Quote from: BoxerOrBag on September 28, 2012, 02:19:06 PMI'm trying to understand audio a bit more, is this a good book on the subject?http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5It's actually THE reference regarding digital audio, however, it is a very academical point of view and more aimed at an electronics engineer than anything else.
I'm trying to understand audio a bit more, is this a good book on the subject?http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460/ref=pd_ybh_5
Quote from: FrenchChemist on October 02, 2012, 10:33:00 AMQuote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt'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.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!Agree with French Chemist.I can often tell 16/44 from 24/96 lossless files in a blind ABX listening test with some material (quality recordings and mixes with decent dynamic range). Not always though. Lady Gaga sounds as bad at 16/44 as she does in 128kbps mp3. It can be very subjective, I know, but I tend to notice it in the feeling of "space" (not necessarily just the reverb cues/tails and stereo width), and the "deep black wall" upon which the music is projected.And you don't "downconvert to Red Book". The Red Book standard is a physical media authoring standard, of which 16 bit word length and 44.1kHz sample rate are just parts.And mastering CAN make a huge difference, that's true, but on good source files I'd say it's usually only about the final 2% icing on the cake. A good mastering engineer knows when to leave well enough alone, and when processing is required. If it's a great source and will end up on CD, then all that's to do is top and tail, gap, perhaps volume match or SRC if needed, dither down to 16 bit, author the DDP, upload it for the artists/pressing plant and be done with it. No audio processing needed.
Quote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt'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.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!
Quote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt'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.
It's of my understanding that SACD when downconverting to redbook are indistiguishable in a blind test. Any thoughts on this?
If you want to be anal about it you can use SoX.
Yep. Likely not necessary, but when you're OCD and it doesn't cost you anything but time you might as well go overkill though.
Quote from: Babaluma on October 02, 2012, 11:47:16 AMQuote from: FrenchChemist on October 02, 2012, 10:33:00 AMQuote from: LFF on September 10, 2012, 06:03:29 PMQuote from: wiinippongamer on September 10, 2012, 05:55:15 PMIt'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.Then what's the point of SACD and 24/96 files, besides charging you more for the same music? Are there realy no improvement in 24/96 playback files over 16/44.1?Why do RB usually sound slightly less smooth than vinyl rips? Just the mastering?Should I downconvert all my 24/96 files to 20(16?)/44.1 and therefore save HDD space? I know I'd love to!Agree with French Chemist.I can often tell 16/44 from 24/96 lossless files in a blind ABX listening test with some material (quality recordings and mixes with decent dynamic range). Not always though. Lady Gaga sounds as bad at 16/44 as she does in 128kbps mp3. It can be very subjective, I know, but I tend to notice it in the feeling of "space" (not necessarily just the reverb cues/tails and stereo width), and the "deep black wall" upon which the music is projected.And you don't "downconvert to Red Book". The Red Book standard is a physical media authoring standard, of which 16 bit word length and 44.1kHz sample rate are just parts.And mastering CAN make a huge difference, that's true, but on good source files I'd say it's usually only about the final 2% icing on the cake. A good mastering engineer knows when to leave well enough alone, and when processing is required. If it's a great source and will end up on CD, then all that's to do is top and tail, gap, perhaps volume match or SRC if needed, dither down to 16 bit, author the DDP, upload it for the artists/pressing plant and be done with it. No audio processing needed.You can often tell a difference because high res is often mastered better than the CD releases. 2% icing on the cake? You really need to pick up a good book on mastering and read it.While it can be true that an excellent source might need very little mastering the truth of the matter is that we rarely ever get an excellent source that needs little to no mastering. For example, the RHC P "Californication" original source files sound amazing and have great dynamic range but thanks to shitty mastering, the vast majority of people will never know that and still...those excellent source files still need mastering. Now imagine a shitty source like John Lennon's Imagine. That thing is so bad it needs a lot of dedicated work to get it to sound good. The HiFi labels even gave up on the original and just went for a remix which, IMHO, still sounds like shit. Mastering isn't the icing on the cake. Mastering is the master chef that bakes it and decorates it.Even though it's the same ingredients with little variety from cake to cake, the chef determines whether you get this:or this:Even a diamond needs polishing.
