[Sean B]

Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Sean

[William Sommerwerck]

"Sean B" wrote in message
...

Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of
albums,
i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

As far as I know, most classical labels issuing SACDs and/or BD Audio
recordings do a "straight" transfer. Give a listen to Linn or BIS, for
example.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Sean B wrote:

Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of
albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Sean

When you say "no EQ", do you really mean a flat frequency response with
no RIAA curve applied or do you mean "with just the correct equalisation
and no added frequency distortion"?


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[geoff]

"Sean B" wrote in message
...
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of
albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Sean


Hopefully none do straight transfers of albums mastered for LP !

In pretty much all but 'fundamentalist' recordings I would expect some
degree of all the above. But extreme EQing and compression/limiting is
another story again ...

geoff

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
"Sean B" wrote in message
...
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of
albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Sean

Hopefully none do straight transfers of albums mastered for LP !

Many did in the early days of CD :-(
But no mention was made of vinyl, and getting CD's made exactly as per the
provided master is common.
Understanding the necessary requirements for vinyl mastering is not so
common these days however.

Trevor.

[geoff]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
"Sean B" wrote in message
...
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of
albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Sean

Hopefully none do straight transfers of albums mastered for LP !

Many did in the early days of CD :-(
But no mention was made of vinyl, and getting CD's made exactly as per the
provided master is common.

Certainly. It would be a bit of a cheek for the label to essentially
remaster the mastered album, especially if that is not acknowledged.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/1/2013 2:50 PM, Sean B wrote:
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers
of albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Probably not, but lots of individuals do. But it depends on what your
definition of "albums" is. It's probably not a good idea to issue a CD
or other digital media as a direct transfer of the master tape used to
cut the disk. That's going to be adjusted as necessary to cut the record
(a direct transfer to lacquer from an equalized and limited tape).

If the producer has access to the pre-disk-mastering recording, chances
are it's old enough so that some tweaking can actually make it better,
with a conscience. Some audiophile labels do that. But if you're talking
about Sony or Capitol, or whoever is left in the "name label" business,
that's likely all been processed for loudness and excitement with
computer, earbud, car radio, and modest home sound system playback.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

I wish.

Marketing to modern ears seems to require removal of all hiss (ignoring the
increased distortion) and increased loudness (a modern plague making
extended hearing painful).

Awful reissues are all around. I don't even chance them anymore.

My best example is Woody Guthrie. Compare any Folkways LP pre-1963
(FA,FB,FCxxx) with any reissue.

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean B wrote:
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Straight transfers from what? The master tapes?

There are some audiophile labels that have specialized in reissues done without
processing.... XRCD and Chesky and MoFi among them. This is sometimes a good
thing and sometimes a bad thing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Awful reissues are all around. I don't even chance them anymore.

My best example is Woody Guthrie. Compare any Folkways LP pre-1963
(FA,FB,FCxxx) with any reissue.

Actually, Folkways is one of the weird exceptions due to Moses Asch's
will. The Smithsonian will offer you a straight dub of anything from
the Folkways catalogue upon request. Sound quality is variable at best,
because Asch was not necessarily the most concerned with the quality of
the masters.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sean B]

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 2:57:50 PM UTC-5, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:


When you say "no EQ", do you really mean a flat frequency response with

no RIAA curve applied or do you mean "with just the correct equalisation

and no added frequency distortion"?

I was thinking of CDs, actually. If I was talking about vinyl I'd exclude RIAA EQ, that is, I think it's necessary. Very necessary. So the latter case in your question.

What would happen if EQ & dynamic tweaks were left to the consumer? Or a straight transfer at least made available to a paying customer upon request? My position is that I want to hear what the artist, engineer, and producer actually committed to tape, not someone else's (who most often wasn't present at the original sessions) idea of what EQ curve, or peak limiting, the mix should be subjected to.

Two disappointing examples from the Mahavishnu Orchestra catalog are the MFSL release of "The Inner Mounting Flame", where someone has used a shuffler in an attempt to remix the record, making the levels & perspectives of the instruments lurch and heave about; it's quite unlistenable. Where's John? He's gone! He's back! It's too bad, because whatever AD converter was used on this sounds superb. I wish I knew what it was.

And the 2007 version of "Birds of Fire" album from the "Original Album Classics" set of Mahavishnu albums. Here Birds of Fire has been subjected to a strange sounding de-noising process that seems to remove any music below -30dBFS or so. Large gongs and cymbals have an oddly quick decay. It just sounds strange and unnerving. Like you're standing on a plank suspended above the Grand Canyon or something. Aaaaaahhhhhhhh.

So there.

Sean

[geoff]

"Sean B" wrote in message
...
My position is that I want to hear what the artist, engineer, and
producer
actually committed to tape, not someone else's (who most often wasn't
present at the original sessions) idea of what EQ curve, or peak limiting,
the mix should be subjected to.

What you are hearing is what the mix-engineer and producer have decided is
good, (usually) followed by mastering which is also presumably overseen and
approved of by the producer and/or artist.

Two disappointing examples from the Mahavishnu Orchestra catalog are the
MFSL release
of "The Inner Mounting Flame", where someone has used a shuffler

A what ?

If it's what I imagine it to be, I can't imagine MFSL would do anything so
crass. Did they state any remastering was done ? And if so, maybe was to
attempt to overcome some specific problem. It's not like MFSL are bunnies.

geoff

[Brian[_11_]]

Sean B wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 2:57:50 PM UTC-5, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:


When you say "no EQ", do you really mean a flat frequency response with

no RIAA curve applied or do you mean "with just the correct equalisation

and no added frequency distortion"?

I was thinking of CDs, actually. If I was talking about vinyl I'd
exclude RIAA EQ, that is, I think it's necessary. Very necessary. So
the latter case in your question.

What would happen if EQ & dynamic tweaks were left to the consumer? Or a
straight transfer at least made available to a paying customer upon
request? My position is that I want to hear what the artist, engineer,
and producer actually committed to tape, not someone else's (who most
often wasn't present at the original sessions) idea of what EQ curve, or
peak limiting, the mix should be subjected to.

Two disappointing examples from the Mahavishnu Orchestra catalog are the
MFSL release of "The Inner Mounting Flame", where someone has used a
shuffler in an attempt to remix the record, making the levels &
perspectives of the instruments lurch and heave about; it's quite
unlistenable. Where's John? He's gone! He's back! It's too bad,
because whatever AD converter was used on this sounds superb. I wish I knew what it was.

And the 2007 version of "Birds of Fire" album from the "Original Album
Classics" set of Mahavishnu albums. Here Birds of Fire has been
subjected to a strange sounding de-noising process that seems to remove
any music below -30dBFS or so. Large gongs and cymbals have an oddly
quick decay. It just sounds strange and unnerving. Like you're standing
on a plank suspended above the Grand Canyon or something. Aaaaaahhhhhhhh.

So there.

Sean

The first attempt of transferring the Beatles music to CD was not good
according to the fans.
If you like the LP recording then you could always do a direct transfer
yourself to CD.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian[_11_]]

Sean B wrote:
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of
albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?

Sean

I would not want a straight transfer from the source which is likely to be
tape that has tape hiss etc.

--
Regards Brian

[Scott Dorsey]

Brian wrote:

The first attempt of transferring the Beatles music to CD was not good
according to the fans.

Well, the first four CDs that were issued were kind of terrible. They played
full-track mono tapes on a stereo machine that was misaligned. So first of
all, the S/N isn't what it should be and the top end is a little funny due to
fringing, the result of using a stereo machine for playback without even
summing the two channels. BUT, since the azimuth was off, one channel is
advanced over the other slightly so it sounds like a mono image coming from
someplace to the right of the center.

But... all of that wasn't a matter of processing, it was just a matter of
playing the original tapes back correctly.

If you like the LP recording then you could always do a direct transfer
yourself to CD.

Sadly, that's what a lot of folks are driven to. But often the LP has been
mangled even worse, by rolling off the bottom end to make it easier to cut,
Dynagrooving it, or something even worse.

In the end, only live music is any good at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 2:50:26 PM UTC-4, Sean B wrote:
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?



Sean
__________

The problem is that, at the mastering stage at least, heavy-handed compression and/or limiting has become almost a religious final step that both modern releases, as well as reissues/remasters of legacy material has done to them before going to the CD mastering-pressing house.

