Likes: 
Faceplams: Ron Howard voice over: "It isn't. They aren't."Originally Posted by ninsp
Every other band i listen to (the number is high) still puts out CDs.
Trollhunter
Ron Howard voice over: "It isn't. They aren't."
Every other band i listen to (the number is high) still puts out CDs.
Active Member
24 bit engages me with the music the most. Why? Because that is exactly how the artist renders it and hands it in to the label and then it goes out to be pressed. I want THAT. No interruptions due to format limitations. Give me the original untouched hi-res master file. Not a physical format that downgrades or degrades the quality of the original master or interrupts the flow of an album. CD downgrades it to 16 bit and vinyl adds all sorts of artifacts not a part of the original 24 bit master file. So until there is a CD that plays 24 bit or artists switch to blu-ray or a vinyl that has the clarity of a CD with no additional noise and coloring and can play more than 20 minutes per side, it is 24 bit digital for me. I was a 16 bit CD guy until 24 bit came along. If I want to admire art, I'll throw the PDF or cover up on my 50" 4K TV to drool over while blasting my beautiful 24 bit audio file. That is my preference. Death to the MP3 and lossy compression.
Last edited by neorev; 09-15-2017 at 10:09 PM.
Hairy Member
The difference you are hearing between a 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC file is psycho-acoustic. Unless you're twelve, you can't even hear all the sounds withing the frequency range a 16-bit recording can reproduce, let alone a 24-bit file. Were you to blindly compare, you could not tell the difference. No matter the equipment. Anyone says otherwise is lying, and could not, when pressed to do so, explain why beyond personal interpretation.
But I mean, I get it, 24/96 digital files are super-convenient.
To convert to Redbook standard.
And burn to a CD.
Hairy Member
This is sensible!
Active Member
Underworld's Dubnobasswithmyheadman remastered reissue is what sold me on 24 bit. I listened to it and I hear a difference. It's not a blasted out album. The original master was pretty quiet. So there's still a lot of dynamics and depth in the remaster and not blown to shit. I felt it came through on the 24 bit remaster. Especially when it comes to spatial effects like reverbs and effects that help the music feel like it occupies a space around you is where 24 bit shines. It sounded so much fuller and more enveloping. Another thing is a good pair of headphones will help because a lot of those elements get lost on speakers. Even decent speakers, these elements get lost in your room/listening environment. If you're gonna pick up on differences, a nice pair of headphones will make it easier. I listened to Underworld on my ATH-M50X headphones and it sounded gorgeous. I wish the rest of the super deluxe edition tracks came in 24 bit and not just the album because the album sounded amazing.
Also the Gorillaz recently reissued their albums in 24 bit and they sound much, much better than the CD versions. There was no mention of them being remasters, just higher bitrate, and I thought the difference was quite noticeable.
On a not 24 bit side note, but in regards to headphone music, I listen to a producer named Lorn. And I must say his stuff is fucking amazing on headphones (of course, in lossless). He really knows how to use spatial effects/panning/reverberation to enhance the listening experience. So much gets lost when listening to him later stuff on speakers. His last album Vessel and The Maze To Nowhere triple EPs sound so good on headphones, thick and cavernous.
Last edited by neorev; 09-16-2017 at 12:11 AM.
Member
Who would burn a CD? Do you record tapes too?
Hairy Member
If I'm feeling frisky.
Hairy Member
Lorn is incredible. The atmosphere he creates with his work is truly unique.
Look—I'm a recording engineer, and I know a lot of technical things about all the technology that's technical (no, really) and the one thing I've learned that has held true in all the work I've done (recording, mixing, mastering bands; producing a podcast; post-sound for short films; sound design for audiobooks) is to trust your ears. If it sounds good to you, it's good. This is ALL subjective.
But to assert (which I know you are not, I'm just ranting, and I appreciate you having a conversational answer to my post) that hi-res audio files are objectively better is just wrong. It's wrong. Redbook is standard for a reason because it's overkill. Unless the audio is mastered differently (not a remastered version of the original master, as is normal in the industry) there is no audible difference an adult can hear, no matter the equipment. We can't even perceive the difference between 320kbps MP3 and Redbook. The master is the master, and it's going to sound the same if you don't know which file is which, all the way down to, I'll be conservative, 256 AAC.
I've had 80kbps HE-AAC files on an iPod nano that I listened to on high-end Shure earbuds. Sounds fine.
I'm certainly going to dig in to the Gorillaz releases, though.
And I want CDs Trent, so bad. Just give me them, pretty pleeeez.
