HDTracks News (part 6)

I think the underlying crux of the problem is there is a certain level of "old dogs / new tricks". Many engineers and more importantly large studios have a level of "if the gear aint broke, if its been working, why change it" mentality. Hence the Venue. I am sure that is what that studio uses and the engineers are comfortable using. I purchased a brand new digital console for a live venue where I mix based on their budget and it only records at 24/48 and it is brand new 2013/14 technology.

Most engineers I know in the business are more concerned with speed and workflow first and perfect audio quality second or third. If they capture the song and the vibe, that trumps recording quality EVERY time. Remember these are guys that if they want improved quality will go to tape before replacing an entire system for flawless 24/96 which is easily a $10,000-$15,000 investment for mid level (Apogee, Lynx, ect) to $30,000 and up for pro level (Burl, Prism, Lavry) quality and to be frank the business model of the music business in many cases no longer supports this. Most labels don't offer advances anymore, many studios need to charge upfront and bands have no cash, or they hedge bets on money on the back end and that is rare and laughable.

So I do agree wholeheartedly that there is better gear and higher rates. I myself ( a mid level studio) just bought a 16 channel Apogee Symphony and I only record at 24/96, but that along with a new computer to run it and other necessary peripherals took 1/2 of what my studio has made so far this year, and I also need to eat, live and feed my family.

My point is that some of the posts here (not your's Jamie which I almost always agree with and think are very thought out and respectful) are just pure ignorant and arrogant in regard to why current albums are not being tracked, mixed and released at 24/96 or higher. Just because a musician can run to Guitar center and pick up a $250 USB recording device that does 24/96 does not make that a quality converter that will yield professional results. I know at least a dozen pro engineers who still track to 1990's RADAR systems at 24/48 because they like the sound of the converters more than many of the high level boxes of today, and for them its about the finished sound and not just bits and wave forms. I also still know many engineers and many converter manufactures who believe that the jump between 16 bit to 24 bit is more significant in audio than 48 to 96k a topic of course debated endlessly here.

My point is simply that without knowing the specifics of where, when, why and how an album was tracked its OK to be disappointed, I often am and will usually just buy the CD at 16/44.1 unless said 24/28 album is by one of my all time favorites. What I or in my opinion people do not have the right to do is arrogantly piss and moan like an entitled brats like we KNOW how it should be done...cuz if you did, it would be your name on the album credits wouldn't it?

I know its an audiofile forum, I get it we all love hi rez releases or we would not be on this thread alone...but sometimes a release is what it is and comes down to, do you like the music? Did it move you? In some ways the high rez release thing is rendered mute since most folks even when a new hi-rez remaster comes out in glorious 24/192 instantly default to, "but I still like me 16-44.1 DCC/AF/ release better". Why? Because its still about the final mastering job more than simply being hi-rez. Of course when the two come together, its a beautiful thing.

 

Simply and excellent and informative post. Thanks.

 

Agreed. And as I always say 48 is further from 44 then 88 is from 48---in sound than the math implies. My journey took me from analog tape to 48khz dat(which I much prefers over the open reel 2trk)...,to 44.1 digital, which is when my hatred of digital tracking set in...move to 96--all is good again....but, then I've been a part of enough 48khz stuff since switching, as well as my own fumblings at 88.2 to know it's all fairly subtle--and has more to do with what's going in and how accurrately you need that versus "good" and "bad". In fact, high Rez audio's hard sell (IMO) is that is simply doesn't sound "better" so much as more like what you feed it....which isn't semantics.

I've never heard any benefit above 96khz, though. So, I'd say you're set with "only" 96khz! I actually think the 192 thing has a negative effect if only in the perception of the public. HDTracks selling "only 96khz" as some lesser and less expensive alternative is confusing. When it was a disc, the public didn't need to make a decision. And certainly shouldn't have to wade through utter nuances....Apple will fix this and move to 16/48 AAC "standard" and 24/SessionRate ALAC as "HD" for a few bucks more...,if I had to speculate--both of those sound better than redbook, IME/O.

 

48 gets you beyond the extreme brickwall filters needed for 44.1, an obvious and likely quite audible improvement. But I agree with the sentiment that 24-bit is way more important than higher sample rates, especially when you're going to be mixing/editing the results.

 

Thanks for the enlightening posts about the production end of things. It adds some very valuable context to the discussion. Much appreciated.

