Some people just don't know what to listen for. Its sort of like how they say once you see it, you can't unsee it. A friend had the Pink Floyd Pulse DVD and I have the Laserdisc. The laserdisc has a much softer image BUT the dvd has a lot of pixelation with all the crazy lighting. He never saw it until I pointed it out to him. Said he couldn't watch it after that because that's all he sees. Recently the BR came out. Still an SD image but much higher bitrate, but with a terrible re-edit.
This video above all the others has impressed me the most. I would love to hear more about your pursuit for audio quality and the crossroad where you met Neil Young’s pursuit for preserving audio integrity. I suspect that story would be far more interesting.
Might I add? TAPE has most always been the 'voice' of vinyl records. In the pure analog world, tape is STILL the king of frequency response and dynamic range. Now Paul is telling us here that studio 'toys' can 'expand' upon them. It would NOT be original for sure, but I get it. There are companies that take great pride in producing NEW PRE-recorded tapes from oridingal masters and are available. They ARE expensive and so are the tape machines to pley them, but oh the sound (O: Back to Paul's subject here.....One company of note that has been doing this with GREAT success is High Definition Tape Transfers. They take old, commercial, PRE-recorded tapes like I have in my tape library, and make WONDERFUL digital recordings. They have even made transfers from VINYL with great results as well. I have two in particular from Paul Klipschs' 1954-56 STEREO Jazz and Orchestral recordings that he recorded himself. HDTT did a wonderful job on these. Discs can be put in most any format to order. I went with DVD-A I am 68 and it is so amazing to hear something that was recorded when I was only 3 years of age, and can sound SO good ! Has Paul G. ever heard these?.......probably not. But I highly recommend them. I don't know of anyone that was recording jazz or symphony orchestra/organ in TRUE stereo back in those years. John Eargle got his start working with PWKon that project back in those years, and I don't have to tell you about the late, great Mr. Eargle (O:
One can argue that the biggest advantage to tape is how many particles get magnetized which translates to a much higher “sample rate” than we’re currently able to achieve. However, nothing analog can ever achieve the 1528dB of possible dynamic range in 32 bit floating point audio paired with converters that often surpass 120/130dB. So both media have their reason to be used today, and many people (including myself) still use reel-to-reels in the studio specifically to get that real tape saturation, compression, and yes, sometimes even to deliberately add authentic tape noise 😄
1/2" 2-track running at 15ips or faster can absolutely capture frequencies higher than 22.05kHz. Signal-to-noise ratio will probably only net you up to about the equivalent of 13 bits of available dynamic range, though.
@@mypulse9 Why would you lose at the bottom end? Can't think of a technical reason other than that the tape recorder in question needs to be high-quality, perhaps higher-quality all else being equal. Taken to extremes back in the era, there were recordings made on 35mm film, great low end.
Most people think it's enough and I agree, having both analog and digital I love two. Though noiseless digital is a major plus for me. It seems less and less techs are able to master these R2R.
Quite true. Plus digital systems typically have much more "padding" at high levels- usually 14dB, because one must not ever exceed full-scale during loud passages. So now, our our 98dB "dynamic range" is more like 84dB- close to the S/N of analog tape. Furthur, with analog it's possible to hear sound that is below the noise floor of the system, with digital low-level content is ignored.
Nowadays data is cheap and great analog mastered music should be re-mastered with utmost care in preserving the original sound using best possible quality of digital resolution. It's a crime, in my opinion, when some great analog master gets damaged by a mastering process ending up with compression and a low resolution digital version that often can't even beat the vinyl version. Especially music from the 70s often sound better on an old vinyl record than a CD version of the same track and that's not because vinyl is a better format.
@@Bassotronics Well, if someone do this in his home, he might have violated copyright laws but if he keep his crappy MP3 version for himself, I would just feel sorry for the guy. More respectable is to rip the CD for the actual exact data and play it as a FLAC file from a NAS server or PC.
So the 35MM magnetic tape masters are heads above contemporary tape formats of the 60s and should be digitized if they are not. The vinyl pressings from those tapes have amazing sound, if you really want to hear analog compete with CD.
For a mixdown ready to be mastered, absolutely go for higher sampling rate and absolutely bit rate. For a finished master, 44.1 kHz is plenty, 16 bit works too unless you're listening at jet engine levels or classical music where only one note briefly hits peak level and everything else is rather close to the noise floor. Kinda wish red book standard used floating point instead of integer.
My understanding is that DSD is retaining more of the harmonics above the fundamental frequencies that you are attempting to reproduce. The "analogous reference" to more analog is similar to comparing PWM to discrete sampling. Time is a linear component along with the one bit energy encoding over time.
Paul you are a genius, you just explained why analog can sound better than digital,when in fact it shouldnt ,, because the mastering engineers muck it up and try to remove the tape hiss, and when they remove the tape hiss guess what else goes with it,,,,,lol,,,, i wish the digiphobes would watch this,,, In a perfect world the closer you are to the master the better the sound,,,,, except when.....well you know,,,, great video paul!!!!!
The early CDS had all the tape hiss and are more dynamic than what is thrown out there now in most cases but they are still not as good as a record or even a cassette played in a high quality deck. Digital by it's very nature is pure speculation using numbers and digits without any tangibility of the real world like analog with magnetic tape. It cannot sound better by it's very nature nor can a analog tape being transferred to a different highly speculative format be more accurate than a analog tape being transferred to a analog format, there's just no logic to that. Digital is also limited by resolution with numbers. Analog is not, it's only limit is how good the recording, the tape and the home equipment is. That's it. "digiphobes", sounds like some rubbish the mainstream media would throw out haha. Maybe Digital Apologists need to start comprehending that the only advantage that Digital has is convenience and that's it. Man's greatest accomplishments weren't made in convenient manners.
Maybey the reason a voice recorded at a seemingly ample 44.1/16bit compared to that same voice being recorded at super high, far higher bit'rate/sampling rate (I only know analog numbers) ... sounds better because the wider-spectrum audio recording are capturing far higher harmonics (above the brick wall filter above of 20.5 KHz from the lowly 44.1/16) and those normally (& incapabll? )unheard frequencies recordings are adding an aural reality to their source frequencies withing our normal hearing range. Like, an oboe only sounds different to a clarinet because of harmonics alone. Harmonics well above our hearing range may be adding more 'aural reality' to sounds we hear within our range ...In ways not fully understood but i have my ideas, no, wonderings about neural pathways to brain receptors from our seemingly frequency limited ears ...but hey! I'm just interested in apoarent conundrums in human awareness & if my theory is wrong ...maybe this audio recording conundrum isn't plain-sailing from what I've read on psychaccoustics & generally related biology ..I.e. very little
I strongly feel (now) that the voice/ instrument we hear played live..... (btw, sound is scientifically known to excite a regular periodic frequency pattern of harmonics throughout the sound frequency spectrum inc' well beyond human hearing range ..theoreticallg going on 4ever tho increasingly quieter) ......that live sound's produced harmonics laying beyond our humam-range may-well cause a virtually synchronous 'sympathetic resonance' effect back on the sound's original source, so giving that source instrument it's distinct sound when heard live, as only harmonics can do. So when it comes to recording those same sounds on 44/16 low-res, it will suck some degree of realism from the heard low'res recording, by not producing any of those beyond-human hearing harmonics of the original source sound. Sorry to kinda repeat myself but I keep thinking of better ways to explain this idea. It's just a flimsy hypothesis but It's been an interesting thought experiment. But now i somehow think someone must have thought all this through before me as a much wider frequency bandwidth is the (only?) difference on hi-res recording equipment (isn't it?) Compared to low'res so harmonics shout very loud for being the csuse that Paul here & others say is clearly better on hi-res recording. Grammer is not my strong point so i hope i made some sense.
I am curious if any 33 or 45 lp has been recorded in studio directly from a live presentation - without audio processing and without using master tapes. Only mics and electronic amplification, like in the 30s. Curious how much better it would sound compared to a master tape.
I have been getting very good performance with analog magnetic tape using my new Analog Digital Modulator (ADM) technology, whereby keeping the analog information and processing in a digital environment like a FPGA. With these experiments I been recording up to 80 dB of dynamic range on a standard TDK SA type II cassette tapes, with frequency response up to 18 kHz and still making improvements with this technology. As I stated before I am happy to talk you (Paul) about this technology as it can be used for amplification, signal processing and magnetic recording systems. Magnetic recording technology has not stop developing it has just slowed down since the 1990's, when made the change to digital and there are new ways to work within the limitations of compact cassette format for example. The other comment I was going to say is video recorders have bandwidths that go all the way up to the MHz range and therefore you can record a digital signals directly, as I have done experiments in the past with VCR's and the digital audio via the video input. So dose not take much to convert an old VHS to become a digital audio recorder and if you have a HiFi VCR you can record analog as it already has two FM audio tracks available.
Question: Whats the Importance of proper Grounding/earthing in a recording setting. How does different grounding effect the quality of recording or sound. ? Thanks Heaps from New Zealand
Not that much, and really important at the same time, depending on exactly what you mean by grounding, and what kind of devices you are using. It’s possible to run a recording setup with no ground connection at all; after all that’s how you get recordings from spacecraft. And if you think about it, the Earth is kinda a big spaceship in the sense that it’s floating out in space. Two devices hooked up need a common “zero” reference point; and how this is achieved will vary. Unbalanced analog devices; such as devices with RCA outputs; will reference the signal off of chassis ground. This can result in “ground loops” (especially when there’s more than two devices connected) which can introduce noise - often at the mains power line frequency. Balanced devices send two mirror image signals down the cable, and take the difference between the two as the actual desired value. Any signal leaking into the connection will tend to leak in equally, and thus cancel out. Getting the grounding right on an unbalanced system can require a bit of trial and error, and using some 1:1 audio isolation transformers if need be. On balanced systems, noise issues with ground loops are much less likely; and the basic rule of thumb is to make sure that all the EMI shields have a good path to a common point, and that that point has a good path to earth ground. Generally speaking, professional equipment used in recording will be either fully digital or balanced analog. All professional microphones are balanced analog; but synths vary. Instrument pickups also vary; some being balanced, others not. This is a very deep subject; with a few different approaches to it; and I’m really oversimplifying it to try and squeeze it into a TH-cam comment...
P.a. That’s also ignoring the importance of grounding for safety. Gear that’s directly mains powered (I.e, not with a battery pack or wall adapter that puts out 12v or so) will have high voltage in it, especially if it’s got tubes in it. Mostly, though, that’s going to be electric guitar amps. Oh, and the 48v phantom power applied to mic inputs will bite you, but not anywhere nearly as bad as the several hundred volts in a tube amp will.
I was quite stunned by the Cd quality of the Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong recording of Porgy & Bess. As I’ve toured Hi Rez via HD Tracks and Qobuz, I’m leaning to the idea that the sound quality once mastered is far more important than the distribution format. Except 8 track tape. Nobody could fix 8 track. The CD ruined the chances of VHS Hi Fi tape being the demon that deeply wounded the vinyl record.
Making a high definition transfer from old analogue tape makes perfect sense. It simply ensures that everything on that tape is captured. Working at 44.1/16 bit CD specification does not necessarily do this (if you don't believe me look at some spectral analysis of 44.1/16 vs 96/24 captures and there is information in the HD capture missing from the 44.1/16). Whether you can hear the difference or not is another matter but I feel it is important to capture and preserve everything on this 'old' material regardless. Personally I would prefer everything captured to DSD not PCM in this context for the reasons Paul mentions. Regarding why DSD can sound better well a simple explanation is that DSD and PCM capture the incoming analogue signal in different ways. PCM capture is a digital process 100%, no argument. DSD as I have pointed out repeatedly is not, it does not store the audio in the form of fixed digital values but as a mirror of the incoming signal that I would argue is analogue hence the advantage.
Well, I have several versions of Kind of Blue, and a few months ago I got a copy of the 24/192 remaster made (I think) in 2013. It's made from original tapes recorded in 1959. I've no idea why, technically - whether it's the higher resolution, whether it's just special care taken by engineer Mark Wilder, or what - but it's easily the best version I've heard.
Damn, I SO want to come up to Colorado when all of this Covid BS is finally over, and visit your factory and studio, and talk audio stuff with you for a few hours or an afternoon sometime, Paul! You make some really good and informative videos that everyone interested in audio, especially higher end audio, can relate to, which is awesome to see, but I would love to get even MORE technical with you and Chris, your speaker guy, about a few topics!
And I have a Sony SACD player.... I still have a couple CD's that were original. What I mean by that is they were some of the first CD's that came out and they were taken off of analog recordings. man you can hear some stuff. Like mics turning off and on, instruments coming in and out. IMHO there was a reason a lot of bands didnt release their stuff on CD until it was "remastered".
What I wonder is if people's physiology of their bodily hearing mechanisms vary with genetic code, and wear and tear on our hearing systems with age (exposure to noises), how can we be sure that two people hear the same sound the same way? If bodily hearing systems are like speaker boxes, then the "same" noise could sound very different from person to person, simply because of DNA differences in hearing mechanisms, and limitations that happen in hearing because of aging and the resulting wear and tear on our individual body's hearing system.
I think what the guy was asking whats the equivalent amount of bits on analog, i heard it was (13 bits) with 15 or 30 ips with the best Dolby s reduction .