Quiet Member
Thank God for a voice like yours in here.The difference you are hearing between a 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC file is psycho-acoustic. Unless you're twelve, you can't even hear all the sounds withing the frequency range a 16-bit recording can reproduce, let alone a 24-bit file. Were you to blindly compare, you could not tell the difference. No matter the equipment. Anyone says otherwise is lying, and could not, when pressed to do so, explain why beyond personal interpretation.
But I mean, I get it, 24/96 digital files are super-convenient.
To convert to Redbook standard.
And burn to a CD.
I will go further and tell you that he is not hearing anything between 16 and 24 bits.
(He didn't prove with a test anyways... what he is saying is just words).
24/96 is not very convenient - you will need to down-sample and get rid of half of the samples.
This process, if an unappropriated filter is used, can create errors. These errors may be ABX'able.
Down-sampling is a lossy process, it can create artifacts even on 16/44.1 material, even distortion.
Up-sampling is a less cumbersome process, since your going to fit what you have into a larger room and fill empty spaces with duplication.
Nevertheless up-sampling has its own issues as well. Not very much ABX'able though.
Sad to the fact that there are many ignorant in audio here. It's like the german WWII soldiers: they were told to go to war and they went.
I'm not going to name anyone, but I think the audio topic yes, became fatiguing.
People think about this the same as they think about a vote in politics.
Whoever wins the election, the government still wins over people - and things are all just the same. A little for the better or worse.
As for physical products, I will wait for these CDs. Vinyl is a thing of the past and belongs to history.
They can and should make something out from the CD product, like a 12" hardbook with loads of pages. It still can hold the disc inside.
Having the artwork as an excuse to use vinyl is pretty stupid. It's even dumber because
You don't get that much of artwork like you would get in this release I'm going to show you:
Just put that argument down with this release: https://www.discogs.com/a-ha-Hunting...elease/7540264
It comes with a 10" book - CDs inside. This is no excuse for industry to go back to vinyl for physical.
There are many ways to please consumers of physical products. If artwork is one of them, then vinyl is simply not an excuse.
I am not against vinyl - I am just saying that more products should be offered. The vinyl statement is dumb in its essence.
Are you going to send me an Audio Technica as a gift? None of you. I knew it. Not even NIN is going to. So please, understand this POV.
Last edited by Quantum550; 09-17-2017 at 02:51 AM. Reason: adding images
Throbbing Member
Why would I want CDs and 16/44.1 when I can have the exact same digital files the artists handed over?
I know, you can't hear the difference, blah blah. But whether I can hear it or not, it's still there. I want that.
If there's one thing that technology and internet helped the music industry, I'd say it is hi-res releases like this, or blu-ray audios (see Steven Wilson remix projects).
Hairy Member
words to live by
God is an American
You would be SO LOUSY at politics. You're making good points only with the stupidest arguments imaginable. Just stop.
Member
Vinyl is not of the past, it's replacing CD as the physical medium counterpart of digital music.Thank God for a voice like yours in here.
I will go further and tell you that he is not hearing anything between 16 and 24 bits.
(He didn't prove with a test anyways... what he is saying is just words).
24/96 is not very convenient - you will need to down-sample and get rid of half of the samples.
This process, if an unappropriated filter is used, can create errors. These errors may be ABX'able.
Down-sampling is a lossy process, it can create artifacts even on 16/44.1 material, even distortion.
Up-sampling is a less cumbersome process, since your going to fit what you have into a larger room and fill empty spaces with duplication.
Nevertheless up-sampling has its own issues as well. Not very much ABX'able though.
Sad to the fact that there are many ignorant in audio here. It's like the german WWII soldiers: they were told to go to war and they went.
I'm not going to name anyone, but I think the audio topic yes, became fatiguing.
People think about this the same as they think about a vote in politics.
Whoever wins the election, the government still wins over people - and things are all just the same. A little for the better or worse.
As for physical products, I will wait for these CDs. Vinyl is a thing of the past and belongs to history.
They can and should make something out from the CD product, like a 12" hardbook with loads of pages. It still can hold the disc inside.
Having the artwork as an excuse to use vinyl is pretty stupid. It's even dumber because
You don't get that much of artwork like you would get in this release I'm going to show you:
Just put that argument down with this release: https://www.discogs.com/a-ha-Hunting...elease/7540264
It comes with a 10" book - CDs inside. This is no excuse for industry to go back to vinyl for physical.
There are many ways to please consumers of physical products. If artwork is one of them, then vinyl is simply not an excuse.
I am not against vinyl - I am just saying that more products should be offered. The vinyl statement is dumb in its essence.
Are you going to send me an Audio Technica as a gift? None of you. I knew it. Not even NIN is going to. So please, understand this POV.
