What is 24bit/96kz remastering for CDs?

Is that possible? I've seen blurbs for new reissues being "remastered with 24bit/96kz remastering technology". I thought CDs were 16 bit and that was that. Sorry to be so dense, but, if CDs were capable of that resolution, why would we need hi-rez formats? Maybe there's an old primer thread for rank beginners like me.

Thanks,
the other Wes

 

Well you're right, whoompley, CDs are 16 bit and that is that. What is remastered at 24/96 is the digital copy of the original analog tape, which is then packed into the CD format. If there are any benefits to the higher rez this offers, I'm going to have to side with Howard Ferstler who's been trying to convince people that this is all nonsense, although, unlike him, I won't try to tell you that the human ear couldn't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit anyway.

What I will say is that 16 bit is 16 bit no matter how you slice it, and it ain't no match for quality analog playback.

 

Actually Wes I do own about a half a dozen or so of these 24/96 recordings and all I can definately say is to quote Steve himself "It's all in the mastering" as I haven't been impressed by these at all in comparison to my DCC's

 

I just picked up a Panasonic DVD-A player that "upsamples" Redbook CD to 88.2Khz with the proper D/A converter to "convert" it. Sounds awesome!!

 

Master tapes are sent to the DAW in 24-bit, 96k, then downconverted to 16-bit, 44.1, usually with noise shaping.

I work with higher bit depths and I can hear a difference over 16-bit, even if that 24-bit version is bumped down to 16-bit.

There is a difference or the pros wouldn't bother.

Whomply, don't listen to the naysayers. Use your ears, and your computer, if you have one.

 

That is correct, but usually, master tapes ARE manipulated, so they use 24-bit converters.

 

I guess my only question would be is if it is so good why doesn't Steve himself use it?

 

His choice. Just because Steve doesn't use 24-bit or DAWs does not mean they aren't any good. Yes, Steve gets stellar results, but his is only one way to musical nirvana. There may be good methods, and bad methods, but none are wrong. It depends on the results you are looking for.

Different philosophy.

 

Hmmm guess I'll have to hear a recording of something in 24/96 that actually compares to Steve's work first. Anything you can recommend Grant?

 

Do this, if you have access to a computer with a 24-bit soundcard, download a demo of Cool Edit Pro and do your own experiments.

 

Nope sorry, I don't Grant. A mastering engineer not am I, just great hearing. "What's that dear? Yeah, yeah, I'll fold the garbage and take out laundry."

If you know of a specific album or artist that has an album that compares to something Steve has done I'll pick it up. THX

 

Problem is, Dave, is that to listen to a CD that was mastered in 24-bit/96k, and one of Steve's, is not possible to tell what differences are. It's like putting up Van Halen's first CD remaster with the DCC version. You can't tell because the Warner Brothers version was encoded with HDCD. Otherwise, most people say it is a tossup. I believe if it weren't for the HDCD, they would sound so much alike that if it weren't for Steve leaving in the tape noise at the ends, most couldn;t tell the difference.

Now, these are both 16-bit CDs. To hear a difference, you have to hear the 16-bit/44.1 signal in comparison to a 24-bit/96k signal. Do you have access to a studio?

 

Well, there aren't any Dave. As I said before 16 bit is 16 bit despite what the yeasayers will try to tell you about the benefits of downsampling.

I too would like to hear just ONE example of a PCM transfer of an analog tape to both 24 bit and 16 bit in which it can be demonstrated that the 24 bit is better - all other things being equal, of course.

 

Actually yes. I could make arrangements to get into one of two that I have friends working at. ?.?

 

Steve called it (I think it was Steve) stuffing 8 lbs in a 5lb bag. Again, with all the no-nos going on in the industry, this just adds fuel to the fire.

There is NOTHING wrong with sampling at 44.1/16bit from an analog source. Once you start doing mad things, the bag starts to leak....

I've heard great things mastered at 24 bit, but I've heard more 16bit mastered CDs, mastered with care, that sounded real.

A 24bit mastered CD is like a CD with a bad boob job. It's a bad boob job you can HEAR.

 

THIS is true. That's why IF you want to process your 16-bit files, it's better to go to 32-bit.

I also agree that 16-bit sounds fine IF all you do is a straight transfer, like Steve does.

Some believe that 24-bit is the way to go. But, you hit it on the head, in that care must be taken at all stages. I suspect no to much care is taken on a lot of 24-bit work.