Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Feb 22, band beyond description
wrote: some in the music industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their entire sales stream to 24-bit http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web.../24.bit.music/ As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a premium price. Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? "Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp." Mark |
#2
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Mark-T expounded in
oups.com: ... Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? Mark It just means that it is "re-mixed". There's a lot you can do in between the original recording tracks and the final resulting media (CD). The "master" recording normally includes multiple tracks. Something really ancient will be 1-track (mono) and an entirely different process: more of an audio processing challenge to remove pops and clicks etc. without killing the original performance. Warren |
#3
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
In article ,
Warren wrote: Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? Mark It just means that it is "re-mixed". There's a lot you can do in between the original recording tracks and the final resulting media (CD). The "master" recording normally includes multiple tracks. Or, in some cases (for recordings originally mixed down to analog master tapes) it means "re-digitized". Run the original 2-track album master tape through a good tape deck, and convert it to digital format (16 or 24-bit), ideally using a better mastering deck and better A-to-D converters than were used the first time around. In most cases, these days, it means "re-mixed, and/or processed differently", as Warren said. To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is missing the point. 24-bit isn't really the issue. A well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording can sound truly wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear PCM seems entirely adequate to me. The real problem is how the albums are handled prior to that. Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range. The actual quality of the sound on many commercial CDs is barely of what we would have called "cassette-quality" back in the 1970s... in fact, some of it is arguably worse than what you could get out of an 8-track player in a beat-up old Chevy :-( 16-bit PCM can deliver better than 90 dB of dynamic range, with extremely low distortion. A lot of music today is released with less than 10 dB of effective dynamic range. Things are made somewhat worse by lossy digital encoding (e.g. MP3 or AAC or whatever) at too low a bit-rate. I do think that the effort to release digitally-delivered music tracks in a form which sounds better is a good one... but it isn't really about "24-bit" vs "16-bit". It's about treating the music with respect... letting it "live", with real dynamics and subtlety, rather than giving in to the constant pressure to "make it sound louder on the air" by squashing it into a thin paste. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#4
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Dave Platt wrote:
To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is missing the point. 24-bit isn't really the issue. A well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording can sound truly wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear PCM seems entirely adequate to me. You're right, of course. 24 bits in the "deliver mechanism" is ****ing stupid. Period. Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"? |
#5
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
dizzy wrote:
Dave Platt wrote: To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is missing the point. 24-bit isn't really the issue. A well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording can sound truly wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear PCM seems entirely adequate to me. You're right, of course. 24 bits in the "deliver mechanism" is ****ing stupid. Period. Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"? They haven't been so far. -- Les Cargill |
#6
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
dizzy wrote: Dave Platt wrote: To my mind, this "24-bit" effort on Apple's part is missing the point. 24-bit isn't really the issue. A well-mastered 16-bit PCM recording can sound truly wonderful... as a delivery mechanism, 16-bit linear PCM seems entirely adequate to me. You're right, of course. 24 bits in the "deliver mechanism" is ****ing stupid. Period. Are people stupid enough to fall for it as "better"? They haven't been so far. Right - notice the smoldering ashes of DVD-A and SACD. |
#7
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Hear, hear!
Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are. Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range. And they wonder why we don't buy records! -- Malcolm "They should know they're the Grateful Dead now." -- Phil |
#8
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 02/27/2011 12:04 AM, MalcolmO wrote:
Hear, hear! Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are. Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range. And they wonder why we don't buy records! I thought it may be interesting to suggest some pre-digital era albums that were of better source quality than much of what gets put into 1's and 0's these days. How about, "Year of the Cat", by Al Stewart? -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#9
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 2/27/2011 10:10 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
On 02/27/2011 12:04 AM, MalcolmO wrote: Hear, hear! Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are. Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range. And they wonder why we don't buy records! I thought it may be interesting to suggest some pre-digital era albums that were of better source quality than much of what gets put into 1's and 0's these days. How about, "Year of the Cat", by Al Stewart? Or ones that were recorded perfectly digitally - like Mark Knopfler's "Sailing To Philadelphia". It can be done. Gladys. |
#10
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 2/27/2011 9:10 AM Randy Yates spake thus:
On 02/27/2011 12:04 AM, MalcolmO wrote: Hear, hear! Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are. Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range. And they wonder why we don't buy records! I thought it may be interesting to suggest some pre-digital era albums that were of better source quality than much of what gets put into 1's and 0's these days. How about, "Year of the Cat", by Al Stewart? I see you, and raise you: John McLaughlin/One Truth Band's "Electric Dreams", @1979. (Completely analog, so far as I can tell.) -- The phrase "jump the shark" itself jumped the shark about a decade ago. - Usenet |
#11
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, MalcolmO wrote:
Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder". *They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range. And they wonder why we don't buy records! Wait. We don't? |
#12
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Warren wrote:
Something really ancient will be 1-track (mono) and an entirely different process: more of an audio processing challenge to remove pops and clicks etc. without killing the original performance. http://www.chenyang-ism.com/Filtering.htm -- first hit on http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oise+reduction Cheers! Rich |
#13
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Warren" wrote in message
. 210 Mark-T expounded in oups.com: .. Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? It means that simple EFX like equalization and dynamics processing were done or redone prior to preparing the distributed form of the recording. Doing something as simple as increasing the level of the entire track by 1 dB can be called remastering. Just changing the order of the tracks on the distributed media is remastering. It just means that it is "re-mixed". No. Re-mixing would require access to the origional tracks which is called something else besides remastering - usually "re-mixing". There's a lot you can do in between the original recording tracks and the final resulting media (CD). The "master" recording normally includes multiple tracks. Mastering is not mixing and remastering is not remixing. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/ Please read section VI. |
#14
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Mastering is not mixing and remastering is not remixing. True, BUT the terms ARE unfortunately used interchangebly by those who write the cover details for CD's. Such people are RARELY technical personel, they are marketing types wishing to promote the CD in the best light within the scope of their limited knowlege. Even if it's the crappiest transfer possible from a worn out vinyl record, it can still legitamately be called "remastered", and usually is :-( Old worn out vinyl can now be transferred to 24 bit digital files, and that is happening too! :-( :-( Trevor. |
#15
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
In rec.audio.tech Warren wrote:
Mark-T expounded in oups.com: .. Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? Mark It just means that it is "re-mixed". No, that's not right. Mastering is usually done from stereo masters, post-mixdown. The Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering explains the process. Andrew. |
#16
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:59:14 -0800 (PST), Mark-T
wrote: On Feb 22, band beyond description wrote: some in the music industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their entire sales stream to 24-bit http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web.../24.bit.music/ As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a premium price. Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? "Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp." Mark Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs. John |
#17
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs. You mean real Audiophools :-) However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB) DNR, or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth on a regular basis. And lets not even consider how many actual recordings even *remotely* approach 16 bit DNR to begin with! Trevor. |
#18
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Feb 24, 11:17*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs. You mean real Audiophools :-) However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB) DNR, or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth on a regular basis. I've spent half my life in a sound proof isolation booth. Don't knock it 'till you've tried it . . . And lets not even consider how many actual recordings even *remotely* approach 16 bit DNR to begin with! Huh? What? Trevor. |