This topic need more explaining Paul...if you could be so kind? I have heard some remastering that expanding the frequency range and cleaning up the audio a bit...and for the most part I would say it can be a nice improvement if done well. I would like to know more about oversampling, because tape recordings have way more than digital from what I hear, so it seems that you do lose something when doing these improvements too?
Does the original master tape sound better than DSD conversion? Or do they remaster/clean-up the DSD in attempt to improve the sound. If the goal is to reproduce the master tape as closely as possible then a DSD high bitrate conversion is why they do it. That is the answer to the guys question.
This makes no sense to me. If I put a quart of water into a gallon jug or a five gallon bucket I still only have a quart of water. I reject the notion that CDs “sound digital “. The vast majority of commercial CDs sound like crap is because they are engineered to sound “good” on your Emerson under the kitchen cabinet CD player not on an audiophile system. Well engineered CDs are always superior to analog because they have more frequency response, wider dynamic range, superior signal to noise, on and on. It’s not the format but how it’s used.
Standard CDs from day 1 until CDs bought now have never ever had a high frequency ability higher than 22.05 Khz. CDs then & as now have always had a (high harmonic-destoying) brick-wall filter placed to stop all frequency sounds above 22.05 Khz i.e. CD's absolute maximum highest possibility of their frequency range reproduction (that stops all frequencies above their CD audio filter-wall dead (i.e. with no slow roll-off) So 22.05 Khz was & is the very highest frequency possible from all regular CDs then & as now. Obviously, that high frequency limitation is inherent in the CD itselfs & not in whatever CD player that plays them. While many good analog phono cartridges since the earliest 1970's (at the very least) could reproduce a vinyl L.P.s audio signals... (obviously, if present) ...upto 30+ Kz ...tho prob as many or more that could do ...couldn't, depending what you chose. For the only Google'able & easily checkable proof of the above facts I can think of, I give you this one certain proof E.G. to show how the above is not just my or anyone's opinion:- The only 3 successfully commercial early-mid 1970's Quadraphonic formats (JVC's 'CD-4' system, Sony's 'SQ' & Sansui's 'QS' system) could & can only work with phono cartridges that can reproduce a vinyl L.P.'s groove's signals of a minimum 30'Khz @ < 3'db down, in order to reproduce a humanly inaudible 30 Khz encoded vital carrier-wave that was cutter-head inprinted into all Quadraphonic vinyl L.P.s & placed there so your Quadraphonic decoder box.... (between stereo pre-amp out & the 4 power-amp channel inputs) can use the decoder boxes 4-channel discreet line-level signal output into your 4 channels of power amplification required. This minimum 30'Khz phono-cartridge depenency was always made well clear to buyers of Quadrophonic systems & the stereo to Quadraphonic add-on kit equipment who's makers also supplied a long list of conyempory commercially available phono cartridges than could reproduce =/> 30'Kh to properly decode the 2 -> 4 discreet channels! & Sure's original V15 phono cartridgd was just one of the more popular cartridges cartridges that quadraphonic equipment's manufacturers all included in their supplies list of cartridges you needed 1'of for their Quadraphonic system to work. While all standard 44.1/16 bit CDs have a 22.05 Khz so unlike phono cart's higher frequency ability. Now hi-res digital is another story
Oh yeah, wider dynamic range & superior dynamics? I dread to think what turntable you're comparing CD & Vinyl with. My old s/h Thorens 150 / Alphason Xenon bought in early 80's made CD's a virtual laughing stock, CD sound-compressikn squashed Dynamic Range flat as a pancake, & as for the other thing I e 4got you praised CD for ...well, my above deck sounded a trillion times better on all parameters & I (an early keen but disappointed CD adopter put all my friends off selling their vinyl to go for the "Perfect sound forever" & as for the "prsctically indestructible" label that Phillips & sony used, I've a few oxidized layers in CDs that increasingly skipped, popped, clicked before dying outright. The original design of a silver recorded layer sandwiched between 2 polycarbonate discs was dropped, try scraping a line on the label side ; you see daylight only. CDs suck balls
@@The-Spotlight-Kid the tech specs are clearly Superior, whether a mastering engineer used those specs wisely is another issue, and material dependant. Early CDs were badly done.
Of course it's not the superior quality in technical terms that really matters. Many cases analog sounds better than digital specifically because of those limitations. I have albums that sound far better on CD reisssues than LP's and vice versa. One album I have two digitized copies: LP and C Cassette version. That's because casette of that specific album has awesome low end grunt on it I haven't heard in any other version and I love it.
Threre is also the question of how much of a “floor” the background noise in a system presents to our perception. You might have noise in tapes and pre-amps but can we still hear sounds through the noise floor, can’t we? If you can hear the noise as a soft hiss, can you hear music played at the same level on a system (say it’s purely digital and,as an experiment and you’re injecting noise) without the noise? If you mix both noise and music at that level, do you still hear the music? So is dynamic range as measured from a noise flow to some max level really a good measure of what we perceive when listening to analogue sources? Is it just a good measure for engineering calculations?
@@mikep9234 How is it wrong? His machines had greater high-frequency response than CD, and dynamic range was darn close. Most of those killer sounding MFSL SACDs and 1-step albums used Tim's modified tape machine for playback of the master tapes.
@@mikep9234 Some people are so nostalgic and can't let go of old technology. Technology is irrelevant long as you have creative people making good music.
Back in the early 1980s, I worked for PolyGram in Canada, Every now and then, I would take ownership of a "metal mother" from which "son" stampers were made to produce "daughters" which are the vinyl records that are played. The first was Wagner's 'Siegfried' from 'The Ring Cycle.' The "mother" was a 14" disk and my Garrard 301 with a J.A. Mitchell unipivot tonearm had sufficient clearance to play the oversized disks. I was dazzled by how dynamic the "mother" sounded, and also, a bit surprised to discover that the vinyl record that had been made from the "mother" didn't sound nearly as good. Now, PolyGram didn't press records. It used CBS, Quality Records, and Cinram, depending on the 'prestige' of the record. Since the 'Siegfried' "mother" was for DG, it's a safe bet that the records were pressed by CBS. Since PolyGram didn't press records, it maintained a quality control department, and it was there that I found out why the "mother" sounded so much better than the final product. That "mother," indeed its precursor "father" and "grandmother" were produced from a master tape in a way to be 'hotter' than the master tape, with the aim that the vinyl record that you would play would be quite faithful to the production master tape. In the same way, the Redbook CD should sound quite similar to a vinyl record played back on a first tier audio system. No special considerations were required between a master recording and the CD. There aren't any losses along the way. This was not true of the final vinyl record which had many 'parent' pressings.
If you think the sonic quality of the "mother" is that good, you'd be blown away at the original mixdown which is 3 generations of non compressed, non bastardized sound above the mother!
@@keithmoriyama5421 I have listened to my fair share of production master tapes, that is, tapes that PolyGram would send to use as the master to cut all pressing masters from. All of the extra brightness that goes into the original cutting (but that is still obvious in the "mother") is part of the design of record mastering, and a "mother" for any record will sound more than lifelike and transparent than anything else. And yes, that will include all of the stuff that gets done to keep the stylus in the groove. But the long result, as I said above is obvious. With good equipment, vinyl and CD are hard to distinguish, but a metal "mother" will sound way more alive and dynamic than it has a right to. Here's one... 78 RPM acoustic recordings, played back in stereo, demonstrate 3D holographic qualities. Proper EQ would help, but good old RIAA NARTB ORTHO will do. Nice fine elliptical stylus to ride well down in the groove. Below the noise and scrapings of whatever metal stylus was used to trace the record back in 1906.
@@keithmoriyama5421 I answered your question. A copy-master tape is not the "master" of anything. It is intended to be the source from which pressing masters are made. How things are set up by the mastering engineer depends on the production yield required. Small-run pressings of 1500 LP's, say, would be set up to produce a 'mother,' with different settings than those applied to cutting a "grandmother" for many thousands or millions of pressings. The intent is to compensate for generational losses. Done properly, as I said, the finished product should sound about the same as the copy-master tape. Keep in mind: The vinyl record that comes out at the end of the process remains a medium with a greater resolving power than the source tape, and that is at the geometric point where vinyl playback is at its least effective (toward the center of the disk).
@@380stroker Is not that different in terms of bits per second. DSD has a 1 bit sample in the MHz, but a 24bit/192 kHz PCM has 4.6 Mbps per channel. Since all of this formats are lossless up to the 20 khz hearing limit, in practice sample density is only affecting the quantization error noise floor, which is very very low. If dithered, this harmonic noise turns into white noise, which is unrecognizable from electronics hardware noise but far lower.
@@gastonpossel Well then it's some kind of sourcery. All joking aside, there was a blind test done with many people to see if they could tell the difference between pcm vs dsd. I believe the results were close to 50/50. So its just chance.
Paul is wrong here: CD does NOT have higher frequency response than that of a 2-track professional tape. My 1/4 inch 2 track machine running at 15 IPS, using a modern ATR tape, has a FR of (+/-3db) of 20hz-39Khz (nearly TWICE that of a standard CD). Sony TC-882-2 r2r deck is well-known to have a FR of 20hz-45+Khz. The 1/2 inch tapes running at the same speed are even better. I have personally seen test reports in the 20hz-60+Khz range).
"Above all else do no harm"... That axiom, in addition to applying to medicine, should apply to archival mastering etc. of any/all material. In other words, in no way should the 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 apply any less than transparent layer, or alteration from the original. High Fidelity, faithfulness to the original.
The obvious question is .... where has the original copy come from? An analog magnetic tape, if it still exists. May be 40+ years old and severely degraded with age. Or is it an early digital copy of the tape when it was still playable? Either way, copying to a so called hi-res format cannot magically recover detail lost in the original recording.
@@geoff37s38 I suggest you watch again and listen closely.... He never said it sounded better because of higher bitrate etc😂 He said DSD / SACD sounds more analog than PCM / CD... So yes it's a obvious thing when a old analog recording sounds different on the two because of the difference in how the file format itself works and not the actual bitrates..
@@Oystein87 The audible difference between DSD and PCM, if it actually exists, is so vanishingly small that it is irrelevant compared to a severely compromised analog magnetic tape master with all its audible imperfections. The question still remains..... what is the source for the re-mastering? The original tape will, at best, be severely degraded with age. Or, far more likely, it is an early PCM digital copy from decades ago at the birth of digital recording? More re-mastering is pointless.
@@geoff37s38 I see you did not understand.. It's NOT aboyt the quality but the codec. Understand now? The DSD format sounds more analog so a analog recording sounds more natural on DSD. Nothing to do with quality in this case. He explained this..
FR and DR are only 2 aspects of sound that are easily measured. Most people's ears are equally as limited in FR as a professional tape machine. 50dB of DR is very difficult to live with in a home environment. You would be constantly riding the level to hear the quiet parts over ambient noise and not get blasted by the loud parts. Most commercial recordings are compressed, limited or gain ridden to keep the dynamic range within 20dB or so for practical listening. So, one has to ask themselves, are these attributes of primary importance? The errors or artifacts of analog audio are largely additive. Hiss, hum and so forth. Just as with people in an audience talking, the brain is adept at filtering out or ignoring unwanted signals. The errors of digital are subtractive. Data between the clock pulses is missing. The system attempts to artificially reconstruct it from the available data which is basically an interpolation of what came before and what is next. With no idea if there was anything else in there. High resolution, high clock rate transfers can do a better job of capturing whatever was actually on the master tape. One of the great fallacies in audio is the concept of FR as it pertains to the human ear's ability to detect simple sine wave tones. Almost no musical instruments produce a sine wave. Using Kind of Blue as an example, a trumpet is essentially a narrow pulse square wave. Sound is generated by bursts of air traveling though tubes, the resonant length of which are only part of determining the frequency. The frequency of the bursts of air in the mouthpiece is also altered by the player. The saxophone is essentially a square wave as the reed opens and closes. FFR of such waveforms contains frequencies well beyond the basic human ear's range of pure sine tones. One of the reasons they are so hard to reproduce realistically. Good professional tape machines may have a measurable rolloff but they have useable bandwidth far beyond the brickwall anti aliasing filters of digital equipment. The very same machines and technology were used for scientific instrumentation besides audio recording. There is audio information on those master tapes that gets lost in 14bit/44kHz transferring that is essential to the sound of the recordings.
Nice diatribe. In many things you are right. Only you don’t understand a thing about digital. Once someone talks about stuff missing between samples after digital reconstruction, a popular but totally incorrect myth perpetuated also by the unscrupulous marketing of the so called hirez industry, I know they do not grasp the basics of digital signal processing so anything they say is irrelevant from that moment on. You better do some basic reading on AD and DA conversion before your next diatribe. Btw, square waves and pulses, in their mathematical definition, do not exist in music. All music is composed of sine waves.
@@razisn Correct. It is disturbing how many people with a limited knowledge of digital recording completely misunderstand how the process works and incorrectly assume higher transfer rates must reduce the gaps or step sizes in the analog output. The 44.1KHz CD can produce absolutely perfect copies of the original waveform captured by the studio microphone. Yes, I mean absolutely perfect, not an approximation. The finest studio microphones are deliberately rolled off at 20KHz to prevent instability and have a dynamic range around 92dB. A 44.1/16 CD can easily meet these parameters.
