The benefits of CD mastering to 20 bit?

Ok, please don't slap my wrist. I was wondering what the sonic benefits
are of all the 20 bit super bit map remasters that seem to be flooding the CD market.

Steve does a fabulous job with running straight through to digital, why are
so many of the record companies doing this other thing.

Please don't tell me it's to sell more CD's. I'm sure that some sound engineer who developed this method of remastering really takes this
technique seriously.

Thanks for reading!

 

All CDs are standard CDs are 16 bit, the "20 bit" comes from the mastering consoles that master in 20 bit but they dither down to 16 bit so that they can put the music on CD. So for us, "20 bit" is just for marketing purposes.

 

Hi Cbsolson!

Thanks for your reply. Please tell me more.

The marketing argument is not what I was looking for. That is the expected answer. I'm looking for the another angle to this.

The 20 bit process does make them sound different. What is the other school of thought.


As far as the mass produced CD's not the audiophile CD's like DCC, I notice with Jazz titles specifically:

In the Verve Catalog, Blue Note , Capitol Jazz and the Fantasy Catalogs the vast majority of music lovers feel that newer 20 bit dither downs all sound way better than the 16 bit Verves and Fantasy that came before them. Much more breath of life as you would say.

I have a entire list of CD's that show vast improvement.

What is really going on?

 

High-bit mastering really comes into play when you do mastering/processing in the digital domain. When you process things digitally, values get rounded off. If you did a lot of processing in 16-bit, this would result in a lot of "lost" music. Working in high bit rates enables more room for such errors.

Of course, if you do your mastering in analog only (as Steve does), higher bit rates aren't necessary, since once things are converted to digital, they aren't changed.

 

Thank you Lukpac,

I think I understand a little bit more. My next curiosity question is why
do companies like JVC and Sony and the many other Record Companies master digitally instead of in analog, if the results are better from analog. JVC and Sony particularly have pumped a ton of R & D dollars into the 20 bit mastering technology. Why not make it simple.

These companies have engineers that are constantly trying to improve
technology. I can't believe that it is ALL about marketing.

 

Well, one reason is that it's easier to transfer an analog tape to digital "in house", then send out that digital tape for mastering, than worry about sending out your original masters somewhere.

My *guess* is that many people don't want to invest the time and money into a good analog mastering setup. It's easier and cheaper to do it digitally, right?

 

That sounds right. There seems to be many people on the forum who
have that ability using their home computer a a digital workstation
for converting those old LP's into CD's.

another question: How about some of the newer CD players that are made
by companies like Carey which boast 20 bit D/A conversion? Where does
that come into play?

 

I'd like to agree and add some things to Luke's response.

There's also the convenience of recall-ability. Settings on digital gear can be saved and stored for exact recalls. This is the reason so many low budget albums being mixed inside of Pro Tools. You can instantly recall a mix and tweak it. There's even guys that bring their Pro Tools rig into the mastering session and instead of EQing the song they adjust the mix inside of Pro Tools.

Another point is some people are theory guys and think an all digital signal path is the only pure way to master a record. Fortunately, many of us understand that current digital is still weak and much analog gear has superior sound and specifications. For example, the EMI TG mastering console used at Abbey Road is made from military grade parts and has a resolution and technical specifications that are beyond even 24 bit/192 kHz (and approaches DSD resolution).

Many times when things are labeled "Digitally Remastered" they were, in fact, mastered with great analog gear which probably utilized vintage tube equipment. It's sometimes just a buzz word. That's the phrase taught to consumers.

 

There's not actually 20 bits on a CD. HDCDs are 20 bit but let's talk about regular discs. What the player does is similar to a video line doubler. It reads the 16 bit info off of the disc and creates a 20 bit word from that info. By doing this it gives the digital to analog converters more to work with. Sure, they're extrapolated numbers, but it does work.

 

It's all a matter of opinion. Some like higher bit, some don't see the need. If you process your stuff in the digital domain, it's better to use 20, 22, or 24-bit. Every mastering engineer is different.

 

Luke is also right. But, it's still a philosophical thing. Steve does what he does, and Inglot Does what he does, and Bob Ludwig does what he does.

 

Thank you all for your insight. I guess the answer is part philosophical
and personal taste.

Some folks like bright souding speakers and others enjoy a lot of heavy
bass.

 

I like a flatter sounding speaker...

 

I like neutral speakers too. Good Midrange is very important to me personally.

 

I notice more "texture" and "air" in recordings mastered 20 bit and above, as a general rule.

But then, there is a lot of subjectivity here. Because, a mastering engineer can use higher-bit resolution, then nullify the efforts by NR or bad EQ!

So, wouldn't the ideal situation be using the highest bit technology while transferring an absolute first generation master or multi-track as faithfully (flat) as possible?

Therefore, why isn't it done that way more often?

Paul

 

Because most recordings need work. Even Steve has several EQs (GML, Universal Audio, etc...) that he uses to make the recordings sound better. He just knows how to use them more effectively than others. An EQ in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.