[Audio Empire]

There's an old saying: "There's plenty of slip twixt the cup and the lip."
The phrase was obviously coined to comment on the drinking of tea or coffee,
but it's equally applicable to recording quality.

I listen to a lot of music. I record a lot of music, and I have found, over
the years, that whether I record analog to magnetic tape, or digitally at
16-bit/44.1 KHz, 24-bit/96 KHz, 24-bit/192 KHz or DSD, my recordings always
sound better than most commercial releases. I have also found that any one
format is no guarantee of superiority or inferiority to any other. One
cannot, for instance, make a blanket statement to the effect that SACD is
better than CD or even that CD is better than vinyl. Theoretically,
technically, one format might be better than another. Quantization theory
might suggest, for example that CD should be better than vinyl, but often you
can't prove it by comparing even the same title released on both formats.

I have copies of plain Redbook CDs that sound better than most high-end,
audiophile SACDs. I have JVC XRCDs made from analog master tapes from the
1950's and 1960's of both classical and jazz performances that beat the pants
off of the best newly recorded SACDs from audiophile recording organizations
such as Telarc or Naxos and other organizations releasing "Hi-Res" formats
like Reference or Naim. I have a 45-RPM phonograph record of Stravinsky's
"Firebird" ballet, mastered for Classic Records by the late Wilma Cozart
Fine, the same Wilma Cozart Fine who originally produced the recording back
in the 1960's and the same Wilma Cozart Fine who also mastered both the CD
and the later SACD versions of the same recorded performance and did all
three from the same master tape. The LP sounds so much better than either of
the digital versions of this performance that it's hard to believe that they
all came from the same master or that they were all transfered by the same
hand. By all accounts, this shouldn't be. There should be a strict, hard, and
fast hierarchy here. SACD and 24-bit/192 KHz PCM recordings SHOULD always
sound better than CD and CD should always sound better than vinyl. But it
doesn't. In fact, in my experience there is little correlation between the
format and the finished product. Why is that?

I believe it's execution. Based on my own recording experiences with the
three major modern formats (CD, 24/192 PCM. and DSD), I have found that they
are all capable of incredible sonic impact and unparalleled accuracy. That
these virtues are most often NOT transferred to the final commercial product
must be laid at the doorstep of indifferent mastering and production
techniques. I have so much experience that tells me this is fact that It's a
wonder that this idea has taken so long to gel in my pea brain.

Several years ago, I was a guest at a recording studio in San Francisco. At
that studio I got to hear a mix engineer take the master tape of Ravel's
"Daphnis and Chloe" ballet recorded in the 1970's by the Vox recording team
of Marc Aubort and Joanna Nickernz with Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the
Minnesota Orchestra and remix it (it was a surround recording) for SACD for
Mobile Fidelity. The master tape played at the studio that day sounded
magnificent (and the original vinyl "Vox Box" did too, IF you could listen
around the horrible Vox pressings of the era), but when I later bought the
Mo-Fi SACD, I was sorely disappointed. Not only did it sound NOTHING like
what I heard in the studio that day, it sounded nothing like the original
vinyl release or the subsequent CD reissue! It was lifeless, flat, had little
bass and lacked clarity. Since I heard the masters, own the vinyl, and the CD
reissues from the 1990's, the only thing that I can come-up with is that
somebody messed-up the SACD mastering process BIG TIME somewhere along the
line.

That has to be the answer to the variability of these releases. And that's
why I have come to believe that double-blind tests between commercial
releases of CD, SACD and high-resolution formats like 24/96 and 24/192 are
worthless for deciding which format is best, or indeed for deciding whether
there is any audible difference between the various digital formats. The only
way to do such a test is to compare the master recordings BEFORE the record
companies' mastering and production departments get their grimy mitts on
them.

Any discussion?

[bob]

On May 9, 8:27=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

That has to be the answer to the variability of these releases. And that'=
s
why I have come to believe that double-blind tests between commercial
releases of CD, SACD and high-resolution formats like 24/96 and 24/192 ar=
e
worthless for deciding which format is best, or indeed for deciding wheth=
er
there is any audible difference between the various digital formats.

