My response is the same. But if you want to keep operating from the same non sequitur, go right ahead.
se
Re - Tubes/Valves
Think about ALL the fabulous sounding tunes, going back to even from the late 50's & onwards, that were recorded through Mic Amps & Mixers & ComLims & Tape machines & Cutting heads etc, that used them.
1000's + of wonderful sounding tracks, that often are much more enjoyable to listen, to & get fully immersed in, than from later years without them.
Of course Amplifiers using them is another matter.
Think about ALL the fabulous sounding tunes, going back to even from the late 50's & onwards, that were recorded through Mic Amps & Mixers & ComLims & Tape machines & Cutting heads etc, that used them.
1000's + of wonderful sounding tracks, that often are much more enjoyable to listen, to & get fully immersed in, than from later years without them.
Of course Amplifiers using them is another matter.
@RM: OK, no real data, just a pronouncement. Appreciate the honesty.
Ed, if you spend the time doing the 16x transfer and get anything other than a bit perfect copy, let us know.
Still waiting for the numbers and error budget on your reversible fuse claim.
Ed, if you spend the time doing the 16x transfer and get anything other than a bit perfect copy, let us know.
Still waiting for the numbers and error budget on your reversible fuse claim.
Let's get a grip here ...
I'm assuming we're are talking about a digital master "tape" here, if there's some 'analogue' fiddling along the way then all bets are off ...
Digital is digital is digital: I take a master digital "tape", master a CD from it, with zero DSP fiddling inbetween, then rip that CD to a computer file, which I then print out in pure binary format, hand the hard copy to someone who laboriously copies by pencil, in a scrapbook, every single 0 and 1 printed out, who then passes that to a native Indian who sends up smoke signals to perfectly transmit in their "code" to another the "data", someone with an ancient Morse Code sending device using a bit of scrap copper wire on the ground ... 20 such silly steps later ... the code is entered by flipping toggle switches on a crude input device in the studio where the master source is. So that now we have pristine digital version A, and hopelessly mangled, tortured to death, digital version B. Amazing, a file comparison proves that they are equivalent! And, even more amazing, playing them through the identical playback environment, no-one can pick them apart!
Will wonders never cease ..?!
Last edited:
The ABX guys used to have a take-it-yourself-at-home test of the audibility of Red Book vs. higher sample rates. Arny Krueger IIRC kept a web page active where the user would input her own chosen high rez music, it would be properly downsampled to Red Book, and she could compare the two ABX style without knowing which is who.
Can't find it anymore, but the principle is simple enough to homebrew, and only minimal and non-technical help is needed to "blind" two datafiles. You listen at your leisure and your own pace, and see for YouOwnSef. It's humbling, but keeps you honest.
Thanks,
Chris
Can't find it anymore, but the principle is simple enough to homebrew, and only minimal and non-technical help is needed to "blind" two datafiles. You listen at your leisure and your own pace, and see for YouOwnSef. It's humbling, but keeps you honest.
Thanks,
Chris
Agreed, Frank. That's the whole point of digital, as far as I'm concerned: Along the way, as digital bits (even if "un-coded") go through some questionable circuits, and their two voltage states get mangled and have noise added, it's still infinitely easier for the essentially analog (or "analog within digital") destination to decide, often with perfect accuracy, what was supposed to be a one and what was supposed to be a zero, than it would have been for an analog destination to receive ALL of the levels exactly as they were intended to be, if the analog signal had been sent, instead.
So any difference is probably either being introduced by what is done between an analog master tape and digitization, or, by someone purposely messing with it after it's in digital form, or, something bad happens during mass production.
Last edited:
Only trouble with hi-res vs. RB is that many playback environments do better dealing with hi-res encoding in terms of SQ. This is especially noticeable on my PC, with cheap monitor speakers able to show this up clearly - I take a true hi-res file, downsample to RB - it sounds "worse" than the the original ... but I then take that RB, and upsample back to the hi-res. Lo and behold, I get my quality back!
Even worse, I get a "miserable" RB original, and upsample to create a "fake" hi-res version on file. And, it sounds "better" than the "true" file.
