Post by Marpow August 2, 2015 (1 of 25)
|
|
I thought I would take advantage of a question that I get in part but I can't seem to fully understand. If the Forum is to go away, well now is the time for me to ask.
I get the basics of the above title of this thread. What I am not quite understanding is how all the DR values (loudness and compression) play into the mix.
Example. I buy a 1990 RBCD that has a DR value of 13, the 2007 RBCD, remastered has a DR value of 8, the digital download has a DR of 8 even though it is now a 24bit/96Khz version.
I am very aware that my question comes up mostly in rock music but still there must be science, definition, math, and possibly poor advertising behind it.
Are digital downloads subject to the source discs? Say taking it from the poor (remastered) disc vs the better disc?
Download sites all advertise there bit rate and Khz, most download sites on average are advertising 24bit/96Khz, but when I check DR values sometimes, many times, they are worse than the 16bit/44.1Khz RBCD's.
Ultimately it is the 24bit rates that have a lower DR value than the 16bit rates that confuses me. I am not convinced, that 100% of the time 24bit rate is better.
As digital download is now growing fast it seems to me the advertising is misleading like the food industry using terms called organic and natural, highly misleading at times.
Peace and Happiness to all in the event our little group dissolves or maybe we will find another way to meet up.
|
|
|
Post by windhoek August 2, 2015 (2 of 25)
|
|
I think the answer to the DR issue is possibly sometimes. Some hi-res downloads might well be upsampled releases of a 2007 compressed remaster offering nothing more than what's already on the CD. Without adequate upfront information from the seller, it's difficult to tell in advance what's really for sale, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa August 2, 2015 (3 of 25)
|
|
You have to realize that dynamic range (DR) means two different things when speaking about recordings.
It can mean either the theoretical (or measured) possible difference between the loudest signal and the system noise floor. Theoretically it is 6 dB per bit +2 dB for digital, but in reality somewhat less due to hardware imperfections. 16 bit recorders can give about 96 dB dynamic range*, 24 bit recorders around 128 dB, or 21 bit's worth in real life. Out of this dynamic range space the best classical recordings I have come up with have had slightly over 70 dB's worth of DR between loudest passages and the ambient noise of the venue. For this reason I maintain 16 bits is enough for delivery formats, while 24 bits is convenient for recording and mastering.
DR values like 16 or 9 or what ever are actual measurements from pop/rock disks; difference between the peaks and the lowest RMS level. This is low because the DR has been artificially compressed to make the music sound "louder" and easier to listen in a car or with earbuds in loud surroundings. This has nothing to do with the technical possibilities of the digital recording system. Actually the whole modern digital system goes to waste. In the past DR of pop/rock genre was hugely bigger (just listen to original Wall or Dark Side of the Moon) because people actually listened those on their Hi-Fi systems. Now new remasterings tend to be much worse than the originals, only to cater to the new taste and (assumed) demands of the new buyers for "louder" disks with less DR. Even if the technology has made it possible to have more DR, mastering engineers throw it away.
*) this is slightly simplified, as good dither can give 10 db more DR, but this is getting too technical.
|
|
|
Post by Marpow August 2, 2015 (4 of 25)
|
|
AmonRa said:
Now new remasterings tend to be much worse than the originals, only to cater to the new taste and (assumed) demands of the new buyers for "louder" disks with less DR. Even if the technology has made it possible to have more DR, mastering engineers throw it away.
OK, good, and thank you. I am getting what you are saying. Also that in your opinion 16bit is all that is needed for the listener. I will say that taking my 16bit RBCD's with high DR values, running them through my external DAC has great sound and many times better or as good as SACD's that I own. You touched on what I think is the answer to my digital download question, and we might as well stick with pop/rock being the genre.
I will get a little deeper into my question.
These download sites, that sell 24/96Khz Flac for example files with poor DR values are coming from the remastered versions?, which to quote you, much worse than the originals, I assume?
Would you agree with me that if that is the case, the advertising by the download sites, (best available, like they hear in the studio, better than CD, add etc, etc,) that there is a misleading of the general public. Because these hi res download sites are selling only what they say is supposed to be the best version.