Well, no, that is not the way to "decide which format is best," for
the reason you state=97that differences between formats will be
overwhelmed by differences in execution.

The right way to "decide which format is best" is to ensure that you
have exactly the same mastering in both formats when you compare.
Double-blind tests are still a requirement, of course.

The only
way to do such a test is to compare the master recordings BEFORE the reco=
rd
companies' mastering and production departments get their grimy mitts on
them.

You don't necessarily need "master recordings" to compare formats. A
tenth-generation copy will do just fine, so long as the mastering is
the same.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 9 May 2010 18:05:44 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On May 9, 8:27=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

That has to be the answer to the variability of these releases. And that'=
s
why I have come to believe that double-blind tests between commercial
releases of CD, SACD and high-resolution formats like 24/96 and 24/192 ar=
e
worthless for deciding which format is best, or indeed for deciding wheth=
er
there is any audible difference between the various digital formats.

Well, no, that is not the way to "decide which format is best," for
the reason you state=97that differences between formats will be
overwhelmed by differences in execution.

The right way to "decide which format is best" is to ensure that you
have exactly the same mastering in both formats when you compare.
Double-blind tests are still a requirement, of course.

Yessss, that's sorts what I was getting at.

The only
way to do such a test is to compare the master recordings BEFORE the reco=
rd
companies' mastering and production departments get their grimy mitts on
them.

You don't necessarily need "master recordings" to compare formats. A
tenth-generation copy will do just fine, so long as the mastering is
the same.

Agreed but how would you know that? If you have the masters and KNOW they're
the masters, then you have a known chain of evidence. Anything can happen to
copies. Possibly nothing will happen, but then, you likely wouldn't know.

[bob]

On May 10, 11:43=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2010 18:05:44 -0700, bob wrote

You don't necessarily need "master recordings" to compare formats. A
tenth-generation copy will do just fine, so long as the mastering is
the same.

Agreed but how would you know that?

How would I know what? The transparency of a medium has nothing to do
with the nature of the recording. If a medium distorts a signal, it'll
distort to an original master or an nth-generation copy, just the
same.

bob

[anthony]

On May 11, 2:30=A0am, bob wrote:
On May 10, 11:43=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 18:05:44 -0700, bob wrote
You don't necessarily need "master recordings" to compare formats. A
tenth-generation copy will do just fine, so long as the mastering is
the same.

Agreed but how would you know that?

How would I know what? The transparency of a medium has nothing to do
with the nature of the recording. If a medium distorts a signal, it'll
distort to an original master or an nth-generation copy, just the
same.

bob

My own CD copies of LPs often sound way better than the commercial CDs
of the same products, and I think it's because quite often engineers
wrongly try to clean the original tape of all artefacts, but end up
stripping away too much ambience at the same time.
Careful remastering of analog source to CD can approach SACD quality
-- the recent release of The Beatles' original mono recordings is a
case in point. And a well-mastered SACD can yield a sensational
result .. the Bob Dylan series of SACDs has brought back to life his
original releases, which had suffered awfully from indifferent
transfers to CD. The same is true of the vintage Rolling Stones
material which has been transferred to SACD -- we're hearing them as
they were intended.
So I'd say it's the engineers who have degraded so very many
transfers, by not being content to just get down what was on the
master-tape. I'd always prefer to hear a bit of the old tape-hiss and
enjoy the original wide-spectrum recording, if that's the payoff.
Anthony

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:15:55 -0700, anthony wrote
(in article ):

On May 11, 2:30=A0am, bob wrote:
On May 10, 11:43=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 18:05:44 -0700, bob wrote
You don't necessarily need "master recordings" to compare formats. A
tenth-generation copy will do just fine, so long as the mastering is
the same.

Agreed but how would you know that?

