oh I agree, if we are talking 'remasters' my point is the major benefit you are getting with the dither is because you are sending it to a 24bit+ dac, so why not just go native?
I wouldnt pay extra for a 24/48 remaster, but I would probably if it was natively 24bit. I just see zero need to downsample to 16, then redither to 24bit.
the whole hires market needs a kick in the guts with the amount of nonsense thats being sold as hires, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt demand higher and I simply see no need for 16bit anything when to be useful it needs to be kludged up to 24bits in the dac. I would rather 24/48 to 16/96 for my use. I would prefer 24/96 or 24/192 though the latter starts to actually perform worse on some dacs, 24/96 seems the sweet spot.
24/48 is then spun up to 1.536MHz (edit: incorrect its 384KHz, its 384 that goes up to 1.536MHz) in my dac anyway and, but I prefer the 24bits be there. personal taste I guess, since the real stuff is there.. just seems like a really messy signal path to me
I wouldnt pay extra for a 24/48 remaster, but I would probably if it was natively 24bit. I just see zero need to downsample to 16, then redither to 24bit.
the whole hires market needs a kick in the guts with the amount of nonsense thats being sold as hires, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt demand higher and I simply see no need for 16bit anything when to be useful it needs to be kludged up to 24bits in the dac. I would rather 24/48 to 16/96 for my use. I would prefer 24/96 or 24/192 though the latter starts to actually perform worse on some dacs, 24/96 seems the sweet spot.
24/48 is then spun up to 1.536MHz (edit: incorrect its 384KHz, its 384 that goes up to 1.536MHz) in my dac anyway and, but I prefer the 24bits be there. personal taste I guess, since the real stuff is there.. just seems like a really messy signal path to me
Last edited:
That's for sure
This could largerly stem from the fact that most of them still work in the Redbook CD world. While 24 bit largely benefits the recording side of things, there is absolutely no reason in a world of cheap storage and Bluray disc that one has to downcovert from 24 bits to 16 bits if they don't have to. There is certainly no harm in asking for a more pure approach to delivering audio to the masses.
I can as well.
The infrastructure for mass delivery of vinyl has been obliterated, so it is a waste of time to ask this of a major record company. It does not have a huge market as you state, the market is niche to the extreme. The record companies are not going to spend resources to create two masters(one for digital and one for vinyl) especially if the ROI is relatively low as it is with vinyl. They will devote resources to a high quality digital master that can be used over several digital formats with some alterations. A master created for digital does not sound very good on a vinyl disc.
Why bother?
You said in a earlier post that there is no conclusive listening test that allows us to identify 24 bit from 16 bit with proper dither. Here is another reality - there is no conclusive test that I know of that has been able to identify 44.1khz from 88.2khz as well, so with both being inconclusive why choose a higher sample rate over a high bit rate - or have them both being higher than Redbook CD? Your position makes no sense to me.
Can you also explain to my why choose 16 bit with dither over 24 bit when most recording now days is done at 24 bit? If you don't have to downcovert to fit a certain format, then why do it?
No, it does not have a noise problem, it has a fidelity problem. With certain types of music, the Redbook standard is enough. With Classical and Jazz, it is clearly not enough.
A good mixer and mastering engineer worth their salt attempts to create the best mix they can. They don't mix or master to the noise floor of the rooms of the end user(that is a moving target), they mix and master for the best result, and let the chips fall where they may in the field.
Now here is a reason for higher sampling rates.
Nothing that envolves dither is "for free". When you use dither, there is a sonic penalty that is paid, and it comes in the form of veiling the audio, and hardening it as well. It makes digital audio sound "digital". With dither you are using noise to lower the noise floor of a downcoverted signal. To some, that noise is audible. Based on this, why introduce another process if you don't have to? Why advocate adding something that was not there in the first place when you don't need to?
As Bob Katz has said "You can't live with dither, and you cannot live without it". There is no free.
Soundtrackmixer - I am not sure if your the same bloke on the Sound on Sound forum, who has decided to lock the thread, just because, one small aspect of my petition had the words 24 Bit - but you are coming across as very narrow minded.
There are two sides to the argument. I'm not interested in the technical debate, I just want the best quality sound, regardless.