Unlike, 10 years later after an original release they release a RBCD remastered with bonus cuts they are not selling it based on it's pure sound quality. The goal is to get the listener to buy it again more for the content than the sonic quality, whereas digital download sites are exclusively advertising of course for the ease of owning music without packaging but with the false?? advertising of better sonic quality.
AS I said before I am just trying to work this out in my head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good rule of thumb, Mark: Stick to the older RBCDs with higher DR values. Occasionally, you WILL run into a dud but it's better than forking out bigger bucks for newly remastered drek.
As far as downloads: proceed with caution. They're not cheap and some are upsampled 16 bit RBCDs.
Try to read reviews before purchasing and thus avoid disappointment.
AmonRa pretty much nailed it and yes 16 bit can sound wonderful but I'll take a 24 bit recording any day provided it is properly mixed/mastered.
The problem wasn't the 16 bits. It was the 44.1 sampling rate which was the weak link. Even some of the dualdisc 'enhanced stereo' discs sound better since the sampling rate is 48 which is still better than 44.1.
|
|
|
Post by bmoura August 2, 2015 (6 of 25)
|
|
Marpow said:
I thought I would take advantage of a question that I get in part but I can't seem to fully understand. If the Forum is to go away, well now is the time for me to ask.
I get the basics of the above title of this thread. What I am not quite understanding is how all the DR values (loudness and compression) play into the mix.
My experience is there is more to an excellent sounding SACD or Download than the "DR Number".
|
|
|
|
|
|
bmoura said:
My experience is there is more to an excellent sounding SACD or Download than the "DR Number".
So, in essence Brian, you're saying that DR numbers can be deceiving and in no way are indicative of the 'product' in question?
How would Mark (Marpow) in advance be assured that the downloads from HDTracks are worth purchasing. Is there a review site which covers this. I do recall Absolute Sound used to review HDTrack downloads but the magazine is prepared 2 months in advance of publication and don't know if they continue to conduct such reviews.
I'm sure ALL of Acoustic Sounds DSD downloads are top quality as I've almost never experienced a bad SACD from AP (because they take FOREVER and a day to reach fruition).
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an initial matter, be wary of DR values for SACDs and DSD downloads - they can only be generated by converting to PCM, and will vary substantially depending on methods used.
DR is a good tool for determining if compression or digital limiting has been used to make the recording sound better on earbuds/radio - and worse on a hi-fi setup.
That said, DR is not the only sign of a good mastering - some of those 80s CDs have good DR scores, but sound harsh and unpleasant from the early A/D converters used.
Generally speaking, a DR score of 9 versus 11 won't sound substantially different, and a higher DR score does not always mean a better mastering. On the other hand, DR scores 6 versus 12 will sound substantially differnt. Scores below 8 tend to be the hallmarks of substantial compression/limiting, and tend to be the ones to avoid, at least generally.
DR is not the determinant of a good mastering, but it is a good way to quantify why a mastering is poorly done in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, Ubertrout, regarding the 80's RBCDs. A lot of them did sound harsh due to poor A/D conversion and before SONY opened up its US pressing Plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, ALL RBCDs were either pressed in Germany and/or Japan (but subject to similar substandard A/D conversion).
Of course a lot of today's players do smooth out the rough edges on those early RBCDs. My Meridian does have an apodising filter to address pre~ringing and jitter is a thing of the past with today's superior DACs.
Even though I don't place much stock in Amazon reviews, on occasion if 'enough' posters complain about loudness/compression it is at least a safe indicator to avoid that particular disc....but as we are all aware (and to add to the confusion), even from the reviews on this site, that better players/DACs/systems will sound substantially better than less 'exotic' systems.
Oh, the trials and tribulations of being an audiophile!
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Even though I don't place much stock in Amazon reviews, on occasion if 'enough' posters complain about loudness/compression it is at least a safe indicator to avoid that particular disc....but as we are all aware (and to add to the confusion), even from the reviews on this site, that better players/DACs/systems will sound substantially better than less 'exotic' systems.
Oh, the trials and tribulations of being an audiophile!
Honestly, badly compressed albums are almost unlistenable on my main listening system, but sound great in my car's mediocre system. It's the environment they're designed for.
|
|