@@geoff37s38 The industry itself is also to blame for this. Instead of educating people their marketing departments are the first to perpetuate this myth starting with Sony and their hirez initiative. Even the term high resolution is misleading and inappropriate for high sampling rates and high bit depths capture as it invokes inapplicable analogues to digital image processing with which many people are more familiar. I guess it is easier for them to talk about steps and resolution than discussing engineering implementation problems and digital manipulation issues that make high sample rates appropriate for recording purposes, or digital reconstruction but totally unnecessary for delivery.
@@razisn it’s not understanding Nyquist. That’s what’s wrong. OP is absolutely right. Sampling aliasing artifacts crawl over the holy “double rate” barrier in all but ideal cases. Which is of course all the time. And it affects signal frequencies far lower down, than what you’d think for the exact reason you yourself mention. IE. there is no such thing as a square wave. What’s more DACs are far from the solved and neatly wrapped (or near to diminishing returns) problem that many pretend it is.
When I was 12 we got our first CD Player. I was so excited and was all about new digital technology. However I noticed these CD's sounded awful compared to my records. For instance, on the record sax's absolutely pop out and sound incredible (if recorded properly), while on the cd versions it seemed to loose a lot of life and just sounded dull. Again this was when I was 12 and looking forward to digital back in 92 and I was extremely let down. I found if it was recorded digitally it sounds good digital and aweful on a newer vinyl record, if it was recorded analog it sounds like garbage digitally but great on a record.
"Lucky to get 15kHz..."? That's very curious. Apparently we're back to confusing audiophile consumer engineering with pro. The mastering machines I was working with back in the day (MCI JH-110B's, half-track--never had a 4-channel machine--running at 15 ips NAB) were individually spec'd units with a nominal minimum of 30 - 24,000 Hz. + 0.75 dB / -2 dB. I could record a perfect square wave at 20 kHz with no strains or trouble at all.
I am a firm adherent to the axiom that the soul of music is in the midrange. Sure, an analog tape recording has limited dynamic range between the noise floor and tape saturation and the frequency response rolls off at the top and bottom. But the roll off on a good recorder happens gracefully, not a 'brick wall'. And the sweet spot in the midrange of a skillfully made analog recording sounds just so, for lack of a better word, right. When the center holds, the limitations at the extremes become of minor importance. First and foremost, get the middle right. The soul is there for the ear to hear. Ditto for a quality phonograph record. By the way, I have the SACD of "Kind of Blue" and it's wonderful. Also a recent pressing of the the LP (which I purchased at the same time as the LP of "Blue" by Joni Mitchell, it was the proper thing to do). Which is better? I am not interested in nitpicking inconsequential differences when the music is this great. Call it a split decision, if you must, Further affiant sayeth naught.
when i saw the title i had to chuckle a bit.program material aside;-)....how good is the tape's condition and the quality of what it was recorded on and played back with? then...i clicked play. hi paul. hope the day treats all of you folks well in the face of the current insanity. =dok=
Remember the concept of "professional headroom" which was supposedly commonplace during the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s recording studio work which apparently seem to vanish in the 1980s during the so-called digital recording revolution?🤔
Well, real pro tape at 15 or 30 ips is astounding. The Signal to noise ratio can easily approach 80 dB without processing. Add DBx 150 and 100 dB Snr is achievable. Yes, the engineers used to drive tape hard -well above 0vu to achieve not only high sir, but the after effects of tape saturation. Real studio grade tape is exceptional, and can surpass 20 kHz bandwidth. The digital formats, when utilized properly can achieve similar performance. The game is won or lost at the source- high quality Mics, low noise Mics and exceptional engineering. Many folks have moved to digital formats simply due to the reduction in outboard gear required to produce a top notch song. The analog outboard gear brought a lot of secondary effects that cannot be attributable to tape. It took real creativity to properly utilize 24 analog tracks. Today, having 200+ digital tracks is easy to create, but a nightmare to mix.
Pure guesswork from me, but from what I've read (and what I've heard Paul saying), the D to A process for DSD is technically a lot simpler. So maybe DSD leaves less in the way of digital artifacts (which the heavy filtering used in PCM conversion can leave behind)?
@@osliverpool that can be true. Just like oversampling (with a good algorithm, that is) can make the required analogue filtering much simpler. A lot of the "1-bit" CD players that were trendy for a while actually were hugely oversampled machines. However, if both formats are accurate and we would assume a perfect DA convertor, there should not be a difference in sound. Just like a very good cable should not sound different from another very good cable, unless you _like the artefacts that the cable produces that give it its "sound"._ Unfortunately, most audiophile comparisons are not performed double blindly.[1] And sometimes even the audio-routing (preamp, balanced/unbalances, impedance) is not comparable. [1] See en.wiktionary.org/wiki/double-blind_test or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment, not Paul's explanation of it.
Paul is terrible at providing a simple explanation of why he champions DSD over PCM and I really don't know why. DSD is 1bit Pulse Density Modulation and can be argued to be an analogue capture as opposed to Pulse Code Modulation that is absolutely 100% digital.
@@angelwars3176, in physics you always deal with trade-offs. The trade-off for DSD is time-resolution. DSD is only "fully analogue" if the pulses would have infinite resolution in the time domain. But they don't, as that would make error correction impossible, bringing back noise, jitter and spikes. So there is a limited time-resolution, which leads to only a _discrete number of possible densities._ DSD is a different way to represent the same amount of discrete information as PCM. Is this a problem? No! I can imagine that it is easier to design a DA convertor based on DSD, and simpler often means better. But theoretically, both representations, PCM and DSD, are the same. If you can hear the difference between DACs, the DACs are not perfect. Which is natural as manufacturers have to make other trade-offs too.
I know its not to the questions real point, but to me the greatest thing that is happening now is those old recordings getting pressed on great quality vinyl. Some of the vinyl they were originally on was just crap quality and finding a pristine copy can be difficult. So kudos to all the great companies releasing some real gems.
If you want warmth, full vocals, mid bass, detailed treble Analog is best. Yes there are imperfections but it's natural sound the way it was recorded, Digital is too clean, I notice vocals are weak with CD's.. It's all about compressed compact portability imo.
The matter of bandwidth is a bit of a red herring. Variations in amplitude are more significant in music than frequency range so the greater accuracy you can capture those the more accurate a digital mastering of an analogue source will be, regardless of the bandwidth of the original recording. That's why bit rate is as important as sampling frequency. Referencing something like Kind of Blue (a pretty average recording technically) is also limiting the field of discussion. It might be better to talk about analogue recordings done at 30 ips, or 24 track analogue multitracks done on 2 inch tape a 30 ips. You want a damn good digital recording medium to capture those recordings accurately. That's not to be critical of your response Paul - as you say, it's a complex topic. PS Though, I don't think DSD sounds necessarily more analogue than high sample rate, high bitcount PCM.
To get an essentially transparent copy of a master tape. I'd rather hear the hiss, spices and leaders than have them taken out to make the tape "better."
i think that was a confusing statement. 44.1khz sample rate will only get you 22khz at the high end, 48khz(I prefer 96khz) sample rate will only get you to 24khz at the high end...but 30 IPS 3M 2" tape (usually 24 track) is supposedly capable of 25khz transient data (and everything IS transient data at that frequency to the human ear...most of which can only hear up to 18khz after age 50 if we're lucky). A big part of the reason we like higher studio sampling rates is that we capture everything from the source thru to the eventual master tape....after which it can be put into the lower rate (16bit/44.1) for CD manufacturing...as most of the paying public doesn't really care about the quality. I love audiophile level gear but gave up wanting to be one in my late 20's and moved in the direction of studio gear. Love the gear and drooling over the specs and feeling superior and all that stuff but preferred having cash in pocket and being able to eat, have a home, no debt, and have dates. Although I personally love all Studer gear and that mixer you have is lovely, I would not classify it as world class. Not to mention you could pick up one of those for about 30k or even 12k for a 10-16 channel model(they are modular and were sold to your specs). Even the cheapest Neve board would be it's equal. SSL/Neve/Focusrite consoles would be significantly better just to name a few. Again, i have much love for the studer product...it's at least 2-3 levels above my soundcraft board and a worthy tool. The fact that the stones owned it means nothing...and neil young owning it only means a little bit more. If you told me that Yo Yo Ma owned it and tracked with it I might be a tiny bit impressed. If you owned a pair of Neil's headphones I think the audiophiles(or wannabes) would just gush over that no end. I don't know why fanboys exist in this way...I"m not impressed with the man...just what he actually does with the tool. I did a bit of research and cannot find the right one but you had mentioned in a prior video that you could not remember Giorgio's mixing console back in the day. Well, I can't find it either but I did find that Musicland used a Harrison Mixbus 4832 during the period of 81-90 at least. that was when they did bowie/queen/maiden & many other huge recordings. Great board but these days they also do software...and a version of that mixbus 32c and it's eq channel at that. something you're audience might look into. legendary for mixdown. Lastly, I realize that people like me might not be the audience you're aiming at...and that's fine...but most of your vids talking about this board seem to be talking down to audiophiles. I would like to think that such audio-learned people would be capable of and perhaps have already done research beyond the topics you've covered about studio mixing. I'm hoping you get your new facility up and running but would also think you might consider having done some comparison data gathering against studio grade interfaces...not just listening but also using a scope and taking measurements of information at the different sample rates. still subscribed, still listening....still hoping to hear some material made from that board. at the end of the day i still love high end gear but, aside from enjoying quality audio, at the end of the day....it's in the way that you use it. you've got access to a great toy and hopefully time enough to work with it. looking forward to the output of it. and get some good mics, eh? else there's not much point to it. recommend the manley ref mics or maybe the Se Neve mic, any good U47 clone, Royer ribbon mics, vintage AKG C414 or even some of the older Shure mics. There's a bunch of great stuff out there but avoid the sub $800 market. (also a lower grade pair of flat studio monitors)
I'm with Paul on this one. Comparing formats on a SOTA DAC that does all of them equally well, the differences in resolution are overrated. Basically one wants to be able to hear all right down to the total system noise floor. A well-mastered CD would do (more so than a dynamically compressed, "remastered for iTunes" high-resolution format). Except the tonality isn't the same. Same as Paul, DSD does sound more pleasing to me, although I cannot hear more resolution, nor in fact would I be able to list HiFi criteria why I prefer the one over the other. I might even hesitate to judge formats in qualitative terms, claiming one to be "better" than the other(s). It's not a specific aspect, and among those, certainly not resolution (I hear less, not more resolution in DSD than DXD, for example). Seems we're still speculating about the reason(s) why the one is easier on the ear, especially for long-term listening, surely certain formats with higher sampling rates allow for more benign filtering (or, in the case of DXD, less filtering as there's e.g. no aliasing filter required). Maybe we'll one day understand the reasons better. Until then, and even beyond, I'll keep enjoying what I like, regardless of what the naysayers and nerds (who are really a lazy bunch of tech-minded people with a severe lack of scientific curiosity) are saying…
Most average adults cannot hear above 16kHz, so there's really no need fir ceilings as high as 30kHz. Many of speakers and amplifiers say they can produce these super high (dog range) frequencies, but I challenge anyone over 40 to see if they can actually hear even just 20kHz. Even my youngest child (age 13) could not hear above 17kHz. I understand extending the upper frequency range is supposed to add that "sparkle" but in reality, we can't hear it. Now, I can hear the differences in amplifiers but only because I do literally back to back testing... So, 41kHz at 16-bit is still a very good sounding format. Anymore and only machines can hear the change.
We can hear above 20KHz with Bone Conduction or with piezoelectric sensor as output (vibrations goes into the skull and then directly to cochlear - the limiter is inner ear - my result is 50KHz max but you need to increase those higher frequencies)
15 ips tapes will sound the best because you’re the closest to the master recording. It’s the purest you’re going to get. Unfortunately most people can’t afford tapes as each album costs around $450 and the good players today are between $10k - $20k
Hi-Res is just a marketing, I have so many albums on CD produced in 1970-1992 on pure analog equipment , today you can not find so good digitaly recorded albums. In the past people was smart to, the recording industry was not started nor in digital or in hi-res but in analog, analog sound is so much better than any digital format today, proof: why we do not dispute over video formats, DVD was better than VHS, we all know and see that, why so many of us do not like digital audio, but like digital video, simple answer, ditial video is far more better and you can see this very clear // VHS-DVD-BluRay-4K//, when is about audio Im not shure, I can not find any CD-SACD of Dire Straits with better sound of my LP-s of D.S. printed in pure analog age // master tape to vinyl//. Regards to mr.Paul, great video as always.
Vinyl has several limitations that have no equivalent in digital formats, like how it has more limited dynamic range and the range of frequencies you can get without causing issues like distortion or skips. Vinyl just isn't a great way to preserve an original recording, the best digital formats just are more accurate. Not that one can't prefer a more flawed sound, it's still subjective in the end.
I have over 250 mastter tapes 1/2 track. They are far far better than any CD or streaming. 4track tapes arent great, but 2 tracks are. They definitely have higher bandwitdh than a CD. Only 4x DSD compares.