#19
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"marcman" wrote in message ... Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs. You mean real Audiophools :-) However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB) DNR, or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth on a regular basis. }I've spent half my life in a sound proof isolation booth. }Don't knock it 'till you've tried it . . . I'm not knocking it, just staing that despite yourself, it is extremely rare for normal listening. And lets not even consider how many actual recordings even *remotely* approach 16 bit DNR to begin with! }Huh? What? Ignoring fades, most modern pop recordings have about 20-30dB real DNR, and NO recording ever made on tape comes remotely close to needing 16 bits, even those that used Dolby SR, (and direct to disc recodings were even worse) Only modern classical digital recordings approach true 16 bit DNR, but who really wants to listen in a sound proof booth so they can hear the pages turning anyway? Not too many I'm willing to bet! Trevor. |
#20
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
marcman wrote: On Feb 24, 11:17 pm, "Trevor" wrote: "John Larkin" wrote in message ... Real audiophiles insist on 32-bit DACs. You mean real Audiophools :-) However at least better DAC's still work well with 16 bit files, even if NONE can deliver better than true 24 bit resolution in our universe, and I know of no normal home that can really use more than true 16 bit (96dB) DNR, or anybody that normally listens to music in a sound proof isolation booth on a regular basis. I've spent half my life in a sound proof isolation booth. A straightjacket & ducktape is cheaper. ;-) -- You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's Teflon coated. |
#21
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Mark-T" wrote in message ... If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? The original raw multi-track tape (or these days data file) rarely does anything but sit in a vault. A copy of that original is usually used to produce a mixed master which contains the final (usually stereo) version that will be released to the public, and that goes into the vault too while copies or it are distributed to pressing plants to physically make LPs or CDs, or presumably downloads today (sometimes with interim production copies along the way). In the old days there could be different final versions for singles and albums, or the U.S. or UK market and so on. Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw tracks and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new mixed master recording with better quality than the old one. But sometimes they start with the old final mix and just are more careful in making a digital transer that will be used to make CDs. A lot of early CDs made from analog tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful work later. Unfortunately some re-mastered recordings have relied on too much noise reduction software or compression and actually sound worse than previous versions. There have also been re-mastered albums with questionable choices, where somebody decided to edit tracks (I think I'll lose that piano) or added reverb to the drums or whatever (to the outrage of fans who loved the old version). Of course since people will buy "re-mastered" versions there is a temptation to use that label even if little or anything has been done to improve the quality, and some supposedly re-mastered releases sound just like they did the last time they were re-mastered with intense marketing before the band switched labels. "Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp." Stereo or 5.1 mix sir? |
#22
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"DGDevin" wrote in message m... Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw tracks Nope, the term is widely used regardless of what the original source material was. It simply means some process (anything at all) has been performed between the source material and what is on the final product. and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new mixed master recording with better quality than the old one. That's what they'd like you to believe of course, and *sometimes* it might even actually be true. But sometimes they start with the old final mix and just are more careful in making a digital transer that will be used to make CDs. Or not. A lot of early CDs made from analog tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful work later. Or not, depending on your preference for heavy compression. Unfortunately some re-mastered recordings have relied on too much noise reduction software or compression and actually sound worse than previous versions. There have also been re-mastered albums with questionable choices, where somebody decided to edit tracks (I think I'll lose that piano) or added reverb to the drums or whatever (to the outrage of fans who loved the old version). Right. Trevor. |
#23
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"DGDevin" wrote in message
m "Mark-T" wrote in message ... If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? The original raw multi-track tape (or these days data file) rarely does anything but sit in a vault. If it still exists. Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw tracks and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new mixed master recording with better quality than the old one. Not at all. That would be called "re-mixing". But sometimes No, always. they start with the old final mix and just are more careful in making a digital transer that will be used to make CDs. No, not necessarily more careful, just different. A lot of early CDs made from analog tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful work later. No, what happened is that a goodly number of CDs released in the early-mid 1980s were made from what are known as "cutting masters". This means that the recordings intentionally had the inverse of the losses in LP disc cutting and playback incorperated into them. This usually results in a shrill-sounding, thin-sounding recording. These were mistakes, but management said: "Ship it!". Most of these were redone in the 1990s. |