We should be working together, and just let those within the industry decided how to achieve it. Its already clear that different companies use different techniques, so why argue amongst yourselfs, when its clear that different techniques will be used depending on where the recording is made and mastered.
There are two sides to the argument. I'm not interested in the technical debate, I just want the best quality sound, regardless.
We should be working together, and just let those within the industry decided how to achieve it. Its already clear that different companies use different techniques, so why argue amongst yourselfs, when its clear that different techniques will be used depending on where the recording is made and mastered.
I am not that bloke
I guess how I am coming across is open to opinion right? I strongly support 24 bit because we can deliver it to you directly. Good. Stick with 24 bit in your petition..I support that.
I have been working in the film and music business in Hollywood for 25 years, and I am going to tell you how to get high resolution music. A petition is not going to cut it, as many others over the years have tried it - and it failed to produce anything. If you want more high resolution music, you have to buy what is currently out there. You have to BUY IT! The record companies follow the MONEY, not a petition. How do you think we got down the rabbit hole with low resolution MP3? People BOUGHT it like crazy. How do you think Itunes became so popular? Because people BOUGHT the music by the millions. So if you REALLY want more high resolution music, you better start buying it now - that is the only petition the record executives will pay attention to. When they see the trend leaning towards high resolution music, they will support it for sure. So you may think I am narrow minded, and even a bit negative about this - but I know what I am talking about. Bluray.com put out a petition like this, it got close to 10,000 signatures. Guess what, we are not seeing any more high resolution music than before the petition. So let's keep it real, signatures = no answer. Money = more high resolution music. That's the bottom line.
Actually Pano most Bluray and DVD's are cut from the same master. They are just encoded at different resolutions.
So basically I'm wasting my time and nothing well ever change unless people are forced to. Which basically supports what the blokes in the SOS forum were saying.
exactly, I would buy it every time if it was there instead of all this upsampled '32/352.4' crapola with brickwall sitting just about where the brickwall for 44.1 would be.... or '32/352.4' 'remasters' taken from tapes or vinyl masters that would be lucky to push 44.1. DSD that is not natively recorded DSD its just all ******** for double the price, thats why the trend is not positive. there is some good content, but its not the norm.
Makes sense, especially for new releases in the combo packs. I often do this at work, down-convert HD video we've shot to DVD (480P) for clients. I don't do any real "mastering" tho.
Do you think there is no difference in the how the audio is mastered as well?
Anyway, I signed. Doesn't hurt to keep bugging them about it. And what the heck, I just got a catalog with the Beatles new re-releases on Vinyl. From the 24 bit masters, no less! Someone thought it was worthwhile.
yep I bought the Dream Theatre 'Systematic Chaos 24/96 flac, the inception 24/96 soundtrack, the dark knight 24/192 (impressive, but brickwalled as hell), which is really disappointing and there is absolutely no excuse for it, the guy produces his stuff himself in his own multimillion dollar studio with one of the most insane custom production rigs ive ever seen and the biggest open cheque budgets... it really looks like he may even be working at 24/48.
but I went there (HDTRACKS) in the leadup to an audio meet (head-fi) with a couple hundred to spend and I honestly couldnt find that much I wanted to buy, particularly when ive seen a number of online examples of people who have opened the file in audacity or whatever and compared the 24/48 to the 24/192 and they are identical in every way except there is simply more space above the brickwall, yet they want to charge you another tenner....
but I went there (HDTRACKS) in the leadup to an audio meet (head-fi) with a couple hundred to spend and I honestly couldnt find that much I wanted to buy, particularly when ive seen a number of online examples of people who have opened the file in audacity or whatever and compared the 24/48 to the 24/192 and they are identical in every way except there is simply more space above the brickwall, yet they want to charge you another tenner....
I hate to say it, but I am afraid so. Personally I think you need to rechannel the petition in a different direction. Instead of petitioning the record companies, petition the people who are interested in high resolution music. Tell them if they really want to get more high resolution music out there, buy more Blurays and downloads that have it. Ask them to support websites like HDtracks.com, and disc's by 2L, Surround records, and other producers and manufacturers of high definintion music on disc. Give them online resources for high resolution music on the internet. When sales improve for what is out there(and there is a lot out there), then you will see more releases. The releases flow where the money flows.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.