How would I know what? The transparency of a medium has nothing to do
with the nature of the recording. If a medium distorts a signal, it'll
distort to an original master or an nth-generation copy, just the
same.

bob

My own CD copies of LPs often sound way better than the commercial CDs
of the same products, and I think it's because quite often engineers
wrongly try to clean the original tape of all artefacts, but end up
stripping away too much ambience at the same time.

Agreed. A lot of the time they're just indifferent and do a barely adequate
job. As an opposing approach, JVC is super careful about every step of the
mastering process in their XRCD line (which they no longer distribute in the
USA. If you want their XRCDs, you have to buy them as Japanese imports).
These discs are "just" Redbook, but they show how good Redbook can sound is
the record companies do CD RIGHT. The jazz and classical masters that JVC use
are 50+ years old in many cases, yet the CDs that they make from them sound
better than just about anything else and this includes SACD and
high-resolution WAV files downloaded from the internet .

Careful remastering of analog source to CD can approach SACD quality

I'd say that it can better MOST SACD releases. Not because Redbook, as a
format, is as good as SACD, but because most SACDs don't come anywhere close
to their potential.

-- the recent release of The Beatles' original mono recordings is a
case in point. And a well-mastered SACD can yield a sensational
result .. the Bob Dylan series of SACDs has brought back to life his
original releases, which had suffered awfully from indifferent
transfers to CD. The same is true of the vintage Rolling Stones
material which has been transferred to SACD -- we're hearing them as
they were intended.

I'll take your word for it. I cannot connect with that kind of music
generally, and can't stand to listen to "little Bobbie Zimmerman". I think he
"sings" like a cow with her udder caught in a barbed-wire fence.

So I'd say it's the engineers who have degraded so very many
transfers, by not being content to just get down what was on the
master-tape. I'd always prefer to hear a bit of the old tape-hiss and
enjoy the original wide-spectrum recording, if that's the payoff.
Anthony

That certainly used to be the case. But digital auto-correlation, today, is
so good that it can remove the tape hiss from old analog recordings without
affecting the music at all!

[Steven Sullivan]

anthony wrote:
On May 11, 2:30?am, bob wrote:
On May 10, 11:43=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 18:05:44 -0700, bob wrote
You don't necessarily need "master recordings" to compare formats. A
tenth-generation copy will do just fine, so long as the mastering is
the same.

Agreed but how would you know that?

How would I know what? The transparency of a medium has nothing to do
with the nature of the recording. If a medium distorts a signal, it'll
distort to an original master or an nth-generation copy, just the
same.

bob

My own CD copies of LPs often sound way better than the commercial CDs
of the same products, and I think it's because quite often engineers
wrongly try to clean the original tape of all artefacts, but end up
stripping away too much ambience at the same time.

Or they reduce the dynamic range on the CD.
Or, you like the artifacts of LP playback,
which are faithfully captured by digital recording.

Just some more possibilities.

Careful remastering of analog source to CD can approach SACD quality

Or equal it, in controlled subjective comparison (cf Meyer & Moran)

-- the recent release of The Beatles' original mono recordings is a
case in point. And a well-mastered SACD can yield a sensational
result .. the Bob Dylan series of SACDs has brought back to life his
original releases, which had suffered awfully from indifferent
transfers to CD.

So, how do those same SACD transfers sound, on the CD hybrid layer?


The same is true of the vintage Rolling Stones
material which has been transferred to SACD -- we're hearing them as
they were intended.

I've actually compared the two layers of some of these, and couldn't tell
them apart. They also 'measured' very much alike, to the extent that
can be measured by me.

So I'd say it's the engineers who have degraded so very many
transfers, by not being content to just get down what was on the
master-tape.

However, the idea that a 'flat' transfer is *necessarily* better, isn't
true, even according to purists like Steve Hoffman.

I'd always prefer to hear a bit of the old tape-hiss and
enjoy the original wide-spectrum recording, if that's the payoff.

Agreed on that point. The obsession with removing tape hiss is
unnecessary -- though it can be done more or less artfully, if
one wants to.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine