Mark Waldrep ia the owner of AIX Records and a hi-resolution audio proponent and supplier. He is a professor at a California university where he teaches classes on audio recording and mixing. He also posts daily articles on his website that contain his thoughts on various audio subjects, typically concerning hi-resolution audio subjects.
A major theme that runs through Mark's articles is the critical importance he places on the 'provenance' of a recording in determining the ultimate playback fidelity of a hi-resolution recording. 'Provenance' basically means the history of the recording; at what fidelity was it recorded originally, what master was used in the transfer to a hi-resolution format and exactly what conversions were involved in the transfer.
The truth is that vinyl records, reel-to-reel tapes and redbook cds can all sound very good but none of these formats are hi-resolution formats.
If the same multi-track reel-to-reel master tape recording/mix of a performance is used as a source for a redbook cd as well as a PCM 24 bit/96 or 192khz hi-resolution recording then, theoretically, there should be no difference in fidelity even if played back through the highest quality audio system. Both the cd and hi-resolution formats are limited by the original multi-track reel-to-reel master tape's fidelity, which is not hi-resolution.
However, if the same performance was recorded conventionally on analog reel-to-reel and direct to digital at 24 bit/96 or 192 kHz simultaneously, I would suggest most Audiogon members would clearly notice that the hi-res format is superior, mainly in detail and dynamics.
Currently, the major content owners (record labels) are scrambling to transfer their music libraries to hi-res formats using the same analog multi-track reel-to-reel masters used for cds so they can market them as 're-mastered into 24/96, 24/192 and DSD hi-res formats'. Uninformed consumers, not aware of 'provenance', will be thinking they're buying improved versions of their favorite recordings. They'll be paying more for new recordings that they don't realize they already own.
There was a recent N.Y. Times article that claimed his self-recruited test subjects could not tell the difference between redbook cds and hi-res recordings of the same music. Little wonder since they were comparing identical things.
An obvious solution would be a requirement that all hi-res music providers fully disclose each recording's 'provennce'. Of course, all providers supplying content with inferior provenance (mainly but not exclusively record labels) will likely be resisting efforts at full disclosure. I'm thinking the best way to combat this dishonesty is by spreading the word on the importance of provenance until it becomes common knowledge.
To anyone unconvinced of the audible superiority of hi-res computer audio downloads, I would urge you to download an album by Jennifer Gomes called "A 1,000 Shades of Blue" from Liason Audio in the Netherlands for under $30. All songs were recorded directly using PCM 24/96 analog to digital equipment without mixing and in front of a live audience. The excellent detail, natural and unrestricted dynamics and beautiful tonal qualities all combine to present a superb 'in the room' sound stage illusion that is stunningly realistic and clearly demonstrates the extraordinary potential of hi-res audio that has a high quality provenance.
Personally, I'm grateful that this type of high quality download is available and have no problem paying $29 for it.
Hopefully, suppliers using lower quality methods on their recordings will not gain traction and performers begin realizing the benefits of recording direct to digital for new recording sessions. Ah, to be old, naive and not concerned with the size of FLAC files.
My 2 cents,
Tim |
Zd542,
I generally have an attitude of 'listen to whatever format that brings you the most enjoyment when listening to your music' and have no interest in discouraging anyone from doing this. However, I find it curious that you would object to vinyl being accurately described as not hi-resolution.
You stated in your last post: "that there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital."
Are you saying that common audio measurements (such as frequency response, signal to noise ratios, dynamic range, etc.) mysteriously cannot be measured for vinyl but can be exactly measured on digital formats? This would be very troubling but convenient for anyone wishing to avoid objectively comparing the two formats. Fortunately,however, your statement is not factual.
You may be correct in stating my previous post lacked objective facts. So, here are some facts comparing various performance measurements between vinyl and 24 bit/96khz digital formats that are audible and directly affect audio quality:
Dynamic Range Vinyl 55-70db Digital 110-120db
Signal/Noise Ratio Vinyl 70db Digital 144db
Frequency Response Vinyl 20-20k hz +/-3db Digital 20-20k hz +/-.5db
You may like the warmer sound of vinyl or the rituals involved with playing vinyl but insisting it is a hi-res format defies the facts and is, ultimately, not relevant to your enjoyment of it.
Also, you stated: "A recent NY Times article? Do you really think they're qualified to conduct such a test? You can do whatever you want, but if I was trying to make your point, I would be embarrassed to reference a source like that. And then expect someone to take me seriously"
The reason I referred to this article was to demonstrate the reporter's total lack of understanding of the importance of a recording's provenance. No, I don't think he was qualified to conduct such a test, precisely because he didn't realize he was asking his subjects to choose which recording sounded best when both recordings were identical. Because of this, the results of his test are meaningless.
My main point is that the major labels are using standard resolution older masters of their recordings, transferring them into hi-res formats, increasing the prices and marketing these as hi-res without disclosing the provenance of these recordings. Doing this adds no improvements in sound quality but may garner large revenues from uninformed consumers. I'd prefer these potential buyers to be well informed. I'm fairly sure the major labels would prefer otherwise.