Huuuh? Easily explained - the playback works "better" if the data being fed to it is at a higher rate, on my PC, irrespective of anything else -- this is purely managing analogue behaviours of the underlying circuitry to optimise playback - a "digital" equivalent of playing with a TT's suspension, etc, to get the best out of it ...
Even worse, I get a "miserable" RB original, and upsample to create a "fake" hi-res version on file. And, it sounds "better" than the "true" file.
Huuuh? Easily explained - the playback works "better" if the data being fed to it is at a higher rate, on my PC, irrespective of anything else -- this is purely managing analogue behaviours of the underlying circuitry to optimise playback - a "digital" equivalent of playing with a TT's suspension, etc, to get the best out of it ...
I think that some of you have clued into what I assume is going on here. Many older master tapes are going to be analog recordings and to make this into a cd it must pass through at least one AD converter. Just read any of the threads about outboard DA and AD converters and you have your answers why the sound is so different. Now do the same with a digital master tape and the conversion has already happened in the original recording. That digital master should be able to be converted to cd without changing the digital information unlike the analog master tapes.
you can use CD ripping sw that compares your rip's cheksum against a database of music CD cheksums AccurateRip
Last edited:
I don't believe anything is ever done to upset the digital integrity - but lots can be done to corrupt the "analogue" qualities ...
Manufacturer A gets the tape, has the centre hole punched badly in manufacture in terms of centring, at the limits of tolerance or worse.
Manufacturer B manages to add a thin, almost invisible film over the whole surface, just enough to force the laser reader to have to work very hard, the electronics constantly error correcting.
Manufacturer C gets it spot on, is consistent with the physical quality on all samples.
In an ideal world none of this should make the slightest bit of difference ...
Any data you have to the contrary, or is this just more handwaving?
And what would this "almost invisible film" be?
Frank,
Could you tell me where this Ideal world is, I think I want to move there! Ideal and reality seldom happen in the same place that is for sure.
Could you tell me where this Ideal world is, I think I want to move there! Ideal and reality seldom happen in the same place that is for sure.
Hmmm.... That is something interesting which is more useful info. -Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Kindhornman, are you telling me that the digital master maker DISTORTS the input audio when it comes from an analog master tape, and that is why a difference is heard? I think this is what RNMarsh is talking about.
Just telling my experience... and its pretty consistant. Same general idea with the Magnapan speaker fuse. I didnt do a DBT to see if I 'really' heard something on the left channel while listening to music.... so I could later report the 'data'. Some things you hear and work with it; Via listening only, I identified and then fixed a perceived problem.
Another listening' experiencial situation that has no 'data' -->
For a few years I heard the center image as being a little off center and nothing I did changed that. I finally thought my hearing in one ear was less sensitive than the other. This was in 2 homes and 2 different speaker systems.
Check this out -- One day, after exhaustive speaker testing and amp gain tests et al... I even measure the distance of the back of the speaker to the wall to be exactly the same on each speaker. Still image was off center. Note - no 'data' from any listening tests to 'prove' the image was off.
To make it short, only when i measured from the front of the speaker to the listening spot between my legs at the listening place... did I find a significant distance difference that didnt exist when measuring from back of spkr to wall.
When I got the distance from speaker to me exactly the same the image was centered and sounded as it should. Lessons -
1. Dont be afraid to trust what you hear and
2. Walls are not built exactly parallel and perpendicular/90 degree angles with the stick frame building construction here in the good old US of A.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Release agent is what I recall having heard it termed as, to allow the unit to pop easily out of the mold. Remember, I'm just using this as as an example of what can go wrong - I did once buy a brand new budget label Louis Armstrong CD which was disasterous - massive dropouts constantly all through the disk; unplayable, unlistenable to. I visually inspected it from all angles, cleaned it a number of times, it looked absolutely perfect, there was nothing to indicate any issues. Got a replacement from the store - that played without a problem ...