#24
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:57:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "DGDevin" wrote in message om "Mark-T" wrote in message ... If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? The original raw multi-track tape (or these days data file) rarely does anything but sit in a vault. If it still exists. Re-mastering at least in theory means they started with the original raw tracks and did the mixing and EQ all over again and carefully produced a new mixed master recording with better quality than the old one. Not at all. That would be called "re-mixing". But sometimes No, always. they start with the old final mix and just are more careful in making a digital transer that will be used to make CDs. No, not necessarily more careful, just different. A lot of early CDs made from analog tapes were not done very well, the analog to digital transfers were poor, they benefited from more careful work later. No, what happened is that a goodly number of CDs released in the early-mid 1980s were made from what are known as "cutting masters". This means that the recordings intentionally had the inverse of the losses in LP disc cutting and playback incorperated into them. This usually results in a shrill-sounding, thin-sounding recording. These were mistakes, but management said: "Ship it!". Most of these were redone in the 1990s. Genesis: The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway So bad you can hear the tape hiss. Genesis had many "remasters" on their disc library and the problem is that they used OTHER masters, so what got put on the "Remastered discs" were really re-mixed. They suck too, because the original cuts are what we want, not some lame ****'s choice of what to put down out of the pile of tape he has in front of him. |
#25
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 02/24/2011 12:59 PM, Mark-T wrote:
On Feb 22, band beyond wrote: some in the music industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their entire sales stream to 24-bit http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web.../24.bit.music/ As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a premium price. Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? Back in the days of vinyl, the "master disk" was a record made of metal (aluminum? steel?), mixed from the original tapes. From this, the record company would make molds for the actual disks that were sold. If the tapes were saved, then you could digitize and clean up each track individually, then re-mix a new, digital master. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaster -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html |
#26
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
Back in the days of vinyl, the "master disk" was a record made of metal (aluminum? steel?), mixed from the original tapes. From this, the record company would make molds for the actual disks that were sold. Master discs were cut from cutting masters that included compensation for the losses that are inherent in the process of producing and playing LPs. Cutting masters were always tapes, either digital or analog. Remember that digital recording was applied to the production of LPs up to nearly a decade before the release of the first CDs. This was done so that when the CD format was finalized, it would be possible to exploit its sonic and practical advantages from the start. |
#27
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Remember that digital recording was applied to the production of LPs up to nearly a decade before the release of the first CDs. This was done so that when the CD format was finalized, it would be possible to exploit its sonic and practical advantages from the start. Actually it was mostly done as a pont of difference from other techniques being used at the time to try to improve the sound quality of vinyl. Half speed mastering, Direct metal mastering, and Direct to disc recording were all being tried to improve sound quality, as were those early digital recorders (and video interfaces). That the digital recordings could be more easily transferred to CD when it was released was only a minor benefit IMO, since ANY transfer was still relatively easy compared with the problem of actually making a CD master disc and pressing consumer discs in the very early days. Trevor. |
#28
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
In article ,
"Trevor" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Remember that digital recording was applied to the production of LPs up to nearly a decade before the release of the first CDs. This was done so that when the CD format was finalized, it would be possible to exploit its sonic and practical advantages from the start. Actually it was mostly done as a pont of difference from other techniques being used at the time to try to improve the sound quality of vinyl. Half speed mastering, Direct metal mastering, and Direct to disc recording were all being tried to improve sound quality, as were those early digital recorders (and video interfaces). That the digital recordings could be more easily transferred to CD when it was released was only a minor benefit IMO, since ANY transfer was still relatively easy compared with the problem of actually making a CD master disc and pressing consumer discs in the very early days. Trevor. Digital multitrack recording was also used for it's improved signal to noise ratio, lack of wow and flutter, lack of hiss buildup, ability to play the tape over and over without losing highs as you overdubbed other tracks, ability to get off the tape what you put on it (subject to the vagaries of early converters.), although