Nonoise,
completely agree with your comment that good recordings make for good playback.
Tim
|
Zd542,
You stated:
"No. I said resolution. With digital, you can label something 16/44 or 24/96 or whatever. You can't do that with analog. And even if you could, it would probably be too impractical to use in the real world. Analog resolution varies with equipment choice."
I definitely agree that vinyl analog resolution varies with equipment choices; I've even read a comment from another vinyl enthusiast who claimed his very expensive vinyl setup possessed infinite resolution. I think that's a bit optimistic, given the very real limits of the technology. The only limiting factor with digital audio resolution occurs if an analog multi-track reel-to-reel tape recording is used as the master, rather than recording the performance directly to digital via PCM. This distinction, between transferred from an analog master and recorded direct to digital, is at the center of the provenance issue.
This is related to your other question:
"Maybe you could explain this because I'm not sure how you are coming up with it? When you say that they take standard resolution recordings and transfer them to high rez formats, what are we the resolutions in question? I'm not sure that I know what standard resolution is, in the context of your comment."
'Standard resolution' to me is any format that had a multi-track analog tape as its source; this would include most cds and LPs. I would also classify any hi-rez files, if they were transferred from an analog tape master, as 'standard resolution'.
I wonder if anyone has recorded direct to digital via 16 bit/44.1khz PCM for a cd, bypassing the analog master tape? If so, I would think this has the potential to sound very good, too.
Chrshanl37,
Thank you for posting that John Darko article, it was very interesting and relevant to this thread. I hadn't read it until now and can't disagree with his summarizing paragraph at the end:
"Whilst the hi-res file retailers(hopefully) resolve the issue of quality control and provenance reporting, let's stop foisting talk of twenty-four-blah-one-ninety-bleurgh onto Joe Public and his mates because, as we've recently seen with all the Pono bashing emanating from the mainstream press (with its implicit non-audiophile perspective), it will do more harm than good." |
Zd542,
You stated:
" don't know if you'll agree with me on any of this, but maybe just this 1 thing. It would be nice if the industry would get together and set some standards as to what it considered standard, high and low resolutions."
Yes, I agree this would be a very good step in clarifying the current somewhat chaotic situation. I also think a standardized description of provenance would be useful.
Raymonds:
"You really need to listen to well recorded analog to appreciate what that medium can do."
My friend's older brother had an Akai r to r in the 1970's. I remember listening to some Marshall Tucker Band songs on it. I don't recall if it was a prerecorded tape or if he recorded it himself from an album, but I do remember it sounded very good.. Truth be told, however, that was 40 years ago and I was 18. His brother might have also shared some of his marijuana with us. I might have attributed the extra fine music to being stoned for the first time. I just know it sounded especially good and I was especially hungry after.
I would love to hear some present day music on a more modern r to r in a more sober state.
Do they still make r to r machines for home use?
If they do, I would think no companies still provide prerecorded r to r tapes, right?
Or are owners expected to record their own from LPs, CDs and other sources?
Or are you, as a recording engineer, referring to a master tape on a professional r to r?
The Dude always tries to keep an open mind, looking for good technology and music and, no matter what, The Dude always, I mean always....... keeps abiding. ....If, you know what I mean.
Later,
Tim
|
Geoffkait:
"Cassettes to my ear have more resolution than CDs. Notes are more rounded, the harmonics are richer, there is more air and you can hear all the squeaks and whirring noises of instruments like violins that are missing in action on CDs. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes."
Have you ever compared the same album, or at least the same tracks, side by side on CD and cassette on a good system? If you have and the result is the same, I would suggest it has more to do with the quality of the original recording and the master used rather than the medium. Technically, CDs are a superior medium to cassettes across the board; better signal/noise ratio, better frequency response and a larger dynamic range. Cassettes also have audible issues that CDs do not, such as wow & flutter, stretched tape and bleed through.
Tape is not a natural medium; the tape itself is a synthetic material with the only natural component being metal particles that are placed onto it as part of a man-made chemical process. Of course, magnetic tape is inert and never been observed 'breathing'; but I'm going to assume you meant that as some sort of analogy that I don't quite understand.
" Ironically, perhaps, tape frequently sounds like it has more dynamic range than CDs. Yes, I realize that theoretically CD should deliver many orders of magnitude greater dynamic range than tape, especially the humble cassette, but I'm not hearing it. And the dynamics of tape sound more natural and unrestrained. Of course there are exceptions but I'm speaking generally. In addition, from what I hear comparing digital to tape, tape is much sweeter and has more, uh, resolution."
