CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

  • December 31, 2015, 10:56:28 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!  (Read 8377 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LFF

  • Mastering Wizard & Restoration Guru
  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +761/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1425
Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« on: September 10, 2012, 05:21:56 PM »
Old argument...perhaps new to many people who visit here.

Is high resolution always better? Is a direct DSD rip better than standard 16/44.1 resolution?

The answer I always give is the following: It depends on the mastering and the chain!

Was the recording taken from the proper master tape? Was it transferred correctly? Was it mastered correctly? These are all questions that come into play.

Recently I have undertaken the task of building a dac that can playback native DSD files. These are the same files that are present on SACD's (aka HIGH RES!). While playing back some of the DSD files I have, I noticed that once again, the same questions come into play.  facepalm

Take the following example. I have a native DSD rip of "Brother In Arms" by Dire Straights.

Immediately upon playback I notice that it is indeed taken from the master tape BUT it was not mastered correctly. It's loud and contains distortions that can be easily fixed. Just to verify, I pulled up the waveforms and saw the following.

SACD:


My remaster:


While you might not be able to A/B it by ear....the difference should be obvious.   poo

Why....WHY would a mastering engineer choose to push the levels that high on a master whose resolution should be used for good and not for the loudness wars?! facepalm Here we have the chance to get something close to the master tape and instead we get something MUCH WORSE than the first CD release.  facepalm poo

Always be careful where you spend your hard earned money. Higher resolution copies (which tend to be more expensive too!) aren't always better!  :)p2
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 07:02:28 PM by LFF »
Logged
These statements are false.
I rule with an iron fist and ears of gold!
The preceding statements were true.

The way to a man's heart is through her stomach.

wiinippongamer

  • Guest
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PM »
It's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?
Logged

LFF

  • Mastering Wizard & Restoration Guru
  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +761/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1425
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PM »
Quote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PM
It's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?

If you take the DSD and downconvert to redbook with a good algorithm, then it should be indistinguishable in a double-blind test. This converts the bit rate and sample rate but the mastering stays the same.

As I said...it's all in the mastering.
Logged
These statements are false.
I rule with an iron fist and ears of gold!
The preceding statements were true.

The way to a man's heart is through her stomach.

DaveBSC

  • Best Korean Sympathizer
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +222/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2092
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2012, 04:12:01 AM »
There's theory and then there's practice. I'm not sure that anything more than 20-bits is really necessary, but I have digitized vinyl that extends past 50Khz so clearly the engineers at Sony and Philips were wrong when they decided that 44.1 was good enough for anybody. The whole idea of 32-bit audio is just stupid. The sigma-delta DACs can't process it, and anything actually recorded at resolutions that high would be so big as to be utterly impractical for storing or transferring. We're talking about a double-layer Blu-ray disc worth of capacity for a stereo album. 

I suppose it would be a way to combat piracy though. Even people with fiber connections would be unlikely to pirate 100GB albums, and even if they would, who has the hdd space to put them anywhere? It would also bring the multi-disc changer back from the grave.

In practice, anybody can ruin anything. I have redbook discs that sound absolutely fantastic - DCC, MFSL, and AP golds, XRCDs, K2 CDs, and SHMs. I've also heard (and have owned) lousy sounding SACDs, DVD-As, and 180 and 200g vinyl.

It's absolutely the mixing and mastering engineers that make the sound, NOT the medium.
Logged

Anathallo

  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +7/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2012, 09:40:45 PM »
For me the biggest problem is knowing the quality of a recording BEFORE purchasing.

There's http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ which I try to contribute to, but still.... it's not a comprehensive list of everything.

The high res versions of CDs I already own sound better to my ears - but is that the high res?  Or is that a different master of the same tracks, re-released as high res?

I buy most of my music from www.qobuz.com, but even still there's some pretty crappy stuff on there.
Logged

wiinippongamer

  • Guest
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2012, 10:17:26 PM »
I guarrantee to it's the better mastering on the hi-res version.
Logged

DaveBSC

  • Best Korean Sympathizer
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +222/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2092
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2012, 10:23:21 PM »
With vinyl the source is even more important than with high resolution digital formats. There's a big difference between "cut from the original master tapes", cut from an analog 1:1 copy of the master tapes, and cut from a 24/96 file that was created from the master tapes. Then there's the guys that cut their vinyl from redbook masters - those guys are known as assholes.
Logged

FrenchChemist

  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Powder Monkey
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +4/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2012, 08:07:05 AM »
LFF, I thought there was no master "tape" for BIA (one of the first full digital recordings in rock history)  ???

I agree this SACD is  poo (except for the quieter MCH mix), especially since the original CD had tremendous DR!
When done properly (i.e. with good masters), SACD have a more organic (close to vinyls) sound than redbook disc IMOHO.

Recent Dire Straits SACDs are hit and miss, depending on the mastering.

It's sad to see so many great mastering engineers like Bob Ludwig doing crappy brickwalled, treble-boosted remasters.

As for BIA, I have yet to find a master, original CD and vinyls included, that doesn't sound bright and clinical, as if the bass was shelved in the original mix.
Luis, do you have any EQ tips to make it sound warmer, less clinical?
Logged

LFF

  • Mastering Wizard & Restoration Guru
  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +761/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1425
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2012, 09:27:34 AM »
Quote from: FrenchChemist on September 26, 2012, 08:07:05 AM
LFF, I thought there was no master "tape" for BIA (one of the first full digital recordings in rock history)  ???

I agree this SACD is  poo (except for the quieter MCH mix), especially since the original CD had tremendous DR!
When done properly (i.e. with good masters), SACD have a more organic (close to vinyls) sound than redbook disc IMOHO.

Recent Dire Straits SACDs are hit and miss, depending on the mastering.

It's sad to see so many great mastering engineers like Bob Ludwig doing crappy brickwalled, treble-boosted remasters.

As for BIA, I have yet to find a master, original CD and vinyls included, that doesn't sound bright and clinical, as if the bass was shelved in the original mix.
Luis, do you have any EQ tips to make it sound warmer, less clinical?

LOL...you're right. I always call masters, master tapes even if they aren't actual "tapes".

As for EQ tips...which song from the album do you want to EQ?
Logged
These statements are false.
I rule with an iron fist and ears of gold!
The preceding statements were true.

The way to a man's heart is through her stomach.

Babaluma

  • Listens to Can on his cans?
  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +3/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Manual Gain Rider
    • Hermetech Mastering
Re: Is High Resolution Better? aka Mastering Foibles!
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2012, 09:57:49 AM »
The 24/96 SACD remasters of The Who's "Tommy" were a travesty of over limiting. I downloaded the FLAC versions from that HDAudio place. Not recommended. I didn't bother with "Quadrophenia".

It doesn't matter what sample rate or word length you use, if either the song writing is shit, the source recording is shit, the mix is shit, or the mastering is shit. GIGO :)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
« previous next »