 

I don't think it's entirely rational to render opponents of releases that show up using sample rates from the 30s (ha! ), as entitled brats who ran to "Guitar Center" and don't know what they're talking about. I assume most are aware that the gear running 48k in these studios is of a different caliber than the stuff we buy for "$250" that does 192k.

The point is simply this -- 192k is better than 48k. And these improvements do offer better quality relative to their grade -- and they are becoming quite so affordable as to show up at the lowly Guitar Center for both Beavis and Butthead to upgrade. That's the point. And it's inarguable. The benefits of higher sample rates is real and becoming more affordable.

But yes, it's all relative to the grade of equipment and the costs likewise scale. I assume it's not "cost effective" otherwise they would do it. The benefits can be nitpicky and difficult to rationalize. But that's always been the job.

I understand that digital technology is still in it's awkward-age of random and rapid growth-spurts. And to upgrade with each twitch and feel you're "up on the latest" is proving to still be a temporary bragging right which erodes as quickly as your budget. But, regardless of technology, studios do upgrade overtime. And we're there.

 

The biggest issue is not whether they can get equipment that can do 192K or even 96K it is getting a computer that can handle multiple tracks (like 20+) at 96k or 192k. They are out there but they are very expensive and obviously swapping computers out is time and money. Most of the public out there can't hear a difference between 44 or 48 and the higher sampling rates and hi res is such a small percentage of the market that it isn't a smart business decision for most of these studios to upgrade.

 

I get that. But, digital offers clear benefits (financial) over analog, in the editing sphere. And that is why they've stuck with digital. Despite its glitches and demands. It's time to "give back" to use the parlance of our times.

 

I should also add that, if they've chosen to use digital, upping their sample rates and bit depths to the max, they could make people hear the difference. That is, if they're interested in that sort of growth.

 

I disagree, as I said its perfectly fine to be disappointed when the latest album by a favorite artist is not offered in the sample rate that you feel it should be, however it is certainly acting like an entitled brat when the response reads like "what is wrong with these engineers or artist recording at 44.1 or 48? They must be morons...I cant believe they dont have hi-rez converter and computers...ect, ect, ect". Its these kinds of uninformed and in my opinion again highly ignorant posts that pop up here again and again that I am referring too. Unless you were there in the studio with the band and the engineer and know why they made the decisions on sample rate, format and gear...well then keep quiet.

Lets assume that as a pro studio you are running 32 channels for tracking and mixing again like I mentioned below, you are looking at $15,000 ballpark for decent and $30,000 to $40,000 for stellar. For many studios that is maybe what they might make tracking a mid to high level band today. The days of $200,000 sessions and big advances from labels is long, long gone. Now if you get to track 3-4 band a year at $30,000 to $40,000 a crack that seems pretty great right? Well, not when you consider overhead like electricity, rent, employees and gear upkeep. Plus as was mentioned computers factor in. Most modern albums are 32 to 130 tracks...pop albums go even higher. Mixing all that with plug-ins and outboard conversion at 192...on most computers good luck! Also many plug-ins run and sound better at 96, then 192. I agree with Jamie...unless it is used for archiving masters 192 is unnecessary for most things.

In some ways this is why many project studios, where its in someones home and or the studio owner has a day job and gets a few decent $5,000 to $7,000 projects a year often has better gear in their rooms conversion wise because its often a secondary income or high end hobby.

This is all just speculated, ball parked numbers for the sake of pointing out that its not as easy as just "buying better gear". Especially when the only folks who really care are a small community of audiofile peeps who know the difference.

 

The financial output exceeds the benefits at this point by a long shot since, as I stated earlier and it is important to restate this, most people (including many engineers) can't hear a difference.

 

Looking to grab some HD stuff today... Anyone have Duke Ellington Meets Coleman Hawkins DSD from acoustic sounds? How about Gaucho from HDTracks? Also considerin Neil Diamond Hot August Night but my guess is, since it's 44/24 and done from 40th anniversary remaster that it's probably not worth it. Thanks in advance.

 

I don't disagree with the economics. However, I do with the "audiophile as entitled" adage that crops up now n' then. I'm not sure you're saying that entirely... but its an opinion that I wanted isolate, examine and discredit. Quickly, so as to not derail the thread...

My belief (could be wrong, I'm a philosopher on this subject) is that the music industry is shifting away from the people who "don't know a difference." Those customers are vanishing at an astonishing rate. So we're told. MP3s. Downloads. Streaming. You name it. And the industry is aghast.