And I DON'T believe every instance of it came at the request of the client(artists), but from a combination of sources. Perhaps 1/3 artists, 1/3 producers, and 1/3rd the labels themselves.

And you mentioned something later on that I had mentioned but was ignored: The idea of consumers controlling dynamics/tone, etc.

The technology exists for a "Compress" feature on every portable media player, DVD player, car stereo, home system on the planet! I'm all for that. It doesn't need to be as complex as the compressors in a studio or live-sound rack, it could be just one knob and/or one button.

And I DON'T believe every instance of it came at the request of the client(artists), but from a combination of sources. Perhaps 1/3 artists, 1/3 producers, and 1/3rd the labels themselves.

Remember, a format can *usually* sound only as good as what is put on it. Cassette, LP, CD, MP3(256 or higher), AAC and WAV are all more than capable of passing 12-16dB dynamic range pop material, and even 20dB range jazz and orchestral releases. There is just no need for 6dB dynamic range processing on anything that goes on a CD or in iTunes.

....no wonder vinyl is becoming popular again. It's not about the "nostalgia" of thick cardboard album covers, heavy black vinyl, or the thump-crackle of that first needle-drop.

It's. about. the. sound.

Record. industry. please. get. it!

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 2:50:26 PM UTC-4, Sean B wrote:
Are there any record labels in existence that do straight transfers of albums, i.e., no EQ and no compression or peak limiting?



Sean
____________


The problem is that, at the mastering stage at least, heavy-handed compression and/or limiting has become almost a religious final step that both modern releases, as well as reissues/remasters of legacy material has done to them before going to the CD mastering-pressing house.


And I DON'T believe every instance of it came at the request of the client(artists), but from a combination of sources. Perhaps 1/3 artists, 1/3 producers, and 1/3rd the labels themselves.


And Sean, you mentioned something later on that I had mentioned but was ignored: The idea of consumers controlling dynamics/tone, etc.


The technology exists for a "Compress" feature on every portable media player, DVD player, car stereo, home system on the planet! I'm all for that. It doesn't need to be as complex as the compressors in a studio or live-sound rack, it could be just one knob and/or one button.


Remember, a format can *usually* sound only as good as what is put on it. Cassette, LP, CD, MP3(256 or higher), AAC and WAV are all more than capable of passing 12-16dB dynamic range pop material, and even 20dB range jazz and orchestral releases. There is just no need for 6dB dynamic range processing on anything that goes on a CD or in iTunes.


....no wonder vinyl is becoming popular again. It's not about the "nostalgia" of thick cardboard album covers, heavy black vinyl, or the thump-crackle of that first needle-drop.


It's. about. the. sound.

Record. industry. please. get. it!

[geoff]

wrote in message
...


The problem is that, at the mastering stage at least, heavy-handed
compression and/or limiting has become almost a religious final step that
both modern releases, as well as reissues/remasters of legacy material has
done to them before going to the CD mastering-pressing house.
needle-drop.


It's. about. the. sound.

Record. industry. please. get. it!

We all got it.

We all got it.

If one likes the mastering applied to (necessarily or not), and various
other detrimental artifacts of the LP media, one can of course transcribe
them to CD and all those distortions will be faithfully repoduced !

The hyper-compression thing on CDs and other media (while a reduced dynamic
range is part of the vinyl parcel), is nothing to do witht the nature of the
media itself - rather what CAN be done now with relative ease, and the taste
(or lack of) of those who demand or do it.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/3/2013 3:54 PM, wrote:

...no wonder vinyl is becoming popular again. It's not about the
"nostalgia" of thick cardboard album covers, heavy black vinyl, or
the thump-crackle of that first needle-drop.

It's. about. the. sound.

There's no reason why a CD can't sound as good as a phonograph record,
and not be subject to tracking inaccuracy, speed inaccuracy, flutter,
and wear.

Record. industry. please. get. it!

That's the problem. The record "industry" has established a sound for
CDs and that's what they all try to over-achieve. You wouldn't want to
have to adjust the volume every time you put on a different CD like you
used to have to do with records, would you? That's too much like work.
And, in fact, on some playback devices (including computers) it IS too
much work to find and adjust the volume control.