In Latin America, this would be known as a “Cantiflesque” answer (named after the famous Mexican comedian Cantinflas routines: lots of words, no content) Anyway Paul, nice try! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
@@andhisband Dear @andihisband. Not need to be offensive here. Of course I love Paul’s channel. I was just been sarcastic. Just a little humor here. As many others, the controversy of the importance of the origin or “provenance” of an original recording to produce “high resolution” audio has been around for a while. Ask Mark “Dr. AIX” Waldrep about it! As well as PCM vs DSD. MQA streaming, “snake oil” audio cables. You name it! Anyway, thanks for your comment!
@@edgardoaleman8586 I'm sorry if you found my comment offensive; it wasn't meant to be. In the end, I think you and I are on the same page: people place too much emphasis on magic numbers and equipment when what we ought to do is trust our ears.
I thought it was good content, and not enough words. For some reason Paul always apologizes for going too deep or getting too technical.... Iike he might hurt somebody with too much knowledge!! I love it when he goes to the whiteboard.
What is funny, and simple, and only recently hit me: Most people who are anti HiFI or HD Audio, are people who have never experienced it, at least not properly. As an analogy: How much will SD and HD differ if you are watching through an old CRT TV? People download a FLAC file for the first time to listen to it on their crappy speakers or headphones.... of course they'll never hear a difference. And even with good headphones, if they are "SD" headphones, then although you should still be able to hear some difference, it wouldn't be as clear and obvious as with HD Headphones.
If both formats are _accurate,_ reproduction of the same source sound equivalent. If not, you are hearing differences in analogue parts in the chain between the original and the speaker or DAC charactersistics. It has nothing to do with _the format itself._ If something sounds "analogue" it probably means "beatiful sounding inaccuracies".
A human being hears sound with his/her entire body...not just with ears. Until someone can come up with some kind of a measurement for how the body experiences sound and how the body might experience analog and digital sound differently, we'll never have an answer to this question or any question regarding analog vs. digital. All I know is that there IS a difference and that our current understanding of sound is inadequate to explain it.
A human being hears sound with his or her entire body - I think this statement was used during a mid 1950s US Army research that was declassified back around the mid 1990s on how sound waves above 20,000 Hz might affect human sound perception.
Seems like every time I hear about such comparisons, people know what the sources are that they are comparing. I would like see comparison where the listener has no idea what the sources are that they are listening to. I do think that there is mental expectation that is at play here. So, someone listens over the same amp and speakers to 3 different 'sources' of the same song. A 256 MP3, a standard 44.1 wav and a hi res wav in random order and the listener doesn't know which is playing. Will someone be able to pick them out?
The answer is marketing. Audiofools throw money at everything that has High-Res stamped on it, even if it doesn't have any additional audible information on it.
With all due respect it's misleading to say analog tape is limited to 15-16k. Professional and even high end consumer tape machines can easily reproduce frequencies above 20k, therefore it's definately beneficial to capture them at high definition.
The further back you go in time the master tapes have higher noise and more rolloff at the top. And when old tapes deteriorate the highs would be first to degrade. Plus not all microphones can pick up much at the very top.
This is mostly a placebo affect. I listen to Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn on CD and I think there is something wrong, I take out my first pressing on LP and play it and it sounds great. I then play them back to back and they sound virtually the same. My brain accepts lower quality recordings when played back from LPs but when I play them back on CD my brain says this should sound better, its a CD?! Digital can only reproduce what its given. Its not magic and that's one thing I think people do not take in account when it comes to listening to music.
I don't think that there is so much placebo involved. The brain is a troll. Perception of sound does not work without memory. Memory always interferes. That applies to all our senses. What we think we are hearing is a representation that the brain has generated from a mix of memory and live perception. That is why endless A/B comparisons fail because at some point everything sounds the same - if similar enough, a bird always sounds different to a dog. We are not accurate and perfectly discriminating measuring instruments. And then, as you indicated, there is the subject of expectation, which makes the brain change its focus. How many times did I test a new component and thought "hey, that detail was not there before". And then I swapped it back out and, of course, it has always been there, I just never realized, learned, and memorized it.
@@hermannschmidt9788 Great post. Books and many papers have been written on how our hearing is the least reliable sense we have. Easily fooled all the time. Also, our brain fills in missing frequencies all the time. You can have a fairly crappy sound system sound great if it is built up to the listener who doesn't know it is crap. A/B comparisons are useless except for speakers. Confirmation bias wins every A/B test until you do a blind test. Then it is appalling how little people can tell different items apart. But, the high end audio snake oil sales is always in full swing. Putting your speaker wires on vibration isolation stands?? Crazy stuff.
@@Spkrdctr Yeah, it is crazy. I once believed that ripping a CD slowly will make the FLAC sound better. Until I unpacked the two files (one slow, one full speed) and they turned out to be binary identical. From then on, I couldn't hear any difference anymore. My brain dismissed it.
@@hermannschmidt9788 I've succumbed to sacrificing virgins to the audio Gods with the hope of enjoying each and every listening experience, regardless of source material. Most times it works but on occasion wires get crossed (no pun intended) and it starts raining out.
In the early days of compact disk, ADC's were not nearly as good as the ones used today. So the "old" digitized masters were significatly lower quality than todays conversions of that same master tape. I don't know how the DSD vs PCM debate fits in all this, best to ignore that part... There is no simply no reason for another reproduction format higher than 16/44.
@starlightgrecording559 Hi Paul McGowan*** This Is Gerard Stroh!!! I Have An Old Ampex AG440 Tape Machine Master Recorder and It Handles 1/2 inch Tape and it is A 4 Track Machine Made in 1967*** The Hi-End Goes Up to 19Khz and The Bass Response is Around 20Hz and It is All Class A Electronics!!! My Teac A3440 4 Track Reel to Reel 4 Trachk Tape Machine Goes From 25Hz to 23Khz and Thats on A 1/4 inch Tape and Both Tape Machines Running at 15ips Tape Speed and The Ampex Sounds Beefier and Phatter Sounding and It Has 3 Big Motors are Grinder Size and it is A Heater When it Runs*** Bye From Gerard Stroh!!!
hi you have a very good point i have big master decks they are in very used yes you are right it's how the formats sound note tape doe's break down i can service all my decks to all out there don't buy a reel to reel if you can't fix them this is a crazy thing i don't think only some would know in the pro game i just got hold of alot of betacam decks just to see how they work WOW i have to say they sound great a betacam runs at 6x the speed of a betamax as the lining audio track runs faster on a betacam sp i am getting great sound and the price of sealed betacam tapes is very low i have a teac 44 15 ips the betacam sp out doe's my teac 44 big time i get the best for my money note to all out there please bewear reel to reel deck have wear on the heads as well sony pcm disc i call a CD i never had a cd when it cam out i had a mono 4 track and work up to what i have now audio files yes i know what they are like there's crazy about in all hobbie's i am a format man one thing get a tape deck say like a soundcraft 381- 8 and use it to analog sound the audio and digi master it beware i have seen alot of gear getting skiped because tec is out of date
Sorry in advance. Don't mess with it!! Is the 'difference' you talk about a 'musical' difference'? Data is data, ears and emotions are more valid and this was music that set the world alight in analogue form. Better sounding could mean more detail, more bandwidth, but this isn't always good and remember it was 'mixed' in analogue. Also, if preserving for posterity, doesn't data corrupt? And why preserve a beautiful analog recording in digital if it sounds 'right' in analogue?
One of the big elements that analog tape has over digital is natural compression. Which is far less linear than with digital. That being said old analog system also had equalization schemes like RIAA standard and Broadcast equalization that was designed for radio broadcast . So every time an old analog is digitized a lot of engineers try to add dynamic range by messing with the natural compression of the tape system , by doing so they fundamentally change the entire recording . Leaving in many cases a less than desirable effect. The reason for higher resolution digital is to convert as much of the base information as technically possible. Higher bit rates allow for better resolution of micro dynamics and multiple frequency components and their resultant intermodulation .
You lost me. Analogy tape has better frequency response than CD. It's probably the only characteristic that analog tape excels in. The reason is because CD is absolutely band limited to 20kH (Nyquist). Doesn't really matter, since unless you are pre adolescent who has never listened to loud music, you probably can't hear above 20kH anyway. But that's the fact.
Double blind tests proves that’s a load of BS. The digital medium would be able to capture the ‘analog tape sound’ of a tape master and then what would be missing?
I think he’s saying that the DSD process captures a slightly, but noticeably, better representation of that “analog sound” than the 16/44.1k process does. Although I’m generally skeptical of claims made sans evidence; this doesn’t trip my BS-O-Meter right off the bat... however; I don’t think that there are further gains to be made by going further in resolution.
Okay you're starting to lose me now. You often mention how things "sound different". If you can, in blind listening tests, hear a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 of the same source analog audio tape, I'll believe you.
I think you can, because the analogue parts in the DAC are in a different mode of operation for the mentioned resolutions, which will always have an effect on the sound. Most DACs run at their highest frequency natively. This means that you have to "interpolate" the 44.1/16 to 192/24. Coming from a background in Physics, I know this involves _considerable_ computation and thus manufacturers will cut corners somewhere (computational power is expensive). So yes: you will be able to hear a difference, but only in _very well recorded_ music. If the bits of information per sample are higher, what you will mostly notice is that the music sounds more "calm" in the high frequencies. Not less high frequencies, but more relaxed. However, this could also be the dithering that is added to 16 bit information, or the mastering. Realize that recordings are often mastered completely different for different media, which makes them difficult to compare. For marketing purposes, you wouldn't want your media format - that can express the exact same amount of information - to sound equal to that of the competition! If you use the exact same master, say, in a very high sample rate and bit-depth (some studios use about 500kHz) then you shouldn't notice the difference between a 24-bit or a DSD recording, as both actually represent the same _numbers_ but have a completely different way of translating it to the analogue domain. If you hear the difference, then one or both of the formats is not accurate or the mastering engineer(s) have "tailored" the sound.
@@davezorc actually, they are _mathematically_ not the same, but practically are. A 24 bits sample can contain 256 values _between_ all values that are possible in 16 bits. Given how reconstruction of an analogue signal from samples works, and when done well, this leads to signal "differences" that are -90dB _or smaller_. If you can hear that with the _always present_ noise in any recording, you are biased. So: the recordings are identical for all practical purposes, but not _mathematically_ identical.
Some people just don't know what to listen for. Its sort of like how they say once you see it, you can't unsee it. A friend had the Pink Floyd Pulse DVD and I have the Laserdisc. The laserdisc has a much softer image BUT the dvd has a lot of pixelation with all the crazy lighting. He never saw it until I pointed it out to him. Said he couldn't watch it after that because that's all he sees. Recently the BR came out. Still an SD image but much higher bitrate, but with a terrible re-edit.
I like “frequency responsibility “
Threw me off too, but it was frequency response ability.
This video above all the others has impressed me the most. I would love to hear more about your pursuit for audio quality and the crossroad where you met Neil Young’s pursuit for preserving audio integrity. I suspect that story would be far more interesting.
Might I add? TAPE has most always been the 'voice' of vinyl records. In the pure analog world, tape is STILL the king of frequency response and dynamic range. Now Paul is telling us here that studio 'toys' can 'expand' upon them. It would NOT be original for sure, but I get it. There are companies that take great pride in producing NEW PRE-recorded tapes from oridingal masters and are available. They ARE expensive and so are the tape machines to pley them, but oh the sound (O:
Back to Paul's subject here.....One company of note that has been doing this with GREAT success is High Definition Tape Transfers. They take old, commercial, PRE-recorded tapes like I have in my tape library, and make WONDERFUL digital recordings. They have even made transfers from VINYL with great results as well.
I have two in particular from Paul Klipschs' 1954-56 STEREO Jazz and Orchestral recordings that he recorded himself. HDTT did a wonderful job on these. Discs can be put in most any format to order. I went with DVD-A
I am 68 and it is so amazing to hear something that was recorded when I was only 3 years of age, and can sound SO good !
Has Paul G. ever heard these?.......probably not. But I highly recommend them. I don't know of anyone that was recording jazz or symphony orchestra/organ in TRUE stereo back in those years. John Eargle got his start working with PWKon that project back in those years, and I don't have to tell you about the late, great Mr. Eargle (O:
One can argue that the biggest advantage to tape is how many particles get magnetized which translates to a much higher “sample rate” than we’re currently able to achieve. However, nothing analog can ever achieve the 1528dB of possible dynamic range in 32 bit floating point audio paired with converters that often surpass 120/130dB.
So both media have their reason to be used today, and many people (including myself) still use reel-to-reels in the studio specifically to get that real tape saturation, compression, and yes, sometimes even to deliberately add authentic tape noise 😄
1/2" 2-track running at 15ips or faster can absolutely capture frequencies higher than 22.05kHz. Signal-to-noise ratio will probably only net you up to about the equivalent of 13 bits of available dynamic range, though.
I’ve heard that the faster the speed the more you gain in high frequencies and the more you loose on the low end. Wonder if it’s true.
@@mypulse9 Why would you lose at the bottom end? Can't think of a technical reason other than that the tape recorder in question needs to be high-quality, perhaps higher-quality all else being equal. Taken to extremes back in the era, there were recordings made on 35mm film, great low end.
@@mypulse9 bass reproduction is different at 30ips to 15ips.
