SH Spotlight What sounds just like the analog master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or a 1:1 analog Reel tape copy?

Check out this paper for example: NHK Laboratories Note No. 486

Tim

 

Off:

Personal experience was ceedee was the most dis'd format going back to the Sixties [including the 8-Track & Minidisc/not saying everyone hated ceedee/just the venom was more venomous/personally disliked prerecorded cassettes/ugh].
Fell in luv w/ceedee in the late Eighties & was an A/V professional in the late Nineties.
Then HD Discs were announced [picked the wrong side - DVD-A ]...
and all of a sudden personally precieved a demonstrative defensive of the previously lowly ceedee.
Was shocked.
People saying ceedee was good enough & disparaged both HD Formats even before the full rollout. Don't know if it was the need to purchase new players [if remembering right very few DVD players could even play DVD-A then/late Nineties], need to purchase all new discs, or the combination of having to spend time & effort to aquire both.

Cracked me up!


Enjoy.

 

None of these IMO. Rather, the audible difference was insufficient and surround sound (the other aspect of the new formats) has always been a hard sell for music (which I think is a great shame, still have hopes for Atmos).

Compare to video.

VHD to DVD? Easy to tell the difference in quality. DVD to Blu-Ray? Easy to tell the difference, well, provided you have a decent screen and the source quality is high resolution.

CD to stereo SACD or DVDA? Hard to tell the difference and audiophiles still argue over the extent of it.

No chance of convincing the average music lover to re-buy their music.

Tim

 

This is either the best insider joke (“you consider that new news?”) or a professional “decline to comment”

love it.

 

So, Steve, have you changed your mind? Does DSD make a big difference?

Personally I think it does. Wish it was included in the Blu Ray spec when they first came out.

 

Gotcha.....

 

One question for the audio-tech-savvy guys out there:

so, going by Steve's experiment, it seems clear that some nuances are lost when transferring a master tape at redbook resolution. My question is: what if we transfer them at a higher resolution and then convert down to 44.1 k/16 b?

I ask this because in image, strange as it may sound, a 4k transfer scaled down to 2k resolution will look better than a movie transferred directly at 2k. Both resulting files will have the same resolution, of course, but when you capture the analog image at a higher resolution, you don't have the same compression codecs and issues. This was explained to me by a guy who masters image for a living and was really surprised.

So, is it the same for sound?

 

In general, no.
Video processing involves heavy (data) compression. Image information is discarded at every step.
Audio processing is normally done with high accuracy and no data compression.

 

An important reason for transferring to high sample rates/(high bit dept or floating point) is that *mathematically* the subsequent processing just doesn't work reasonably directly at 44.1k/16. ANY dynamics processing can easily push past Nyquist, cause zipper and other kinds of distortions, make it impossible to design accurate filters, etc. I'd suspect that at least any modestly competent DAW would be able to upconvert beyond 44.1k/FP and then back down again. For subsequent processing, 44.1k/16bit is just plain ugly. It is best to 'just digitize at 96k/FP, or better', and don't do up/down conversions until the last step.

I do have some master tape selections at both 192k/FP and 96k/24, and much of the bandwidth does look like it is populated. (Unlike many consumer HD materials, which >18-20kHz mostly add noise modulation, stray carriers, and hiss -- and some of the fancy bit-oriented schemes, LOTS OF quantization noise effects. Much of what is sometimes claimed to be 'signal' >20kHz on HD 24bit copies of normal commercial materials is actually hiss/noise modulation caused by use of NR systems during production.)

You also don't want 'Gibbs effect' in the audio signal. Even though 'Gibbs effect' isn't really 'ringing', it still can cause clipping on a non-FP signal (e.g. 16 or 24bits), whenever there are some kinds of filtering. Gibbs effect, even though most of it happens BEFORE CD encoding, the signal is still vulnerable when there is the limited 44.1k/16bit resolution. (dont' get me started on 'Gibbs effect', sometimes called 'ringing', but it isn't, and not quite as bad as sometimes implied.) There are just so many limitations to 44.1k/16 for processing, it is best avoided when manipulating the signal. At least, when using 24bits, the signal can be scaled down by at least 0.8dB to avoid most cases of Gibbs. At 16bits, every bit of resolution is important.

For a playback-only situation, pure 44.1k/16 is okay, but for any substantial volume control or processing high quality consumer equipment an upconversion is likely needed.
(Most of what I wrote is true, but I do make mistakes -- corrections are welcome.)