The ideal world is what we haven't got, of course - the solution is robustness in the devices that deal with the real world, they can handle the 'bumps' so to speak, so that they are not perceptible by our senses.
As an example, if someone says that an audio device has good RFI characteristics I would get someone to hold a cell phone right next to the unit and operate it while I listened. Yes, no data, but this is the sort of test which I use all the time ...
Master Tape is a vague term here. We need a better definition before any judgement can be made about the differences between it and a CD made from it.
The original master would be the one that captured the first transition from real time to stored information. There can easily be several stages after that before the CD master is made. Except for some audiophile labels, the original master will be reprocessed, including everything from editing (analog) to digitizing and editing, equalizing, level tweaking, limiting and a host of other stuff. For commercial production there is a system called protools where music goes to die for this. Some premium work is done using everything from Audacity to Pyramix to SoundBlade. All of these can be transparent and all have numerous effects that often are far from transparent. At the far end of this intermediate process of "Mixing" is Mastering where the final eq and audio sweetening is done. And sample rate conversion if the original content was processed at a higher sample rate (bit depth as well).
Vinyl (Used to be LP) is no less subject to these efforts and there was usually a running "master" that was made from the original master with its eq's and level tweaks and then used to run the many lacquers needed for the production process. The big problem, and primary advantage of the original master, is the buildup of noise and eq errors as the analog tape was copied.
What I didn't mention at the beginning was that most original masters are almost unplayable in domestic environments. The level would be low and the dynamics would be demanding making commercial consumption unlikely.
Also the "Mastering" process would be done with an eye to the target medium. That would mean among other things "mono-izing" the bass since vertical modulation on an LP will kick the stylus out of the groove. Or adjusting the track lengths to exploit the larger lengths possible on a CD.
So, if you want to compare a CD to ITS master you need to get the actual file used to make the CD. Anything else will be very misleading. Its true that some shops will mess up the transfer of the master to the glass master (incompetence can be found anywhere) usually they get it right and there are no detectable differences between the cd and the file used to make it.
The original master would be the one that captured the first transition from real time to stored information. There can easily be several stages after that before the CD master is made. Except for some audiophile labels, the original master will be reprocessed, including everything from editing (analog) to digitizing and editing, equalizing, level tweaking, limiting and a host of other stuff. For commercial production there is a system called protools where music goes to die for this. Some premium work is done using everything from Audacity to Pyramix to SoundBlade. All of these can be transparent and all have numerous effects that often are far from transparent. At the far end of this intermediate process of "Mixing" is Mastering where the final eq and audio sweetening is done. And sample rate conversion if the original content was processed at a higher sample rate (bit depth as well).
Vinyl (Used to be LP) is no less subject to these efforts and there was usually a running "master" that was made from the original master with its eq's and level tweaks and then used to run the many lacquers needed for the production process. The big problem, and primary advantage of the original master, is the buildup of noise and eq errors as the analog tape was copied.
What I didn't mention at the beginning was that most original masters are almost unplayable in domestic environments. The level would be low and the dynamics would be demanding making commercial consumption unlikely.
Also the "Mastering" process would be done with an eye to the target medium. That would mean among other things "mono-izing" the bass since vertical modulation on an LP will kick the stylus out of the groove. Or adjusting the track lengths to exploit the larger lengths possible on a CD.
So, if you want to compare a CD to ITS master you need to get the actual file used to make the CD. Anything else will be very misleading. Its true that some shops will mess up the transfer of the master to the glass master (incompetence can be found anywhere) usually they get it right and there are no detectable differences between the cd and the file used to make it.
Like I said ---> From listening to the original master recording to the play back of the CD --- it sounds soooo different. Obviously a lot of post-processing often goes into that original 'master' recording. Usually, compression is used with its attendant affects and distortion. Even on audiophile recordings., a little compression is sometimes used.... just cant help themselves. If there was one item in the post processing to beat one over the head with until a bloody pulp, it would be compression.
[I have a copy of ProTools.. extreamly flexible 'tool']
Thx-RNMarsh
[I have a copy of ProTools.. extreamly flexible 'tool']
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.