Member
Because you can't be an audio elitist.
Active Member
ha! This is completely off topic from the audio dick waving going around, but I ended up on the first page of this thread and in hindsight this post is prophetic."THE INTENTION OF THIS RECORD IS FOR IT TO EXIST IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, JUST LIKE YOU. CHOOSING THIS PACKAGE GETS YOU THE DIGITAL FILES AND WE WILL SHIP THE PROPER PHYSICAL COMPONENT TO YOUR HOUSE FOR YOU TO DEAL WITH, WHILE VERY LIMITED SUPPLIES LAST."
I love the "for you to deal with" part
Active Member
Here's a question for the 24 bit naysayers out there who listen to vinyl. Since most records are now produced from digital master files, such as these NIN and Music On Vinyl releases, would you prefer them to press a record from a 16/44 file or a 24/96 file? According to you, a 16/44 should sound amazing on vinyl, but I bet 100% you'd want them to press the record from a 24/96 digital master instead.
Last edited by neorev; 09-17-2017 at 12:12 PM.
God is an American
It depends. As with everything in audio production. Is the 16bit source more dynamic? Then use it.
This argument is ridiculous...
Member
there are plenty of 24/48 folks who also like vinyl as the physical medium.
Stubby Member
CDs are dying because digital files and streaming are now the most popular way to listen to music and vinyl is the exact opposite experience of listening to music in your computer. Vinyl records are large objects that require time and a whole ritual to listen to their music. Vinyl with its big artwork, and the "not quick use" works as the perfect counterpart to digital files, while CDs are like a soon to be obsolete way to store digital music. It's not as much about the sound quality as to the experience.
I have lots of CDs, but at this point it's obvious to me that they can't offer enough. The idea of the Physical Component works perfect for me, and you always can burn the digital files into a CD and still get a (much more unique) piece of artwork, so I don't see where the problem is.
Active Member
That's why my question was directed toward the vinyl loving naysayers.
It is not ridiculous. Both sources are dynamic. A huge percentage would still choose the 24 bit. That's what the artist used in the studio. People care so much about which format Trent feels is definitive, then they should also care about the audio bitrate they chose to be definitive for mastering. Even if you feel there is nothing different about 16 versus 24 bit, you should still want 24 bit because that is what Trent and co. decided to master the files as. Most vinyl enthusiasts would want their records pressed from the highest quality source. If you press a record from a 16/44 CD quality file to vinyl, it kind of defeats the purpose. With a simple EQ, you'd have the warmth of vinyl on CD.
In the end, if people had the choice between two dynamic sources, one at 16/44 and the other at 24/96, to be pressed, most would want the 24 bit. And with that, why argue with folks who prefer and want 24 bit digital? My point being this arguing crap is all meaningless now that all format are sourced from digital files. It is very rare anything is pressed from tape. If there are recordings left on tape, they get ripped to digital and then pressed. So it all becomes digitized in the end. And if there is a larger file size that can hold more information, most folks will go for that.
In the end there is really no frigging difference if you have to put a needle to a record or a put a CD in a player or find the folder and click a file to hear or if you listen to a vinyl or if you listen to a CD or a 16 bit file or a 24 bit file or a frigging cassette tape. Just listen to the music in the format you want and enjoy it. It all engages you and none is better than the other as long as you appreciate the music. It's not always about what you can or cannot hear, but what you can feel.
Last edited by neorev; 09-17-2017 at 01:38 PM.
Throbbing Member
I want CD's because music sounds muddy when I plug my phone into my car. (Car is too old to have come with bluetooth but I've installed an aux cable.)
I don't like vinyl because I remember what they sound like after the dust and degradation start to get to them. (And I want to have the option to have music on as background noise rather than something that I have to do rituals for like flipping it over and changing the records. Sure, sometimes it's nice to do that, but sometimes it's a pain.)
But I'm just a grumpy old man so what do I know?
God is an American
No, they should not. They should care about the end result, not bit rates. This is an area where the mastering engineer's expertise reigns supreme, not fickle consumer preferences based on potentially misleading information. IF the gear used to cut the record responds better to the 24bit input, and can deliver better results with it, then YES that should be used — but is that ALWAYS the case? No.
I have some pretty old CDs mastered in the 80s, using supposedly inferior equipment for digitization, but do they beat modern 24bit-mastered versions of the same material the record companies are currently flogging? Sometimes, they absolutely do. This all needs to be judged case-by-case, otherwise the mastering engineer's training and experience would be worthless. Believe me, it's not.
Last edited by botley; 09-17-2017 at 04:48 PM.