You're correct, tape has a much lower dynamic range capacity than CDs. My first thought after reading your post above was that your perception may be the reality and the cause may be a result of the 'loudness wars'. If you google 'loudness wars' you'll find plenty of discussions on this so I won't go into too much detail. Basically, there are pressures on mixing engineers to have their CDs mixed so they play at a generally loud level, which results in a drastic reduction in the dynamic range. When I initially played my first hi-rez download (Jennifer Gomes' "A 1,000 Shades of Blue" which was recorded direct to digital at 24 bit/96khz in front of a live audience with minimal mixing utilized), the most obvious improvement over my CDs, besides the absolutely dead quiet background that the music emerges from and the resultant ultra high detail level, was the increased dynamics; for the first time, I could clearly hear tonal and volume changes on any particular instrument I chose to concentrate on.
So, my opinion(theory?) is that the loudness wars has so compromised the CD mixing process that an individual, you, has actually perceived the dynamic range of cassette tapes to be greater than CDs. Personally, I stopped using a cassette tape deck in my system a long time ago, when CDs first began to be offered for home use and soon after began replacing cassette players in cars with CD players. Your post is the 1st time I've discovered an impression that cassette tapes outperform CDs in the areas of dynamic range and resolution.
I have no reason to doubt your honest assessment and view it as an indictment of the extent to which the loudness wars have corrupted the CD mixing process and compromised a format with such high potential.
However, I think we're straying off the original thread starter's question about whether CD quality is attainable via a computer audio system. I believe your observation is worthy of its own thread but think it's proper form to try to avoid hijacking a thread by straying to related topics.
I hope you agree,
Tim
|
Woops, I'm following a few threads and incorrectly listed the subject of this thread as 'Is CD quality attainable via computer audio?'.
My mistake, I should have stated this thread's subject as:
'Does HiRez really sound better?'
Sorry,
|
Zd542,
The 'Loudness Wars' on CDs has seriously reduced dynamics and micro-dynamics which are potentially much better on CDs as opposed to cassettes. Additionally, CDs benefit from zero wow & Flutter and a much lower noise floor.
The areas I notice the most obvious improvements with hi-rez files as compared to CDs are: dynamics, micro-dynamics, an even lower noise floor and a very high detail level. With your previous comments on the importance of most of these qualities in your music listening, I would think hi-rez music files are likely a very good choice for you.
Tim |
In shore,
While I don't disagree with your comment, I would add that switching to a computer based digital source in one's system is not a simple thing and requires some commitment. The first need is to educate yourself on how it all works and the components needed. Then you need to research these components to determine the right ones for you that are within your budget. Significant decisions also need to be made along the way, such as hardwired or wireless and exactly what hi-rez format to utilize (24/96khz, 24/192khz,DSD, etc.)
My point is that all the above takes time and some may need assistance from other members who have more knowledge. Many thread followers may not have completed their switch to digital files and are seeking help by posting on the wrong threads.
Just as you, interested in actual information about HiRes files themselves, posted on this thread which is concerned with whether HiRez really sounds better. I think you may be on the wrong thread.
Thanks,
Tim
|
Hi In shore,
Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your comment/frustration better now.
It seems you are, like myself, already convinced that HiRez offers the best sonic performance of currently available music sources. You're just looking for more information and discussion about good HiRez files, their sonic qualities and where they're available. And, when you are able to find threads containing this info, the threads tend to peter out.
If my understanding is correct, I would have to agree with you but still think you may be seeking info on the wrong site. I love Audiogon but would say, in general, forum topics are more concerned with equipment than music.
I would suggest visiting Mark Waldrep's site at AIX Records. He teaches about audio and audio recording as a professor at a California college but puts out a daily newsletter on audio subjects on his AIX site, mainly HiRez related. He's a big proponent of HiRez file suppliers needing to list the 'Provenance' of the downloads they sell. By 'Provenance', he is basically referring to the download's history; was it re-recorded from an analog LP or CD master? (which he argues is not HiRez since it will not sound better than the original master since it is just a standard resolution recording re-recorded on to a HiRez 'bucket') or was it recorded live digitally using HiRez recording equipment? (which he does on his AIX files and argues are HiRez and sound significantly better than those remixed from analog masters).
His arguments make a lot of sense to me and, as a result, I've only been buying downloads that are listed as being recorded directly to digital with good results thus far. I have not purchased any AIX downloads yet but I have bought a few from a European site called Sound Liaison www.soundliaison.com/. I bought and downloaded 2 24bit/96khz FLAC files of Jennifer Gomes songs recorded live in a studio direct to digital and both are excellent.
I consider myself just at the beginning of my computer audio journey, having all the required software and equipment well integrated into my system. While I have my entire CD collection now stored on my NAS, I currently have a limited number ofHiRez music files. I may be at a similar stage as you since I'm now less concerned with setup and now more concerned with finding good HiRez music files to download. However, getting back to this thread's topic, I have absolutely no doubt that HiRez 24/96 FLAC files sound better than my ripped CDs; more detailed, better dynamics and more of a sense of being in the same venue as the musicians.
I hope this helped you,
Tim |
