with the fridge running and kids outside and I'm getting 33dB

For folks with dedicated rooms and studios with NC of 10-15, you need that dynamic range!

 

[Julf]

Sony, with SACD (DSD), went all the way up; with 64 times that sampling rate of 44.1 kHz (RedBook CD). ...But only using a single bit (1 bit depth).

But as it is a different way to encode the signal (PDM vs PCM), you can't really compare the two in terms of number of bits. DSD is not "PCM with a 1-bit depth".

According to Bob (Stuart), 88.2 kHz is sufficient and easier to implement (2 times 44.1) than 96 and other multiples of 48 (DAT).

48, 96 and other rates are just as easy to implement as 88.2. The only benefit from 88.2 is if you have to downsample to 44.1, end even then, the advantage is pretty small. Despite it intuitively sounding easier to downsample by a precise factor of 2, it is actually not really that different from downsampling by a factor of 1.876304738247.

Multiples of 22, like 44.1 from the CD, are easier to play with and less error's prone, generally.

How so? There is nothing magical about the number 22.

In digital audio, like in analog, the less intrusion, the generally better. ...Less mathematical calculation usually results in better sound.

I think that is a gross oversimplification. There are a lot of cases where additional calculation will result in a better sound.

The Studio Master... We all want the very best one, don't we? ...And at a reasonable cost, and with a wonderful sound quality (best, or not).
If it can do with 24-bit/44.1 kHz fine, and if it can with 24-bit/176.4 kHz fine too. ...But does it? ...Only if we compare with the original master tape that we can assess this determination with more accurate acumen.

And if we want the best quality, we can only hope that no tape was involved at all.

Studio Master? Yes, we all want it! ...And the right music too; the one that we are in great contentment of listening to.
...Our preferred genre of music first, quality sound second. ...At least for me anyway.

I agree 100%. I'd rather have a bad recording of good music than a good recording of bad music.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

........And if we want the best quality, we can only hope that no tape was involved at all.........

I don't want to take your comment above out of context and interpret it wrongly. so please allow me to understand your meaning.

are you saying that as a broad statement that analog tape does not measure up to digital as a recording medium?

please explain what you mean with more precision as to in what way 'we can only hope tape was not involved'. and what experience(s) you base that perspective on.

thanks.

 

[cpp]

Bruce nob question here, does a audio master recording in 24/192 contain more data ( mb) than a general release in 24/192 ? I think I worded that right.

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce nob question here, does a audio master recording in 24/192 contain more data ( mb) than a general release in 24/192 ? I think I worded that right.

It should be exactly the same.

 

[Julf]

are you saying that as a broad statement that analog tape does not measure up to digital as a recording medium?

Yes.

please explain what you mean with more precision as to in what way 'we can only hope tape was not involved'.

Tape has a frequency range that on a really good (well calibrated) day goes to 22 kHz and a SNR of less than 80 dB - 13.5 bits or so, not to mention a THD of 1% and wow and flutter that is off the scale if converted to the equivalent of digital jitter.

and what experience(s) you base that perspective on

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.

 

[mep]

Tape has a frequency range that on a really good (well calibrated) day goes to 22 kHz and a SNR of less than 80 dB - 13.5 bits or so, not to mention a THD of 1%. 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.

I want to say this about that:I grant you that digital has a higher S/N ratio than analog tape. Between songs played from my server, the noise floor falls away into the abyss. Between songs from tape, the noise floor is damn good, but not as low as digital. As much as I enjoy listening to DSD files (and I really do enjoy it), the sound quality is not in quite the same league as tape. There is an ease and naturalness to the music played from tape that just flows over you in a way that eludes digital. It makes you feel more relaxed and it just sounds "right." We can blather on about how it must be some type of euphonic distortion(s) that make tape sound so good compared to digital, but it really doesn't matter to those of us who own both and constantly get to hear them in our systems. It doesn't take 35 years of audio electronics training or university-level training in digital signal processing in order to hear the difference between really good digital and really good analog tape. All you need are your ears and an open mind.

 

[Bruce B]

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.

So let me get this straight. You are giving your opinion on something that you do not use on a daily basis? Classic!

Sorta' like me doing a review of a Bugatti Veyron that I've never owned!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So let me get this straight. You are giving your opinion on something that you do not use on a daily basis? Classic!

Sorta' like me doing a review of a Bugatti Veyron that I've never owned!

+1.

I figured as much, but i wanted to make sure I understood his meaning.

 

[Julf]

We can blather on about how it must be some type of euphonic distortion(s) that make tape sound so good compared to digital, but it really doesn't matter to those of us who own both and constantly get to hear them in our systems.

It doesn't matter to me either - if you prefer it, good for you. But in absolute, measurable terms, a modern digital system is way superior to analog tape. And yes, I have worked with both.

All you need are your ears and an open mind.

To quote t Richard Feynman: "Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"

 

[Julf]

So let me get this straight. You are giving your opinion on something that you do not use on a daily basis? Classic!

Classic indeed. So what is it that you assume I don't use on a daily basis? I do use digital recording systems on a daily basis, but no, I don't use analog tape on a daily basis any more. Why would I?

Sorta' like me doing a review of a Bugatti Veyron that I've never owned!

Classic irrelevant analogy. How many motor journalists that have published reviews of the Bugatti Veyron actually own one?

Not that it matters, but I prefer the Bristol Fighter T over the Bugatti Veyron.

 

[NorthStar]

Julf, what is your take on 24/44.1 hi res music downloads as enumerated on the very first post of this thread (Studio Master)?

And, what is your preferred up-sampling (mastered or re-mastered) format (sampling rate & bit depth)?

And, what is in your opinion the best original music source?

____________________

You said earlier that down-sampling 96 kHz back to 44.1 kHz was more complicated than 88.2 down to 44.1; I agree.
And you also said that up-sampling 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz wasn't more complicated than doing it to 88.2; why? ...And is it better?

 

[Julf]

Julf, what is your take on 24/44.1 hi res music downloads as enumerated on the very first post of this thread (Studio Master)?

If that's the resolution it was originally recorded in, then I guess that is the "Studio master" quality. To me, the recording is more important than the format (as all modern digital formats are "good enough" and far superior to any old analog formats).

And, what is your preferred up-sampling (mastered or re-mastered) format (sampling rate & bit depth)?

I prefer my music not to be up-sampled - there is no need for it, as up-sampling doesn't add any information.

And, what is in your opinion the best original music source?

Anything where the signal from the microphones is recorded straight into a digital system.

And you also said that up-sampling 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz wasn't more complicated than doing it to 88.2; why?

Because any upsampling requires pretty much the same interpolation calculation.

And is it better?

No, pretty much the same.

 

[mep]

Julf-I'm trying to understand if your love of all things digital came after you had experience with tape and decided digital was the superior format or if you are simply in love with measurements and specifications.

 

[microstrip]

If that's the resolution it was originally recorded in, then I guess that is the "Studio master" quality. To me, the recording is more important than the format (as all modern digital formats are "good enough" and far superior to any old analog formats).



I prefer my music not to be up-sampled - there is no need for it, as up-sampling doesn't add any information.



Anything where the signal from the microphones is recorded straight into a digital system.



Because any upsampling requires pretty much the same interpolation calculation.



No, pretty much the same.

Julf,

We can not ignore that signals were initially analog, all digital data needs to be converted back to analog in order to be listened and there are no ideal digital-to-analog or analog-to-digital converters. Although up sampling does not have more information, practical implementations in real world can sound better than no up sampling. But only listening will tell you which gets better results. 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.