Most people think it's enough and I agree, having both analog and digital I love two. Though noiseless digital is a major plus for me.
It seems less and less techs are able to master these R2R.
Quite true. Plus digital systems typically have much more "padding" at high levels- usually 14dB, because one must not ever exceed full-scale during loud passages. So now, our our 98dB "dynamic range" is more like 84dB- close to the S/N of analog tape. Furthur, with analog it's possible to hear sound that is below the noise floor of the system, with digital low-level content is ignored.
Nowadays data is cheap and great analog mastered music should be re-mastered with utmost care in preserving the original sound using best possible quality of digital resolution. It's a crime, in my opinion, when some great analog master gets damaged by a mastering process ending up with compression and a low resolution digital version that often can't even beat the vinyl version. Especially music from the 70s often sound better on an old vinyl record than a CD version of the same track and that's not because vinyl is a better format.
wisdom from start to finish.....
It’s a crime to convert original CD’s to mp3 and discard the CD’s. I heard about somebody who did that and I cringe every time I remember.
@@Bassotronics Well, if someone do this in his home, he might have violated copyright laws but if he keep his crappy MP3 version for himself, I would just feel sorry for the guy. More respectable is to rip the CD for the actual exact data and play it as a FLAC file from a NAS server or PC.
Well said.
@@ThinkingBetter I always ripped it as a .wav file
Love Paul’s smile at the end of each video.
Oh, wow! I'm a big Neil Young fan and it's extremely cool you have the mixing desk he used to use!
So the 35MM magnetic tape masters are heads above contemporary tape formats of the 60s and should be digitized if they are not. The vinyl pressings from those tapes have amazing sound, if you really want to hear analog compete with CD.
For a mixdown ready to be mastered, absolutely go for higher sampling rate and absolutely bit rate.
For a finished master, 44.1 kHz is plenty, 16 bit works too unless you're listening at jet engine levels or classical music where only one note briefly hits peak level and everything else is rather close to the noise floor. Kinda wish red book standard used floating point instead of integer.
My understanding is that DSD is retaining more of the harmonics above the fundamental frequencies that you are attempting to reproduce. The "analogous reference" to more analog is similar to comparing PWM to discrete sampling. Time is a linear component along with the one bit energy encoding over time.
Paul you are a genius, you just explained why analog can sound better than digital,when in fact it shouldnt ,, because the mastering engineers muck it up and try to remove the tape hiss, and when they remove the tape hiss guess what else goes with it,,,,,lol,,,, i wish the digiphobes would watch this,,, In a perfect world the closer you are to the master the better the sound,,,,, except when.....well you know,,,, great video paul!!!!!
The early CDS had all the tape hiss and are more dynamic than what is thrown out there now in most cases but they are still not as good as a record or even a cassette played in a high quality deck. Digital by it's very nature is pure speculation using numbers and digits without any tangibility of the real world like analog with magnetic tape. It cannot sound better by it's very nature nor can a analog tape being transferred to a different highly speculative format be more accurate than a analog tape being transferred to a analog format, there's just no logic to that. Digital is also limited by resolution with numbers. Analog is not, it's only limit is how good the recording, the tape and the home equipment is. That's it.
"digiphobes", sounds like some rubbish the mainstream media would throw out haha. Maybe Digital Apologists need to start comprehending that the only advantage that Digital has is convenience and that's it. Man's greatest accomplishments weren't made in convenient manners.
Maybey the reason a voice recorded at a seemingly ample 44.1/16bit compared to that same voice being recorded at super high, far higher bit'rate/sampling rate (I only know analog numbers) ...
sounds better because the wider-spectrum audio recording are capturing far higher harmonics (above the brick wall filter above of 20.5 KHz from the lowly 44.1/16) and those normally (& incapabll? )unheard frequencies recordings are adding an aural reality to their source frequencies withing our normal hearing range. Like, an oboe only sounds different to a clarinet because of harmonics alone. Harmonics well above our hearing range may be adding more 'aural reality' to sounds we hear within our range ...In ways not fully understood but i have my ideas, no, wonderings about neural pathways to brain receptors from our seemingly frequency limited ears ...but hey! I'm just interested in apoarent conundrums in human awareness & if my theory is wrong ...maybe this audio recording conundrum isn't plain-sailing from what I've read on psychaccoustics & generally related biology ..I.e. very little
I like where you're going with this and I think you're on to something. Sounds like the making of an extraordinary thesis.
I strongly feel (now) that the voice/ instrument we hear played live..... (btw, sound is scientifically known to excite a regular periodic frequency pattern of harmonics throughout the sound frequency spectrum inc' well beyond human hearing range ..theoreticallg going on 4ever tho increasingly quieter) ......that live sound's produced harmonics laying beyond our humam-range may-well cause a virtually synchronous 'sympathetic resonance' effect back on the sound's original source, so giving that source instrument it's distinct sound when heard live, as only harmonics can do.
So when it comes to recording those same sounds on 44/16 low-res, it will suck some degree of realism from the heard low'res recording, by not producing any of those beyond-human hearing harmonics of the original source sound. Sorry to kinda repeat myself but I keep thinking of better ways to explain this idea. It's just a flimsy hypothesis but It's been an interesting thought experiment. But now i somehow think someone must have thought all this through before me as a much wider frequency bandwidth is the (only?) difference on hi-res recording equipment (isn't it?) Compared to low'res so harmonics shout very loud for being the csuse that Paul here & others say is clearly better on hi-res recording. Grammer is not my strong point so i hope i made some sense.
Beautiful mixing desk. Is that a Neve, by any chance?
No, it's a Studer.
I am curious if any 33 or 45 lp has been recorded in studio directly from a live presentation - without audio processing and without using master tapes. Only mics and electronic amplification, like in the 30s. Curious how much better it would sound compared to a master tape.
Yes they have. It’s called a direct to
Disc lp. They are amazing
I have been getting very good performance with analog magnetic tape using my new Analog Digital Modulator (ADM) technology, whereby keeping the analog information and processing in a digital environment like a FPGA. With these experiments I been recording up to 80 dB of dynamic range on a standard TDK SA type II cassette tapes, with frequency response up to 18 kHz and still making improvements with this technology. As I stated before I am happy to talk you (Paul) about this technology as it can be used for amplification, signal processing and magnetic recording systems. Magnetic recording technology has not stop developing it has just slowed down since the 1990's, when made the change to digital and there are new ways to work within the limitations of compact cassette format for example.
The other comment I was going to say is video recorders have bandwidths that go all the way up to the MHz range and therefore you can record a digital signals directly, as I have done experiments in the past with VCR's and the digital audio via the video input. So dose not take much to convert an old VHS to become a digital audio recorder and if you have a HiFi VCR you can record analog as it already has two FM audio tracks available.
Question: Whats the Importance of proper Grounding/earthing in a recording setting. How does different grounding effect the quality of recording or sound. ? Thanks Heaps from New Zealand
Not that much, and really important at the same time, depending on exactly what you mean by grounding, and what kind of devices you are using. It’s possible to run a recording setup with no ground connection at all; after all that’s how you get recordings from spacecraft. And if you think about it, the Earth is kinda a big spaceship in the sense that it’s floating out in space.
Two devices hooked up need a common “zero” reference point; and how this is achieved will vary. Unbalanced analog devices; such as devices with RCA outputs; will reference the signal off of chassis ground. This can result in “ground loops” (especially when there’s more than two devices connected) which can introduce noise - often at the mains power line frequency. Balanced devices send two mirror image signals down the cable, and take the difference between the two as the actual desired value. Any signal leaking into the connection will tend to leak in equally, and thus cancel out.
Getting the grounding right on an unbalanced system can require a bit of trial and error, and using some 1:1 audio isolation transformers if need be.
On balanced systems, noise issues with ground loops are much less likely; and the basic rule of thumb is to make sure that all the EMI shields have a good path to a common point, and that that point has a good path to earth ground.
Generally speaking, professional equipment used in recording will be either fully digital or balanced analog. All professional microphones are balanced analog; but synths vary. Instrument pickups also vary; some being balanced, others not.
This is a very deep subject; with a few different approaches to it; and I’m really oversimplifying it to try and squeeze it into a TH-cam comment...
P.a. That’s also ignoring the importance of grounding for safety. Gear that’s directly mains powered (I.e, not with a battery pack or wall adapter that puts out 12v or so) will have high voltage in it, especially if it’s got tubes in it. Mostly, though, that’s going to be electric guitar amps. Oh, and the 48v phantom power applied to mic inputs will bite you, but not anywhere nearly as bad as the several hundred volts in a tube amp will.
There is a unique and distinct electrical difference between grounding and earthing.
@@earfors Yes, however, the terms are (wrongly) often used interchangeably.
@@darkwinter6028 Earthing - there for safety. Grounding, is a circuit reference.
I was quite stunned by the Cd quality of the Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong recording of Porgy & Bess. As I’ve toured Hi Rez via HD Tracks and Qobuz, I’m leaning to the idea that the sound quality once mastered is far more important than the distribution format. Except 8 track tape. Nobody could fix 8 track. The CD ruined the chances of VHS Hi Fi tape being the demon that deeply wounded the vinyl record.
Making a high definition transfer from old analogue tape makes perfect sense. It simply ensures that everything on that tape is captured. Working at 44.1/16 bit CD specification does not necessarily do this (if you don't believe me look at some spectral analysis of 44.1/16 vs 96/24 captures and there is information in the HD capture missing from the 44.1/16). Whether you can hear the difference or not is another matter but I feel it is important to capture and preserve everything on this 'old' material regardless. Personally I would prefer everything captured to DSD not PCM in this context for the reasons Paul mentions.
Regarding why DSD can sound better well a simple explanation is that DSD and PCM capture the incoming analogue signal in different ways. PCM capture is a digital process 100%, no argument. DSD as I have pointed out repeatedly is not, it does not store the audio in the form of fixed digital values but as a mirror of the incoming signal that I would argue is analogue hence the advantage.
How is a 1 bit signal any analog? It still has quantization noise (more than a PCM I would argue, but much less than a tape)
Well, I have several versions of Kind of Blue, and a few months ago I got a copy of the 24/192 remaster made (I think) in 2013. It's made from original tapes recorded in 1959. I've no idea why, technically - whether it's the higher resolution, whether it's just special care taken by engineer Mark Wilder, or what - but it's easily the best version I've heard.
Is there a DSD transfer from these tapes? - be interesting to compare...
Damn, I SO want to come up to Colorado when all of this Covid BS is finally over, and visit your factory and studio, and talk audio stuff with you for a few hours or an afternoon sometime, Paul! You make some really good and informative videos that everyone interested in audio, especially higher end audio, can relate to, which is awesome to see, but I would love to get even MORE technical with you and Chris, your speaker guy, about a few topics!
And I have a Sony SACD player.... I still have a couple CD's that were original. What I mean by that is they were some of the first CD's that came out and they were taken off of analog recordings. man you can hear some stuff. Like mics turning off and on, instruments coming in and out. IMHO there was a reason a lot of bands didnt release their stuff on CD until it was "remastered".
What I wonder is if people's physiology of their bodily hearing mechanisms vary with genetic code, and wear and tear on our hearing systems with age (exposure to noises), how can we be sure that two people hear the same sound the same way? If bodily hearing systems are like speaker boxes, then the "same" noise could sound very different from person to person, simply because of DNA differences in hearing mechanisms, and limitations that happen in hearing because of aging and the resulting wear and tear on our individual body's hearing system.
What a fantastic console!
I think what the guy was asking whats the equivalent amount of bits on analog, i heard it was (13 bits) with 15 or 30 ips with the best Dolby s reduction .
Why are you covering the ATC speakers bass port?
Hi, you can tell us about expanders, filters, enhancers, maximizers.
Some of us know about that 😊
This topic need more explaining Paul...if you could be so kind?
I have heard some remastering that expanding the frequency range and cleaning up the audio a bit...and for the most part I would say it can be a nice improvement if done well.
I would like to know more about oversampling, because tape recordings have way more than digital from what I hear, so it seems that you do lose something when doing these improvements too?
Does the original master tape sound better than DSD conversion? Or do they remaster/clean-up the DSD in attempt to improve the sound. If the goal is to reproduce the master tape as closely as possible then a DSD high bitrate conversion is why they do it. That is the answer to the guys question.
This makes no sense to me. If I put a quart of water into a gallon jug or a five gallon bucket I still only have a quart of water. I reject the notion that CDs “sound digital “. The vast majority of commercial CDs sound like crap is because they are engineered to sound “good” on your Emerson under the kitchen cabinet CD player not on an audiophile system. Well engineered CDs are always superior to analog because they have more frequency response, wider dynamic range, superior signal to noise, on and on. It’s not the format but how it’s used.
There's wisdom in "It’s not the format but how it’s used" that transcends this one specific question! Beautifully put.
Standard CDs from day 1 until CDs bought now have never ever had a high frequency ability higher than 22.05 Khz. CDs then & as now have always had a (high harmonic-destoying) brick-wall filter placed to stop all frequency sounds above 22.05 Khz i.e. CD's absolute maximum highest possibility of their frequency range reproduction (that stops all frequencies above their CD audio filter-wall dead (i.e. with no slow roll-off) So 22.05 Khz was & is the very highest frequency possible from all regular CDs then & as now. Obviously, that high frequency limitation is inherent in the CD itselfs & not in whatever CD player that plays them.