that's a mixed bag because the euphonic compression that tape has is something we now miss as is head bump artifacts on the low end, etc. Editing was also seen as potentially easier, as you could calculate crossfades and create edit decision lists that would allow you to edit in ways that a razor blade can't. Of course, a good engineer with a blade could do some awesome ****. I worked at it a lot and got good at it, but not like some of the masters I saw at work. It's all pretty easy on a computer now, so it's largely a lost skill. Punching in and out was also something that some saw as an improvement, what with the ability to set very precise ins and outs which included crossfades. However, I miss the days that my clients called my Mike Tyson due to my ability to quickly and accurately punch in and out, sometimes even punching parts of words. Ah, the good old days, I don't miss them a bit! Pro Tools, Logic, etc. rock! |
#29
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message ... Ah, the good old days, I don't miss them a bit! Pro Tools, Logic, etc. rock! No argument from me! Trevor. |
#30
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 02/25/2011 08:00 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
[...] This was done so that when the CD format was finalized, it would be possible to exploit its sonic and practical advantages from the start. Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#31
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Trevor. |
#32
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Trevor" wrote in message
... "Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. |
#33
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 02/27/2011 09:02 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Randy wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Trevor, You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#34
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Kirk McElhearn" kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com wrote in message . fr... Back in the days of vinyl, the "master disk" was a record made of metal (aluminum? steel?), mixed from the original tapes. From this, the record company would make molds for the actual disks that were sold. Yes, but that's not the "master" in "re-master;" Right, you don't want to use a master tape equalised for vinyl to cut a CD anyway, and certainly not a disc copy, unless nothing else remains! it's the master tape, the final mix-down. Depends what you call the "final" mixdown, and the best remasters go back to the original multi-track and remix anyway. Trevor. |
#35
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Kirk McElhearn" kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com wrote in message . fr... Depends what you call the "final" mixdown, and the best remasters go back to the original multi-track and remix anyway. Yes, it's making a new master tape, hence it generally always involves a remix, right? Nope, it *sometimes* involves a remix from multi-track tapes. But *FAR* from "generally always". More often it's simply A-D, EQ'd and compressed (and usually some noise reduction) from one of the existing two track masters. And it NEVER involves "making a new master tape" these days, since it stays digital after the initial A-D (if the original is analog), and nobody I know uses digtal tape as a backup any more. Trevor. |
#36
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Feb 24, 8:59*pm, Mark-T wrote:
On Feb 22, band beyond description wrote: some in the music industry are rethinking their reliance on 16-bit quality for music downloads, and Apple's reportedly looking into upgrading their entire sales stream to 24-bit http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web.../24.bit.music/ As a result, online music stores could eventually offer songs that sound truer to their original recordings, perhaps at a premium price. Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files. If the master is the original, then what does "re-mastered" mean, as commonly used? A genuine original copy? "Waiter, I'll have the jumbo shrimp." Mark I read somewhere that HD video is only perceived as better if the audio is also of higher quality. Perhaps "the market" is wising up to the fact that the audio out of their IPOD is crap compared to their TV. If apple up the quality of the silly white earphones then great. As others have said there are better ways of doing great audio but we can assume that this is marketing led. Colin |
#37
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
|
#38
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:44:34 +0000 (UTC), Warren
wrote: expounded in oups.com: .. I read somewhere that HD video is only perceived as better if the audio is also of higher quality. .. Colin I dunno about that. The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it was when it was off. The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the screen. ;-) Warren Only because you "muted" the wrong device. You should have muted your Audio Receiver. |
#39
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Warren" wrote in message . 213... The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it was when it was off. Better surely? :-) The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the screen. ;-) So just reduce the volume to zero instead, and there is no "Mute" overlay to annoy you. Trevor. |
#40
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Trevor expounded in
u: "Warren" wrote in message . 213... The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it was when it was off. Better surely? :-) Definitely during commercials!! The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the screen. ;-) So just reduce the volume to zero instead, and there is no "Mute" overlay to annoy you. Trevor. Not a problem really. If I use my cable box for mute, the word vanishes after a short time. The TV mute is more invasive and stays there. Warren |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|