Then I come over here to this thread (devoted to one of the few new and exciting developments in music listening and delivery) and hear that those who profess to know a difference, and take issue with these details (perhaps to a fault and ignorant of the inside games), could be seen as an "entitled" for wanting to push the industry. And that the industry is perhaps even comfortable with their "disappointment."

It's a view that I suspect is shared among many an industry insider (regardless of the industry, mind you -- we all do it) but it's something that raises an alarm, with regard to this thread topic.

Maybe audiophiles do come off as entitled at times. However, I suspect they're the ones funding the industry's development -- and increasingly, more and more of the industry. But, in many respects they're the pioneers. I'll be honest... I feel like a pioneer for buying 24/192k stuff... and the equipment to play it on -- and I'm on a nickle and dime budget myself. Many of the folks on here have cables that cost more than my DAC. I don't think any of them are entitled for complaining about LPs that aren't dead quiet.

24/48k is decent. But not the best. I recommend they stick to analog anyway. Because as time goes on, it will prove eternally limiting to the music trapped at those rates.

 

Plenty of music is trapped on crappy analog tapes, though - poorly recorded, azimuth issues, print thru, sticky tape and all...

Analog has its own issues. It's not at all clear to me at this point that analog is "better" than 24/48. It's probably not better than 24/96. Digital also has one enormous advantage - clones can be stored all over the place for pennies. I'm very worried about the future of a lot of analog master tape as the music industry continues its implosion...

 

Reminds me of the debate over film versus digital cameras. Nobody can say that one is better than the other. Digital is more convenient, film has its own unique charms, etc.

 

One thing for sure, and CANNOT be denied.

People respond to differently to music recorded in digital, with the usual production, mixing, and mastering techniques of today then they do to projects recorded well to analog tape.

There is no doubt about that. Please, note I was careful not say one is better than than the other, but they produce very different end results.

For me PERSONALLY, an analog recording sounds more human, believable, and like flesh and blood.

 

A lot of this could be the recording technics used back then that makes you feel that way also. As an example, once digitized to hi res do you still feel this way about analog recordings?

 

I wish they would just get it over with and make DVD audio the new standard (or Blue-ray). Would solve several issues and realistically how much more expensive would it be? Led Zep's Celebration Day is a double CD equivalent on Blue-Ray for 22 bucks on amazon. Pricing shouldn't be an issue, just freaking do it.

 

Yes, to answer your question. I have about 750 "classic" analog recordings in 96 and 192 digital.

But my comment also applies to NEW analog recordings. Yes there are still a few. The Plant Krauss project was mixed to tape. Ryan Adams records mostly to tape. Jack White. And a bunch of others.

 

Doesn't Beck records to analog... or did with a couple albums?

 

Warren Haynes and Gov't Mule do all their stuff onto 2 inch tape and use old tube mic's.
Always great recordings.

 

But, not better than 96khz. For (new) digital production. Neil is doing more harm than good for digital fidelity pushing 192 (again), IMO. Which is a digression even further, so I want to bring it back to subject to say that I've heard the Petty 24/48 in question and it sounds good. I don't like Petty's music much--or his "analog caricature" grungy sound--but, it's SOLIDLY better than the stream I heard prior to release. He's done an interesting thing to make the high rez hugely more dynamic than the CD/mp3...it's the way it should be--and we collectively should celebrate that. At the end of the day--the choice to offer consumers a version that's not crushed should be rewarded without concern that they chose to use 48khz.

Also, technical thing to point out:

Any computer from this decade can track 20+ tracks at 96khz.Even the lowliest PT HD rigs in the year 2000 recorded 64 tracks at 96khz (24 at 192, but again-no one even does this for good reason). They did that to compete with Nuendo/RME stuff released prior-all of which ran at 96khz natively. The limitations come in when you start talking about interconnects--it's that a recording studio is not a computer, but a SYSTEM of rooms of interconnected gear...the "cost" usually has little to do with computer cost per se....it's not like you need some super computer to track/mix at 96khz.

 

Interesting discussion, but we have strayed once again. Please stay on (or close to) topic.

 

First bolded point agree to disagree. The newer DACs are much better at handling 24/192 than ones say 5 years ago or so when it used to be an issue.
Second bolded point the systems could "do it" but not without issues even with computers with the highest end processors. Not until the last 4 or 5 years or so could they reliably do these resolutions. Not to mention all the hard drive space being taken up by the multi tracks.