While many good analog phono cartridges since the earliest 1970's (at the very least) could reproduce a vinyl L.P.s audio signals... (obviously, if present) ...upto 30+ Kz ...tho prob as many or more that could do ...couldn't, depending what you chose.
For the only Google'able & easily checkable proof of the above facts I can think of, I give you this one certain proof E.G. to show how the above is not just my or anyone's opinion:- The only 3 successfully commercial early-mid 1970's Quadraphonic formats (JVC's 'CD-4' system, Sony's 'SQ' & Sansui's 'QS' system) could & can only work with phono cartridges that can reproduce a vinyl L.P.'s groove's signals of a minimum 30'Khz @ < 3'db down, in order to reproduce a humanly inaudible 30 Khz encoded vital carrier-wave that was cutter-head inprinted into all Quadraphonic vinyl L.P.s & placed there so your Quadraphonic decoder box.... (between stereo pre-amp out & the 4 power-amp channel inputs) can use the decoder boxes 4-channel discreet line-level signal output into your 4 channels of power amplification required. This minimum 30'Khz phono-cartridge depenency was always made well clear to buyers of Quadrophonic systems & the stereo to Quadraphonic add-on kit equipment who's makers also supplied a long list of conyempory commercially available phono cartridges than could reproduce =/> 30'Kh to properly decode the 2 -> 4 discreet channels! & Sure's original V15 phono cartridgd was just one of the more popular cartridges cartridges that quadraphonic equipment's manufacturers all included in their supplies list of cartridges you needed 1'of for their Quadraphonic system to work. While all standard 44.1/16 bit CDs have a 22.05 Khz so unlike phono cart's higher frequency ability. Now hi-res digital is another story
Oh yeah, wider dynamic range & superior dynamics? I dread to think what turntable you're comparing CD & Vinyl with. My old s/h Thorens 150 / Alphason Xenon bought in early 80's made CD's a virtual laughing stock, CD sound-compressikn squashed Dynamic Range flat as a pancake, & as for the other thing I e 4got you praised CD for ...well, my above deck sounded a trillion times better on all parameters & I (an early keen but disappointed CD adopter put all my friends off selling their vinyl to go for the "Perfect sound forever" & as for the "prsctically indestructible" label that Phillips & sony used, I've a few oxidized layers in CDs that increasingly skipped, popped, clicked before dying outright. The original design of a silver recorded layer sandwiched between 2 polycarbonate discs was dropped, try scraping a line on the label side ; you see daylight only. CDs suck balls
@@The-Spotlight-Kid the tech specs are clearly Superior, whether a mastering engineer used those specs wisely is another issue, and material dependant. Early CDs were badly done.
Of course it's not the superior quality in technical terms that really matters. Many cases analog sounds better than digital specifically because of those limitations.
I have albums that sound far better on CD reisssues than LP's and vice versa.
One album I have two digitized copies: LP and C Cassette version. That's because casette of that specific album has awesome low end grunt on it I haven't heard in any other version and I love it.
Threre is also the question of how much of a “floor” the background noise in a system presents to our perception. You might have noise in tapes and pre-amps but can we still hear sounds through the noise floor, can’t we? If you can hear the noise as a soft hiss, can you hear music played at the same level on a system (say it’s purely digital and,as an experiment and you’re injecting noise) without the noise? If you mix both noise and music at that level, do you still hear the music? So is dynamic range as measured from a noise flow to some max level really a good measure of what we perceive when listening to analogue sources? Is it just a good measure for engineering calculations?
Any idea as to whatever happened to Roberta Flack's Direct to disk album back around 77 that had all of the hiss on it?
The late Tim de Paravicini would have argued that CD could outperform analog tape! His modified machines were incredible.
Sorry but he was wrong
@@mikep9234 How is it wrong? His machines had greater high-frequency response than CD, and dynamic range was darn close. Most of those killer sounding MFSL SACDs and 1-step albums used Tim's modified tape machine for playback of the master tapes.
@@mikep9234
Some people are so nostalgic and can't let go of old technology.
Technology is irrelevant long as you have creative people making good music.
Back in the early 1980s, I worked for PolyGram in Canada, Every now and then, I would take ownership of a "metal mother" from which "son" stampers were made to produce "daughters" which are the vinyl records that are played. The first was Wagner's 'Siegfried' from 'The Ring Cycle.' The "mother" was a 14" disk and my Garrard 301 with a J.A. Mitchell unipivot tonearm had sufficient clearance to play the oversized disks. I was dazzled by how dynamic the "mother" sounded, and also, a bit surprised to discover that the vinyl record that had been made from the "mother" didn't sound nearly as good. Now, PolyGram didn't press records. It used CBS, Quality Records, and Cinram, depending on the 'prestige' of the record. Since the 'Siegfried' "mother" was for DG, it's a safe bet that the records were pressed by CBS.
Since PolyGram didn't press records, it maintained a quality control department, and it was there that I found out why the "mother" sounded so much better than the final product. That "mother," indeed its precursor "father" and "grandmother" were produced from a master tape in a way to be 'hotter' than the master tape, with the aim that the vinyl record that you would play would be quite faithful to the production master tape. In the same way, the Redbook CD should sound quite similar to a vinyl record played back on a first tier audio system. No special considerations were required between a master recording and the CD. There aren't any losses along the way. This was not true of the final vinyl record which had many 'parent' pressings.
sounds like "hotter" was probably amplifying the frequencies like you would on a computer equalizer for better bass, better mids and crisper highs
If you think the sonic quality of the "mother" is that good, you'd be blown away at the original mixdown which is 3 generations of non compressed, non bastardized sound above the mother!
@@keithmoriyama5421 I have listened to my fair share of production master tapes, that is, tapes that PolyGram would send to use as the master to cut all pressing masters from. All of the extra brightness that goes into the original cutting (but that is still obvious in the "mother") is part of the design of record mastering, and a "mother" for any record will sound more than lifelike and transparent than anything else. And yes, that will include all of the stuff that gets done to keep the stylus in the groove.
But the long result, as I said above is obvious. With good equipment, vinyl and CD are hard to distinguish, but a metal "mother" will sound way more alive and dynamic than it has a right to.
Here's one... 78 RPM acoustic recordings, played back in stereo, demonstrate 3D holographic qualities. Proper EQ would help, but good old RIAA NARTB ORTHO will do. Nice fine elliptical stylus to ride well down in the groove. Below the noise and scrapings of whatever metal stylus was used to trace the record back in 1906.
@@Columba_Kos What does that have to do with what I said?
@@keithmoriyama5421 I answered your question. A copy-master tape is not the "master" of anything. It is intended to be the source from which pressing masters are made. How things are set up by the mastering engineer depends on the production yield required. Small-run pressings of 1500 LP's, say, would be set up to produce a 'mother,' with different settings than those applied to cutting a "grandmother" for many thousands or millions of pressings. The intent is to compensate for generational losses. Done properly, as I said, the finished product should sound about the same as the copy-master tape. Keep in mind: The vinyl record that comes out at the end of the process remains a medium with a greater resolving power than the source tape, and that is at the geometric point where vinyl playback is at its least effective (toward the center of the disk).
Most important, hi res digital doesn't degrade like tape does so don't have to be as careful storing it, plus it's easier to copy isn't it?
Still can get corrupted. Bang, no music. 😉
Nothing beats analog folks! When you listen to a very high end turntable and phono stage, you’ll understand.
That's the kind of explanations that get Mark Waldrep fuming
Who is that?
I would say that "explanations" like this only reinforce Mr. Waldrep's position. Esotherics vs. science, that's the game.
Best thing to do is s double blind test. Play a track randomly 20 times and see how often he pucks the high res version. :)
How does a DSD SACD sound more "analog" than a PCM. I really wish you could try and explain in a technical way what you mean.
It must be the sampling rate. Mhz vs Khz????
@@380stroker Is not that different in terms of bits per second. DSD has a 1 bit sample in the MHz, but a 24bit/192 kHz PCM has 4.6 Mbps per channel. Since all of this formats are lossless up to the 20 khz hearing limit, in practice sample density is only affecting the quantization error noise floor, which is very very low. If dithered, this harmonic noise turns into white noise, which is unrecognizable from electronics hardware noise but far lower.
@@gastonpossel Well then it's some kind of sourcery. All joking aside, there was a blind test done with many people to see if they could tell the difference between pcm vs dsd. I believe the results were close to 50/50. So its just chance.
Paul is wrong here: CD does NOT have higher frequency response than that of a 2-track professional tape. My 1/4 inch 2 track machine running at 15 IPS, using a modern ATR tape, has a FR of (+/-3db) of 20hz-39Khz (nearly TWICE that of a standard CD). Sony TC-882-2 r2r deck is well-known to have a FR of 20hz-45+Khz. The 1/2 inch tapes running at the same speed are even better. I have personally seen test reports in the 20hz-60+Khz range).
Yeah I highly doubt cd can surpass the dynamic tange of tape
WOWOWOW!!!
Interesting. What causes digital glare? (when you turn analog into digital 4:05)
Not sampling theorum. Some bit of gear in the process probably
"Above all else do no harm"...
That axiom, in addition to applying to medicine, should apply to archival mastering etc. of any/all material.
In other words, in no way should the 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 apply any less than transparent layer, or alteration from the original.
High Fidelity, faithfulness to the original.
Yes. Well put.
The obvious question is .... where has the original copy come from? An analog magnetic tape, if it still exists. May be 40+ years old and severely degraded with age. Or is it an early digital copy of the tape when it was still playable? Either way, copying to a so called hi-res format cannot magically recover detail lost in the original recording.
Well... He kinda mentioned that. Depends on the master.
And no one claimed it can recover something that's not there..😝
@@Oystein87 Paul said the difference between a hi-res and CD copy of a magnetic tape master is “obvious and big”. This is known as confirmation bias.
@@geoff37s38 I suggest you watch again and listen closely....
He never said it sounded better because of higher bitrate etc😂 He said DSD / SACD sounds more analog than PCM / CD... So yes it's a obvious thing when a old analog recording sounds different on the two because of the difference in how the file format itself works and not the actual bitrates..
@@Oystein87 The audible difference between DSD and PCM, if it actually exists, is so vanishingly small that it is irrelevant compared to a severely compromised analog magnetic tape master with all its audible imperfections.
The question still remains..... what is the source for the re-mastering? The original tape will, at best, be severely degraded with age. Or, far more likely, it is an early PCM digital copy from decades ago at the birth of digital recording? More re-mastering is pointless.
@@geoff37s38 I see you did not understand.. It's NOT aboyt the quality but the codec. Understand now? The DSD format sounds more analog so a analog recording sounds more natural on DSD. Nothing to do with quality in this case. He explained this..
FR and DR are only 2 aspects of sound that are easily measured. Most people's ears are equally as limited in FR as a professional tape machine. 50dB of DR is very difficult to live with in a home environment. You would be constantly riding the level to hear the quiet parts over ambient noise and not get blasted by the loud parts. Most commercial recordings are compressed, limited or gain ridden to keep the dynamic range within 20dB or so for practical listening. So, one has to ask themselves, are these attributes of primary importance? The errors or artifacts of analog audio are largely additive. Hiss, hum and so forth. Just as with people in an audience talking, the brain is adept at filtering out or ignoring unwanted signals. The errors of digital are subtractive. Data between the clock pulses is missing. The system attempts to artificially reconstruct it from the available data which is basically an interpolation of what came before and what is next. With no idea if there was anything else in there. High resolution, high clock rate transfers can do a better job of capturing whatever was actually on the master tape.
One of the great fallacies in audio is the concept of FR as it pertains to the human ear's ability to detect simple sine wave tones. Almost no musical instruments produce a sine wave. Using Kind of Blue as an example, a trumpet is essentially a narrow pulse square wave. Sound is generated by bursts of air traveling though tubes, the resonant length of which are only part of determining the frequency. The frequency of the bursts of air in the mouthpiece is also altered by the player. The saxophone is essentially a square wave as the reed opens and closes. FFR of such waveforms contains frequencies well beyond the basic human ear's range of pure sine tones. One of the reasons they are so hard to reproduce realistically. Good professional tape machines may have a measurable rolloff but they have useable bandwidth far beyond the brickwall anti aliasing filters of digital equipment. The very same machines and technology were used for scientific instrumentation besides audio recording. There is audio information on those master tapes that gets lost in 14bit/44kHz transferring that is essential to the sound of the recordings.
Nice diatribe. In many things you are right. Only you don’t understand a thing about digital. Once someone talks about stuff missing between samples after digital reconstruction, a popular but totally incorrect myth perpetuated also by the unscrupulous marketing of the so called hirez industry, I know they do not grasp the basics of digital signal processing so anything they say is irrelevant from that moment on. You better do some basic reading on AD and DA conversion before your next diatribe. Btw, square waves and pulses, in their mathematical definition, do not exist in music. All music is composed of sine waves.
@@razisn Correct. It is disturbing how many people with a limited knowledge of digital recording completely misunderstand how the process works and incorrectly assume higher transfer rates must reduce the gaps or step sizes in the analog output.
The 44.1KHz CD can produce absolutely perfect copies of the original waveform captured by the studio microphone. Yes, I mean absolutely perfect, not an approximation.