 

This leaves the crux of the argument still up in the air, IMO.
An updated acetate Vs. DSD shootout is warranted!

 

This guy also seems to disagree with Steve’s opinions/findings and why perhaps it’s time to revisit and retry the whole shootout.

 

Yeah. Vinyl can be fun, but it is antiquarian. 33rpm was not even the best sounding thing back in those days it was invented, it was compromised. So no matter how many $10.000 of dollars you spent in 2022 on a turntable system, you can't come around the limitations that's is a part of the standard.

 

Decent comparison here using a well known song between a master tape, pcm both CD resolution and high resolution and quad rate DSD with different filters. See the description section for the time stamps if you want to jump between them. Not perfectly executed but haven’t seen any other comparisons like this done on YouTube either that may have provided a cleaner presentation:

 

+

"... haven’t seen any other comparisons like this done on YouTube... "
Not verifying this comparison; only adding another source for potential* discussion:
https://youtu.be/almdxI76DOw
ANA[DIA]LOG

* may have already been posted.

 

Steve, thanks for posting your thoughts and observations. I've made many ignorant comments in these forums insisting that lossless digital is indispensable from master tapes. I feel after reading your writings that I stand corrected. While I no longer buy or play phonograph records, I still recognize their tremendous value and mostly due to the unique material often found on them, which has not and may never find its way to digital formats.

I have not owned the quality of phonograph equipment most have have. Before the compact disc era, I was always aware and bothered by distortions I heard, subtle or otherwise, when playing or hearing others play records. even on the most expensive equipment in high-end stereo stores, I could easily detect distortions during playback of phonograph records. I cringe when I hear sibilance and inner groove distortion! Fortunately, I simply detect neither of those when I play well mastered compact discs and lossless digital files.

But again, I absolutely respect and value your thoughts on these extremely interesting and intriguing subjects. Thank you Steve.

 

Interesting video and comparison, but "Dazed and confused" at least IMHO, is not some paradigm of well recorded music to begin with.
Not saying that Entirely negates his comparison, but I hope that is not what he considers a well recorded musical piece.

 

Sorry to dredge this up again, but there seem to be two main pre-remaster masterings for this album, and I wondered if you'd be able to tell me which is the one you refer to above?

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR10 -0.47 dB -12.22 dB 6:03 ?-01. Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'
DR13 -0.05 dB -14.77 dB 4:21 ?-02. Baby Be Mine
DR12 -0.21 dB -14.50 dB 3:42 ?-03. The Girl Is Mine
DR12 -0.29 dB -13.87 dB 5:58 ?-04. Thriller
DR11 -0.11 dB -12.37 dB 4:18 ?-05. Beat It
DR13 -0.29 dB -14.13 dB 4:54 ?-06. Billie Jean
DR12 -0.86 dB -14.11 dB 4:06 ?-07. Human Nature
DR12 -0.06 dB -13.91 dB 3:59 ?-08. P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)
DR13 -0.17 dB -15.59 dB 5:00 ?-09. The Lady in My Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR13 0.00 dB -13.93 dB 6:04 01-Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'
DR13 0.00 dB -14.99 dB 4:21 02-Baby Be Mine
DR13 0.00 dB -15.35 dB 3:42 03-The Girl Is Mine [with Paul McCartney]
DR13 0.00 dB -14.15 dB 5:59 04-Thriller
DR13 -0.50 dB -15.65 dB 4:19 05-Beat It
DR14 0.00 dB -15.29 dB 4:54 06-Billie Jean [Remix]
DR14 -2.11 dB -17.27 dB 4:06 07-Human Nature
DR13 -0.35 dB -15.49 dB 3:59 08-P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)
DR15 -0.39 dB -18.74 dB 5:00 09-The Lady in My Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks!

 

Hi. The SECOND CBS/Sony Records Japan digital transfer of Thriller has the EAC Peaks shown above. That 2nd CSR digital mastering carried over to early US DADC pressings. I do not know how long they used that digital mastering but it was still being used in 1987.

 

Michael Jackson - Thriller

I have this Club (CRC) release that judging by the spine looks like it dates from sometime in the '90s. It sounds spectacular.

 

Hi Caroline,

Do you happen to know if the Japan ESCA carries the same mastering? (And if not, do you happen to know how they differ?)

 

All that being true (what Steve says; e.g. reverb trail loss in resolution), I hope it can finally be agreed that there is no way for digitally-mastered vinyl records to match analog mastered ones (barring other factors that could level the playing field, etc), because: lost resolution can not be recovered.. PERIOD.