.net (24.24.2.1447)
You can't press either to vinyl. You need an analog master. So either would need to go through another processing step.
Those hyper-expensive SSL mixers that are all-analog, and I seem to recall reading Trent owns one.
This "there's no point arguing" point would have much more weight if you hadn't stuck it on the end of the latest iteration of your side of an argument...
Last edited by jmtd; 09-18-2017 at 05:50 AM.
Active Member
Actually that is a not true. Many places, especially Music On Vinyl presses hi-res and sometimes CD transfer releases to vinyl. It is quite a common occurrence, especially in today's music world. People were complaining about Music On Vinyl releases because it was discovered they pressed CD quality on some of their vinyl reissues.
Didn't someone here post Trent saying he used the 24/96 files for the new pressings? I could have sworn that was posted here. I know Radiohead's OKNOTOK reissue were pressed from the 24/96 remastered files. They sourced the original tapes and remastered to digital and pressed from there.
Most labels won't lend out their original masters and instead share hi-res digital conversions. Some audiophile labels who handle their own releases in house may press from analog, but it's not as common. But anyone can press a vinyl from digital files. You do not need an analog master to press to vinyl. You just need to make sure your master is optimized for pressing to vinyl, such as not too much low or high frequencies and making sure specific frequencies like bass are mono. They have guidelines.
Hell, they were recording digital as far back as the 80s. You can find old records that say "digitally recorded" on them. So no, unless specifically stated that they are pressed from an analog source, many are pressed from digital files, especially the newer releases/reissues of today.
Last edited by neorev; 09-18-2017 at 12:29 PM.
.net (24.24.2.1447)
Umm... do you know how records work? Whatever digital intermediary they used, whether 2496 or anything else, it would *have* to have been converted to an analogue master for pressing to vinyl. Its literally an analogue spiral pressed into plastic.
God is an American
This is correct. Digital files need to go back to analogue waves at some point — either in your home playback device, or in the lacquer cutting room where a vinyl record is cut.
Quiet Member
What you prefer is store more silence in your storage, that is the only thing I can think of.Here's a question for the 24 bit naysayers out there who listen to vinyl. Since most records are now produced from digital master files, such as these NIN and Music On Vinyl releases, would you prefer them to press a record from a 16/44 file or a 24/96 file? According to you, a 16/44 should sound amazing on vinyl, but I bet 100% you'd want them to press the record from a 24/96 digital master instead.
I will solidify the naysaying against HD tracks:
I prefer to leave the SUBJECTIVE side of theory and present the real deal on the so called 24 bit and 96000 Hz "Hi Rez Audio Quality" to the fucking stratospheric levels:
The image is from Wish, Broken Digital Files, in its original download from NIN:
Look at this image:
There is no audio above 21000Hz. You can see some peaks.
But let's see then the "glory" of this peaks.
To the computer literate only:
a) Make a highpass from 22.050 kHz to the ceiling of 96.000.
b) Amplify the range to 50dB and then amplify again to even more... 40dB (it would be a total an addendum of 90dB of music).
c) Save the file on 24-bit, or even 32-bit floating point.
d) Play the file in your favorite stereo or player.
e) See if you can here anything you just saved, using the LOUDEST volume possible.
f) Finally, reflect upon these HD tracks and see if they are a BAIT or NOT. If they left the digital studio with any relevant life-changing listening experience against 16/44.1
You will be surprised.
Active Member
You're talking about the master lacquer from which the records are pressed from. That still doesn't negate or change the fact that the recording itself is still coming from a digital source. I think we're both taking about different aspects of the process here with what I am talking about. Yes, a record will be pressed from a master laquer. But a vinyl can still be sourced from a digital recording even a CD. We're discussing the source audio. There is a difference between sourced from an analog master and cut from an analog master. You can cut a laquer from a digital source.
Radiohead's OKNOTOK was done by converting the original tapes to digital and remastering and then cutting from the digital source as well as XL's most recent double 12" of Kid A was cut from hi-res digital at Abbey Road.
As discussed here:
Masters Matter
Analog masters are critical, but according to United’s FAQs most of their customers deliver audio on CDs. This means the source material for the pressing is actually a digital master (not necessarily compressed, but still digital). It may not matter though, since the industry quickly adopted digital technology as it became available, and advances are regularly improving sound performance. Debates continue and sources have different opinions. Readers can make up their own minds after hearing the facts. I prefer to know as much as possible about a release before I purchase a copy. Few artists disclose that information, so it becomes an educated guess based on past experience with specific labels and musicians in respect to the quality of the end product.