The finest studio microphones are deliberately rolled off at 20KHz to prevent instability and have a dynamic range around 92dB. A 44.1/16 CD can easily meet these parameters.
@@geoff37s38 The industry itself is also to blame for this. Instead of educating people their marketing departments are the first to perpetuate this myth starting with Sony and their hirez initiative. Even the term high resolution is misleading and inappropriate for high sampling rates and high bit depths capture as it invokes inapplicable analogues to digital image processing with which many people are more familiar. I guess it is easier for them to talk about steps and resolution than discussing engineering implementation problems and digital manipulation issues that make high sample rates appropriate for recording purposes, or digital reconstruction but totally unnecessary for delivery.
@@razisn agree. It is all about money. Selling so called hi-res gear to the hard of thinking.
@@razisn it’s not understanding Nyquist. That’s what’s wrong.
OP is absolutely right.
Sampling aliasing artifacts crawl over the holy “double rate” barrier in all but ideal cases.
Which is of course all the time.
And it affects signal frequencies far lower down, than what you’d think for the exact reason you yourself mention.
IE. there is no such thing as a square wave.
What’s more DACs are far from the solved and neatly wrapped (or near to diminishing returns) problem that many pretend it is.
When I was 12 we got our first CD Player. I was so excited and was all about new digital technology. However I noticed these CD's sounded awful compared to my records. For instance, on the record sax's absolutely pop out and sound incredible (if recorded properly), while on the cd versions it seemed to loose a lot of life and just sounded dull. Again this was when I was 12 and looking forward to digital back in 92 and I was extremely let down. I found if it was recorded digitally it sounds good digital and aweful on a newer vinyl record, if it was recorded analog it sounds like garbage digitally but great on a record.
LOVE those ATCs
"Lucky to get 15kHz..."? That's very curious. Apparently we're back to confusing audiophile consumer engineering with pro. The mastering machines I was working with back in the day (MCI JH-110B's, half-track--never had a 4-channel machine--running at 15 ips NAB) were individually spec'd units with a nominal minimum of 30 - 24,000 Hz. + 0.75 dB / -2 dB. I could record a perfect square wave at 20 kHz with no strains or trouble at all.
Just a few years ago you thought DSD was a terrible idea. What turned your thinking?
News to me? Paul has been advocating DSD for years...
I am a firm adherent to the axiom that the soul of music is in the midrange. Sure, an analog tape recording has limited dynamic range between the noise floor and tape saturation and the frequency response rolls off at the top and bottom. But the roll off on a good recorder happens gracefully, not a 'brick wall'. And the sweet spot in the midrange of a skillfully made analog recording sounds just so, for lack of a better word, right. When the center holds, the limitations at the extremes become of minor importance. First and foremost, get the middle right. The soul is there for the ear to hear. Ditto for a quality phonograph record.
By the way, I have the SACD of "Kind of Blue" and it's wonderful. Also a recent pressing of the the LP (which I purchased at the same time as the LP of "Blue" by Joni Mitchell, it was the proper thing to do). Which is better? I am not interested in nitpicking inconsequential differences when the music is this great. Call it a split decision, if you must, Further affiant sayeth naught.
Look after your hearing, wear ear plugs when you are at a noisy gym etc.
when i saw the title i had to chuckle a bit.program material aside;-)....how good is the tape's condition and the quality of what it was recorded on and played back with?
then...i clicked play.
hi paul. hope the day treats all of you folks well in the face of the current insanity.
=dok=
Remember the concept of "professional headroom" which was supposedly commonplace during the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s recording studio work which apparently seem to vanish in the 1980s during the so-called digital recording revolution?🤔
Well, real pro tape at 15 or 30 ips is astounding. The Signal to noise ratio can easily approach 80 dB without processing. Add DBx 150 and 100 dB Snr is achievable. Yes, the engineers used to drive tape hard -well above 0vu to achieve not only high sir, but the after effects of tape saturation. Real studio grade tape is exceptional, and can surpass 20 kHz bandwidth. The digital formats, when utilized properly can achieve similar performance. The game is won or lost at the source- high quality Mics, low noise Mics and exceptional engineering. Many folks have moved to digital formats simply due to the reduction in outboard gear required to produce a top notch song. The analog outboard gear brought a lot of secondary effects that cannot be attributable to tape. It took real creativity to properly utilize 24 analog tracks. Today, having 200+ digital tracks is easy to create, but a nightmare to mix.
"PCM is a lot more digital, where DSD is far more 'analog'" What on earth does this mean?
It means that there is probably a better sounding cable between the DSD and the amplifier and the CD, meaning one of the cables sucks.
Pure guesswork from me, but from what I've read (and what I've heard Paul saying), the D to A process for DSD is technically a lot simpler. So maybe DSD leaves less in the way of digital artifacts (which the heavy filtering used in PCM conversion can leave behind)?
@@osliverpool that can be true. Just like oversampling (with a good algorithm, that is) can make the required analogue filtering much simpler. A lot of the "1-bit" CD players that were trendy for a while actually were hugely oversampled machines.
However, if both formats are accurate and we would assume a perfect DA convertor, there should not be a difference in sound. Just like a very good cable should not sound different from another very good cable, unless you _like the artefacts that the cable produces that give it its "sound"._
Unfortunately, most audiophile comparisons are not performed double blindly.[1] And sometimes even the audio-routing (preamp, balanced/unbalances, impedance) is not comparable.
[1] See en.wiktionary.org/wiki/double-blind_test or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment, not Paul's explanation of it.
Paul is terrible at providing a simple explanation of why he champions DSD over PCM and I really don't know why. DSD is 1bit Pulse Density Modulation and can be argued to be an analogue capture as opposed to Pulse Code Modulation that is absolutely 100% digital.
@@angelwars3176, in physics you always deal with trade-offs. The trade-off for DSD is time-resolution. DSD is only "fully analogue" if the pulses would have infinite resolution in the time domain. But they don't, as that would make error correction impossible, bringing back noise, jitter and spikes. So there is a limited time-resolution, which leads to only a _discrete number of possible densities._ DSD is a different way to represent the same amount of discrete information as PCM.
Is this a problem? No! I can imagine that it is easier to design a DA convertor based on DSD, and simpler often means better. But theoretically, both representations, PCM and DSD, are the same. If you can hear the difference between DACs, the DACs are not perfect. Which is natural as manufacturers have to make other trade-offs too.
thank you for this video!
I know its not to the questions real point, but to me the greatest thing that is happening now is those old recordings getting pressed on great quality vinyl. Some of the vinyl they were originally on was just crap quality and finding a pristine copy can be difficult. So kudos to all the great companies releasing some real gems.
The Police vinyl of the 70s/80s was terrible. So thin. A&M Records. Disappointing.
If you want warmth, full vocals, mid bass, detailed treble Analog is best. Yes there are imperfections but it's natural sound the way it was recorded, Digital is too clean, I notice vocals are weak with CD's.. It's all about compressed compact portability imo.
The matter of bandwidth is a bit of a red herring. Variations in amplitude are more significant in music than frequency range so the greater accuracy you can capture those the more accurate a digital mastering of an analogue source will be, regardless of the bandwidth of the original recording. That's why bit rate is as important as sampling frequency. Referencing something like Kind of Blue (a pretty average recording technically) is also limiting the field of discussion. It might be better to talk about analogue recordings done at 30 ips, or 24 track analogue multitracks done on 2 inch tape a 30 ips. You want a damn good digital recording medium to capture those recordings accurately. That's not to be critical of your response Paul - as you say, it's a complex topic. PS Though, I don't think DSD sounds necessarily more analogue than high sample rate, high bitcount PCM.
To get an essentially transparent copy of a master tape. I'd rather hear the hiss, spices and leaders than have them taken out to make the tape "better."
To each their own haha.
I prefer lightbulbs to torches.
i think that was a confusing statement. 44.1khz sample rate will only get you 22khz at the high end, 48khz(I prefer 96khz) sample rate will only get you to 24khz at the high end...but 30 IPS 3M 2" tape (usually 24 track) is supposedly capable of 25khz transient data (and everything IS transient data at that frequency to the human ear...most of which can only hear up to 18khz after age 50 if we're lucky).
A big part of the reason we like higher studio sampling rates is that we capture everything from the source thru to the eventual master tape....after which it can be put into the lower rate (16bit/44.1) for CD manufacturing...as most of the paying public doesn't really care about the quality. I love audiophile level gear but gave up wanting to be one in my late 20's and moved in the direction of studio gear. Love the gear and drooling over the specs and feeling superior and all that stuff but preferred having cash in pocket and being able to eat, have a home, no debt, and have dates.
Although I personally love all Studer gear and that mixer you have is lovely, I would not classify it as world class. Not to mention you could pick up one of those for about 30k or even 12k for a 10-16 channel model(they are modular and were sold to your specs). Even the cheapest Neve board would be it's equal. SSL/Neve/Focusrite consoles would be significantly better just to name a few. Again, i have much love for the studer product...it's at least 2-3 levels above my soundcraft board and a worthy tool. The fact that the stones owned it means nothing...and neil young owning it only means a little bit more. If you told me that Yo Yo Ma owned it and tracked with it I might be a tiny bit impressed. If you owned a pair of Neil's headphones I think the audiophiles(or wannabes) would just gush over that no end. I don't know why fanboys exist in this way...I"m not impressed with the man...just what he actually does with the tool.
I did a bit of research and cannot find the right one but you had mentioned in a prior video that you could not remember Giorgio's mixing console back in the day. Well, I can't find it either but I did find that Musicland used a Harrison Mixbus 4832 during the period of 81-90 at least. that was when they did bowie/queen/maiden & many other huge recordings. Great board but these days they also do software...and a version of that mixbus 32c and it's eq channel at that. something you're audience might look into. legendary for mixdown.
Lastly, I realize that people like me might not be the audience you're aiming at...and that's fine...but most of your vids talking about this board seem to be talking down to audiophiles. I would like to think that such audio-learned people would be capable of and perhaps have already done research beyond the topics you've covered about studio mixing.
I'm hoping you get your new facility up and running but would also think you might consider having done some comparison data gathering against studio grade interfaces...not just listening but also using a scope and taking measurements of information at the different sample rates.
still subscribed, still listening....still hoping to hear some material made from that board.
at the end of the day i still love high end gear but, aside from enjoying quality audio, at the end of the day....it's in the way that you use it.
you've got access to a great toy and hopefully time enough to work with it. looking forward to the output of it.
and get some good mics, eh? else there's not much point to it. recommend the manley ref mics or maybe the Se Neve mic, any good U47 clone, Royer ribbon mics, vintage AKG C414 or even some of the older Shure mics. There's a bunch of great stuff out there but avoid the sub $800 market.
(also a lower grade pair of flat studio monitors)
Not a Tandberg TD20A SE. at 15 IPS 28Khz.
I'm with Paul on this one. Comparing formats on a SOTA DAC that does all of them equally well, the differences in resolution are overrated. Basically one wants to be able to hear all right down to the total system noise floor. A well-mastered CD would do (more so than a dynamically compressed, "remastered for iTunes" high-resolution format). Except the tonality isn't the same. Same as Paul, DSD does sound more pleasing to me, although I cannot hear more resolution, nor in fact would I be able to list HiFi criteria why I prefer the one over the other. I might even hesitate to judge formats in qualitative terms, claiming one to be "better" than the other(s). It's not a specific aspect, and among those, certainly not resolution (I hear less, not more resolution in DSD than DXD, for example). Seems we're still speculating about the reason(s) why the one is easier on the ear, especially for long-term listening, surely certain formats with higher sampling rates allow for more benign filtering (or, in the case of DXD, less filtering as there's e.g. no aliasing filter required). Maybe we'll one day understand the reasons better. Until then, and even beyond, I'll keep enjoying what I like, regardless of what the naysayers and nerds (who are really a lazy bunch of tech-minded people with a severe lack of scientific curiosity) are saying…
My guess would be, 'it depends on the recording'? Typically, varies from a lot to little.
Most average adults cannot hear above 16kHz, so there's really no need fir ceilings as high as 30kHz. Many of speakers and amplifiers say they can produce these super high (dog range) frequencies, but I challenge anyone over 40 to see if they can actually hear even just 20kHz. Even my youngest child (age 13) could not hear above 17kHz. I understand extending the upper frequency range is supposed to add that "sparkle" but in reality, we can't hear it. Now, I can hear the differences in amplifiers but only because I do literally back to back testing... So, 41kHz at 16-bit is still a very good sounding format. Anymore and only machines can hear the change.
We can hear above 20KHz with Bone Conduction or with piezoelectric sensor as output (vibrations goes into the skull and then directly to cochlear - the limiter is inner ear - my result is 50KHz max but you need to increase those higher frequencies)
15 ips tapes will sound the best because you’re the closest to the master recording. It’s the purest you’re going to get. Unfortunately most people can’t afford tapes as each album costs around $450 and the good players today are between $10k - $20k
Actually you can very decent pro Sumer grade decks for 1k-2k
Nice ATC speakers n the background.
Paul is the Neil de Grasse Tyson of Audio. Always learn some with the master (pun intended).
Neil deASS is a NAZA actor-shill.