They used to make records mastered differently for radio than for
consumer playback. They could do the same for CDs, too, but then the
consumers would say "That CD is really bad - it doesn't sound like it
did on the radio." But with fewer people listening to music on the radio
these days, how would they know?

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/3/2013 4:57 PM, geoff wrote:

The hyper-compression thing on CDs and other media (while a reduced dynamic
range is part of the vinyl parcel), is nothing to do witht the nature of the
media itself - rather what CAN be done now with relative ease, and the taste
(or lack of) of those who demand or do it.

If you don't use some compression in LP mastering you can only get 12 to
15 minutes on a side with a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio. But that
doesn't seem to bother contemporary vinyl fans. The thing is that the
industry doesn't really have the option of making several versions of
the same product - it would be too expensive to manufacture and to
unpredictable as to sales. So they choose the way that will maximize
their profit and minimize waste, and go with it. If it means compressing
and dropping the level on the LP version so they can get more than half
the CD on it, that's what they'll do.

Remember those underpaid songwriters and publishers, too. Every song
that doesn't make the cut from CD to vinly is money out of their pocket.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Brian[_11_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Brian wrote:

The first attempt of transferring the Beatles music to CD was not good
according to the fans.

Well, the first four CDs that were issued were kind of terrible. They played
full-track mono tapes on a stereo machine that was misaligned. So first of
all, the S/N isn't what it should be and the top end is a little funny due to
fringing, the result of using a stereo machine for playback without even
summing the two channels. BUT, since the azimuth was off, one channel is
advanced over the other slightly so it sounds like a mono image coming from
someplace to the right of the center.

But... all of that wasn't a matter of processing, it was just a matter of
playing the original tapes back correctly.

If you like the LP recording then you could always do a direct transfer
yourself to CD.

Sadly, that's what a lot of folks are driven to. But often the LP has been
mangled even worse, by rolling off the bottom end to make it easier to cut,
Dynagrooving it, or something even worse.

In the end, only live music is any good at all.
--scott

Thanks Scott.
It was interesting to read in detail the problem with the Beatles transfer
to CD. At least they would have got it correct the second time when they
released it on DVD as an enhanced recording.

--
Regards Brian

[None]

wrote in message
...
...no wonder vinyl is becoming popular again. It's not about the
"nostalgia" of thick cardboard album covers, heavy black vinyl, or
the thump-crackle of that first needle-drop.

It's. about. the. sound.

But the shortcomings of vinyl can be reproduced on CD. You can record
a CD with the lack of bass extension and narrow dynamic range of
vinyl, you can add distortion, you can add noise, and you can even add
wow and flutter. If it's about the sound, CD can easily be dumbed down
enough to sound like vinyl.

[geoff]

"None" wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
...no wonder vinyl is becoming popular again. It's not about the
"nostalgia" of thick cardboard album covers, heavy black vinyl, or the
thump-crackle of that first needle-drop.

It's. about. the. sound.

But the shortcomings of vinyl can be reproduced on CD. You can record a CD
with the lack of bass extension and narrow dynamic range of vinyl, you can
add distortion, you can add noise, and you can even add wow and flutter.
If it's about the sound, CD can easily be dumbed down enough to sound like
vinyl.

As I say quite often , " If you've ever heard one CD that sounded
fantastic, then they ALL could ...."

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Brian wrote:
It was interesting to read in detail the problem with the Beatles transfer
to CD. At least they would have got it correct the second time when they
released it on DVD as an enhanced recording.

It was a very big deal back in 1985 or so when they released them. There
was an enormous amount of publicity over the announcement of the first
four Beatles albums coming out on CD.... people ordered them in advance.
Then there was kind of a disappointment when they came out (although people
WERE very happy that they were equalized like the Parlophone releases rather
than the US ones).

I think the second reissue in the 1990s fixed the azimuth and stereo
issues, but I never bought them because I'd already bought the first
reissue....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:
It was interesting to read in detail the problem with the Beatles transfer
to CD. At least they would have got it correct the second time when they
released it on DVD as an enhanced recording.

It was a very big deal back in 1985 or so when they released them. There
was an enormous amount of publicity over the announcement of the first
four Beatles albums coming out on CD.... people ordered them in advance.
Then there was kind of a disappointment when they came out (although
people
WERE very happy that they were equalized like the Parlophone releases
rather
than the US ones).