Unfortunately, supplying analog masters does not guarantee a truly analog production workflow, making this all a bit murky. The process requires more of an investment in time, people, and equipment, making it difficult to justify in the face of modern technology. High-resolution digital sources continue to trend upward, and the results among listeners are generally positive. Basically, a high-resolution digital source consists of a lossless audio codec capturing sonic information at an increased bit depth. The product reproduces sound among a larger number of frequencies than that of an MP3, the long-time standard of the iPod generation. Experiencing the difference requires spending a little bit more money than the average new record purchase.Quality Record Productions(QRP) in Salina, Kansas, specializes in manufacturing premium audiophile pressings, in addition to standard releases from thousands of labels worldwide. The price point of records on theAnalogue Productionslabel begin at $30 and move up from there. Your ears will have to decide if the quality justifies the extra cost.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...-issues-vinyl/
Last edited by neorev; 09-18-2017 at 10:35 PM.
Throbbing Member
They transferred the original tapes in 24/96 for all 2017 DEs. That's why it's available in 24/96.
Also, 16/44.1 doesn't mean it can accurately contain all the data up to 44.1kHz. The cap is actually lower than that.
Last edited by Lerxto; 09-18-2017 at 09:53 PM.
Active Member
@jmtd
And here is a pretty informative post about digital sources and vinyl releases today...
Most modern recordings are made digitally, these days. They're just made at much higher resolutions and bitrates than what comes out on CD/iTunes/various other download formats.
As long as the DACs used to cut the vinyl masters are of a high enough quality, you shouldn't hear any "digital noise" or harshness.
Usually, the digital masters will use a resolution of at least 24-bit/96 kHz, sometimes going as high as 32-bit/192 kHz. At these resolutions, and assuming quality DACs that spread out the digital noise to push it out of the audible spectrum, the music will sound just as good (if not better) than a pure analogue source, as long as what you're looking for is true reproduction, and not the "artificial warmth" of true analogue signals that some people crave.
Now, those high-resolution masters often aren't limited/compressed/squashed yet (check out the link/u/andrewswaffordposted about the loudness wars) and you normally want to use that for the vinyl for added fidelity, although the signal-to-noise ratio on vinyl is not that good (it's very dependent on the turntable, for one) and sometimes, you have to add a little compression, or at least a bit of peak limiting, to ensure that the average-volume moments don't get lost in the noise floor just to preserve a few loud hits.
That's the main reason why some new releases (not remasters or repressings of older records) actually sound better on vinyl than CD/digital download: the high-res masters, on one hand, are carefully mastered for vinyl, to preserve as much of the dynamics as possible, while the CD, meant for mass-consumption gets mastered to be as loud as possible, so people can hear it clearly on the MP3 players and on the radio.
One good example for me was the album Icky Thump, by The White Stripes. I loved the album on CD, but I couldn't listen to it too regularly, because it caused "ear fatigue". The extreme compression used on the CD to make it as loud as possible actually causes my ears to tire (the same way staring at a lot of quickly flickering images is visually tiring.) I recently bought the vinyl for that album, and suddenly, the sound opens up, the drum hits hit harder, and I generally get more dynamics, and less ear fatigue.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case for all new vinyl releases: often, the producer or engineer at the recording session pre-masters the music to be as loud as possible, leaving the vinyl mastering engineer with a lot less to work with. I have some new vinyl releases that just sound the same as the CD, with perhaps just a tiny bit more resolution and "warmth", but otherwise very similar, remaining fairly loud all the way through.
And that brings us back to vintage vinyl that was recorded, mixed and mastered, all in analogue, before the loudness wars. That's where vinyl can shine: it's not about the vinyl having such a high resolution, it's about the quirks of the medium that require engineers to master in a certain way for the music to sound good, and the fact that they couldn't compress/limit their masters too much without causing other problems, so they let the percussion and bass in their analogue masters thump harder (especially in Soul/R'nB 45's from the 60's and 70's.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/vinyl/comme...ssed_from_the/
This is a really good article that points our specific releases and labels and what they cut from and how some fudge the truth:
Reissue Labels To Avoid and Some Best to Proceed With Caution
"Just because something's been pressed on 180 gram vinyl doesn't mean its going to sound good or that it was sourced from analog."
https://www.analogplanet.com/content...roceed-caution
You can find more discussions here in regards to cutting from digital versus analog:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...asters.451850/
http://www.progressiveears.org/forum...ng-the-purpose
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...p?f=41&t=90219
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/698620
Last edited by neorev; 09-18-2017 at 10:36 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-7540264-1443596614-5373.jpeg.jpg)
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-7540264-1443596614-6657.jpeg.jpg)