Hi-Res is just a marketing, I have so many albums on CD produced in 1970-1992 on pure analog equipment , today you can not find so good digitaly recorded albums.
In the past people was smart to, the recording industry was not started nor in digital or in hi-res but in analog, analog sound is so much better than any digital format today, proof: why we do not dispute over video formats, DVD was better than VHS, we all know and see that, why so many of us do not like digital audio, but like digital video, simple answer, ditial video is far more better and you can see this very clear // VHS-DVD-BluRay-4K//, when is about audio Im not shure, I can not find any CD-SACD of Dire Straits with better sound of my LP-s of D.S. printed in pure analog age // master tape to vinyl//.
Regards to mr.Paul, great video as always.
Vinyl has several limitations that have no equivalent in digital formats, like how it has more limited dynamic range and the range of frequencies you can get without causing issues like distortion or skips. Vinyl just isn't a great way to preserve an original recording, the best digital formats just are more accurate. Not that one can't prefer a more flawed sound, it's still subjective in the end.
This is why I love MFSL so much. Their SACD’s are great!!!
I have over 250 mastter tapes 1/2 track. They are far far better than any CD or streaming. 4track tapes arent great, but 2 tracks are. They definitely have higher bandwitdh than a CD. Only 4x DSD compares.
Correct
In Latin America, this would be known as a “Cantiflesque” answer (named after the famous Mexican comedian Cantinflas routines: lots of words, no content) Anyway Paul, nice try! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Then you missed the content: the answer would take too long and you wouldn't understand it anyway. Use your ears: that's what really matters.
@@andhisband Dear @andihisband. Not need to be offensive here. Of course I love Paul’s channel. I was just been sarcastic. Just a little humor here. As many others, the controversy of the importance of the origin or “provenance” of an original recording to produce “high resolution” audio has been around for a while. Ask Mark “Dr. AIX” Waldrep about it! As well as PCM vs DSD. MQA streaming, “snake oil” audio cables. You name it! Anyway, thanks for your comment!
@@edgardoaleman8586 I'm sorry if you found my comment offensive; it wasn't meant to be. In the end, I think you and I are on the same page: people place too much emphasis on magic numbers and equipment when what we ought to do is trust our ears.
@@andhisband cool! Totally agree with you! And in the end, listening to good music is what’s matters! 😁 and have a nice day!!!🌞
I thought it was good content, and not enough words. For some reason Paul always apologizes for going too deep or getting too technical.... Iike he might hurt somebody with too much knowledge!! I love it when he goes to the whiteboard.
The big question is this: When will Octave Records release a brutal death metal album?
I have my fingers crossed for a sludge doom comp of EHG, Acid bath and Buzzov'en..
They should record the next Jag Panzer album, since they're a Colorado based band.
4:09 "digital sound... glare"
The heck are you talking about? Digital captures what's THERE - nothing more and nothing less.
What is funny, and simple, and only recently hit me:
Most people who are anti HiFI or HD Audio, are people who have never experienced it, at least not properly.
As an analogy:
How much will SD and HD differ if you are watching through an old CRT TV?
People download a FLAC file for the first time to listen to it on their crappy speakers or headphones.... of course they'll never hear a difference.
And even with good headphones, if they are "SD" headphones, then although you should still be able to hear some difference, it wouldn't be as clear and obvious as with HD Headphones.
If both formats are _accurate,_ reproduction of the same source sound equivalent. If not, you are hearing differences in analogue parts in the chain between the original and the speaker or DAC charactersistics. It has nothing to do with _the format itself._ If something sounds "analogue" it probably means "beatiful sounding inaccuracies".
A human being hears sound with his/her entire body...not just with ears. Until someone can come up with some kind of a measurement for how the body experiences sound and how the body might experience analog and digital sound differently, we'll never have an answer to this question or any question regarding analog vs. digital. All I know is that there IS a difference and that our current understanding of sound is inadequate to explain it.
A human being hears sound with his or her entire body - I think this statement was used during a mid 1950s US Army research that was declassified back around the mid 1990s on how sound waves above 20,000 Hz might affect human sound perception.
@Val: There is no such thing as "digital sound" ... since every sound that comes out of your audio equipment, is analog.
Seems like every time I hear about such comparisons, people know what the sources are that they are comparing. I would like see comparison where the listener has no idea what the sources are that they are listening to. I do think that there is mental expectation that is at play here. So, someone listens over the same amp and speakers to 3 different 'sources' of the same song. A 256 MP3, a standard 44.1 wav and a hi res wav in random order and the listener doesn't know which is playing. Will someone be able to pick them out?
Overall 96KHz/24bit is the best (low latency,,more detail sound,,most compatible)
@KnightRiderKARR: Nope. 44.1 kHz and 16 bit is all you need.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Transfer to 24/96, then make a 16/44.1 master?
I... man I get so lost in this stuff. I feel left behind.
Jeez, you ask the audio guru and he says "I dunno". Come onnnn.... you gotta find out and get back to us.
I thought analogue didn’t have “bit rates” because there’s no bits
You're correct but I am referring to digitizing it.
kind of blue is an album
How much Ice-cream is on a cone !!! - So SADC
The answer is marketing. Audiofools throw money at everything that has High-Res stamped on it, even if it doesn't have any additional audible information on it.
With all due respect it's misleading to say analog tape is limited to 15-16k. Professional and even high end consumer tape machines can easily reproduce frequencies above 20k, therefore it's definately beneficial to capture them at high definition.
The further back you go in time the master tapes have higher noise and more rolloff at the top. And when old tapes deteriorate the highs would be first to degrade. Plus not all microphones can pick up much at the very top.
This is mostly a placebo affect. I listen to Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn on CD and I think there is something wrong, I take out my first pressing on LP and play it and it sounds great. I then play them back to back and they sound virtually the same. My brain accepts lower quality recordings when played back from LPs but when I play them back on CD my brain says this should sound better, its a CD?! Digital can only reproduce what its given. Its not magic and that's one thing I think people do not take in account when it comes to listening to music.
I don't think that there is so much placebo involved. The brain is a troll. Perception of sound does not work without memory. Memory always interferes. That applies to all our senses. What we think we are hearing is a representation that the brain has generated from a mix of memory and live perception. That is why endless A/B comparisons fail because at some point everything sounds the same - if similar enough, a bird always sounds different to a dog. We are not accurate and perfectly discriminating measuring instruments. And then, as you indicated, there is the subject of expectation, which makes the brain change its focus. How many times did I test a new component and thought "hey, that detail was not there before". And then I swapped it back out and, of course, it has always been there, I just never realized, learned, and memorized it.
@@hermannschmidt9788 Great post. Books and many papers have been written on how our hearing is the least reliable sense we have. Easily fooled all the time. Also, our brain fills in missing frequencies all the time. You can have a fairly crappy sound system sound great if it is built up to the listener who doesn't know it is crap. A/B comparisons are useless except for speakers. Confirmation bias wins every A/B test until you do a blind test. Then it is appalling how little people can tell different items apart. But, the high end audio snake oil sales is always in full swing. Putting your speaker wires on vibration isolation stands?? Crazy stuff.
@@Spkrdctr Yeah, it is crazy. I once believed that ripping a CD slowly will make the FLAC sound better. Until I unpacked the two files (one slow, one full speed) and they turned out to be binary identical. From then on, I couldn't hear any difference anymore. My brain dismissed it.
@@hermannschmidt9788 I've succumbed to sacrificing virgins to the audio Gods with the hope of enjoying each and every listening experience, regardless of source material. Most times it works but on occasion wires get crossed (no pun intended) and it starts raining out.
It depends on how s been recorded.!
The medias have different tradeoffs and limitations.
In the early days of compact disk, ADC's were not nearly as good as the ones used today. So the "old" digitized masters were significatly lower quality than todays conversions of that same master tape. I don't know how the DSD vs PCM debate fits in all this, best to ignore that part... There is no simply no reason for another reproduction format higher than 16/44.
@starlightgrecording559
Hi Paul McGowan***
This Is Gerard Stroh!!!
I Have An Old Ampex AG440 Tape Machine Master Recorder and It Handles 1/2 inch Tape and it is A 4 Track Machine Made in 1967***
The Hi-End Goes Up to 19Khz and The Bass Response is Around 20Hz and It is All Class A Electronics!!!
My Teac A3440 4 Track Reel to Reel 4 Trachk Tape Machine Goes From 25Hz to 23Khz and Thats on A 1/4 inch Tape and Both Tape Machines Running at 15ips Tape Speed and The Ampex Sounds Beefier and Phatter Sounding and It Has 3 Big Motors are Grinder Size and it is A Heater When it Runs***
Bye From Gerard Stroh!!!
hi you have a very good point i have big master decks they are in very used
yes you are right it's how the formats sound
note tape doe's break down i can service all my decks to all out there don't buy a reel to reel if you can't fix them
this is a crazy thing i don't think only some would know in the pro game i just got hold of alot of betacam decks just to see how they work
WOW i have to say they sound great a betacam runs at 6x the speed of a betamax as the lining audio track runs faster on a betacam sp
i am getting great sound and the price of sealed betacam tapes is very low
i have a teac 44 15 ips the betacam sp out doe's my teac 44 big time i get the best for my money
note to all out there please bewear reel to reel deck have wear on the heads as well
sony pcm disc i call a CD i never had a cd when it cam out i had a mono 4 track and work up to what i have now
audio files yes i know what they are like there's crazy about in all hobbie's i am a format man
one thing get a tape deck say like a soundcraft 381- 8 and use it to analog sound the audio and digi master it
beware i have seen alot of gear getting skiped because tec is out of date
all of it
All of it that's left.
Sorry in advance. Don't mess with it!! Is the 'difference' you talk about a 'musical' difference'? Data is data, ears and emotions are more valid and this was music that set the world alight in analogue form. Better sounding could mean more detail, more bandwidth, but this isn't always good and remember it was 'mixed' in analogue. Also, if preserving for posterity, doesn't data corrupt? And why preserve a beautiful analog recording in digital if it sounds 'right' in analogue?
Buy a recorder and some good mics and make your own master tape for reference, if you can get a decent recording setup and material.
One of the big elements that analog tape has over digital is natural compression. Which is far less linear than with digital. That being said old analog system also had equalization schemes like RIAA standard and Broadcast equalization that was designed for radio broadcast . So every time an old analog is digitized a lot of engineers try to add dynamic range by messing with the natural compression of the tape system , by doing so they fundamentally change the entire recording . Leaving in many cases a less than desirable effect. The reason for higher resolution digital is to convert as much of the base information as technically possible. Higher bit rates allow for better resolution of micro dynamics and multiple frequency components and their resultant intermodulation .
You lost me.
Analogy tape has better frequency response than CD. It's probably the only characteristic that analog tape excels in. The reason is because CD is absolutely band limited to 20kH (Nyquist).
Doesn't really matter, since unless you are pre adolescent who has never listened to loud music, you probably can't hear above 20kH anyway.
But that's the fact.
a bit of an answerless answer :)))
Double blind tests proves that’s a load of BS. The digital medium would be able to capture the ‘analog tape sound’ of a tape master and then what would be missing?
I think he’s saying that the DSD process captures a slightly, but noticeably, better representation of that “analog sound” than the 16/44.1k process does. Although I’m generally skeptical of claims made sans evidence; this doesn’t trip my BS-O-Meter right off the bat... however; I don’t think that there are further gains to be made by going further in resolution.
@@darkwinter6028 I like that. "BS-ometer." In today's political climate, it pays to keep yours well tuned and lubricated.
Okay you're starting to lose me now. You often mention how things "sound different". If you can, in blind listening tests, hear a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 of the same source analog audio tape, I'll believe you.
I think you can, because the analogue parts in the DAC are in a different mode of operation for the mentioned resolutions, which will always have an effect on the sound. Most DACs run at their highest frequency natively. This means that you have to "interpolate" the 44.1/16 to 192/24. Coming from a background in Physics, I know this involves _considerable_ computation and thus manufacturers will cut corners somewhere (computational power is expensive). So yes: you will be able to hear a difference, but only in _very well recorded_ music.
If the bits of information per sample are higher, what you will mostly notice is that the music sounds more "calm" in the high frequencies. Not less high frequencies, but more relaxed.
However, this could also be the dithering that is added to 16 bit information, or the mastering. Realize that recordings are often mastered completely different for different media, which makes them difficult to compare. For marketing purposes, you wouldn't want your media format - that can express the exact same amount of information - to sound equal to that of the competition!
If you use the exact same master, say, in a very high sample rate and bit-depth (some studios use about 500kHz) then you shouldn't notice the difference between a 24-bit or a DSD recording, as both actually represent the same _numbers_ but have a completely different way of translating it to the analogue domain.
If you hear the difference, then one or both of the formats is not accurate or the mastering engineer(s) have "tailored" the sound.
@@TheEmmef I would say the sinusoidal output of 16/44.1 and 24/192 of the same analog recording are mathematically identical.
@@davezorc actually, they are _mathematically_ not the same, but practically are. A 24 bits sample can contain 256 values _between_ all values that are possible in 16 bits. Given how reconstruction of an analogue signal from samples works, and when done well, this leads to signal "differences" that are -90dB _or smaller_. If you can hear that with the _always present_ noise in any recording, you are biased. So: the recordings are identical for all practical purposes, but not _mathematically_ identical.