I think the second reissue in the 1990s fixed the azimuth and stereo
issues, but I never bought them because I'd already bought the first
reissue....
--scott

I find the 2009 remasters very satisfying. They gave up on the idea of EQing
them to sound as lame as the originals, and instead made them as good as
possible. Never realsied previously that Paul played bass, and Ringo had a
kick drum...

What a difference a decade made in digital processing, especially when used
well.

geoff

[Brian[_11_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Brian wrote:
It was interesting to read in detail the problem with the Beatles transfer
to CD. At least they would have got it correct the second time when they
released it on DVD as an enhanced recording.

It was a very big deal back in 1985 or so when they released them. There
was an enormous amount of publicity over the announcement of the first
four Beatles albums coming out on CD.... people ordered them in advance.
Then there was kind of a disappointment when they came out (although people
WERE very happy that they were equalized like the Parlophone releases rather
than the US ones).

I think the second reissue in the 1990s fixed the azimuth and stereo
issues, but I never bought them because I'd already bought the first
reissue....
--scott

Just read what I wrote. I should have said CD and not DVD.
However the music of the Beatles on the VHS tapes and DVD's of the Beatles
anthology was very good. I enjoyed listening to the surround sound of the
Beatles music on the DVD version of Beatles Anthology.
Considering there was a limit to the number of tracks recorded in the early
Beatles music they did well in creating a surround sound.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian[_11_]]

"geoff" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:
It was interesting to read in detail the problem with the Beatles transfer
to CD. At least they would have got it correct the second time when they
released it on DVD as an enhanced recording.

It was a very big deal back in 1985 or so when they released them. There
was an enormous amount of publicity over the announcement of the first
four Beatles albums coming out on CD.... people ordered them in advance.
Then there was kind of a disappointment when they came out (although
people
WERE very happy that they were equalized like the Parlophone releases
rather
than the US ones).

I think the second reissue in the 1990s fixed the azimuth and stereo
issues, but I never bought them because I'd already bought the first
reissue....
--scott

I find the 2009 remasters very satisfying. They gave up on the idea of EQing
them to sound as lame as the originals, and instead made them as good as
possible. Never realsied previously that Paul played bass, and Ringo had a
kick drum...

What a difference a decade made in digital processing, especially when used
well.

geoff

I found this information about the remastering of the Beatles music.

The 87 Beatles CDs were limited by the eras technology; they were
remastered at a much lower bit-rate than is currently available and their
thin sound became more apparent as the decades passed. The 09 CDs were
copied a track at a time into the digital format from the analog master
tapes at a higher bit rate, and there is a discernible upgrade. The
instruments have greater presence, the dense mixes are a bit more
transparent, and the modern-day oomph factor is there as well --- yes, the
Beatles now sound louder, with more pop in Ringo Starrs drums.

out of interest does anyone know the audio bit rate value they use when
remastering analog tapes?

--
Regards Brian

[geoff]

"Brian" wrote in message
...

out of interest does anyone know the audio bit rate value they use when
remastering analog tapes?

--
Regards Brian

I would *guess* 24 bit 192KHz, as that was/is SOTA at the time.

geoff

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
As I say quite often , " If you've ever heard one CD that sounded
fantastic, then they ALL could ...."

Right, pity you could never say that about vinyl. It was always a lottery
whether you got a halfway decent pressing or not, regardless of the master
quality :-(
And when you got a poor pressing, from a poor stamper, from a poor master,
on recycled vinyl..... :-( :-( :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Brian" wrote in message
...
"geoff" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:
It was interesting to read in detail the problem with the Beatles
transfer
to CD. At least they would have got it correct the second time when
they
released it on DVD as an enhanced recording.

It was a very big deal back in 1985 or so when they released them.
There
was an enormous amount of publicity over the announcement of the first
four Beatles albums coming out on CD.... people ordered them in advance.
Then there was kind of a disappointment when they came out (although
people
WERE very happy that they were equalized like the Parlophone releases
rather
than the US ones).

I think the second reissue in the 1990s fixed the azimuth and stereo
issues, but I never bought them because I'd already bought the first
reissue....
--scott

I find the 2009 remasters very satisfying. They gave up on the idea of
EQing
them to sound as lame as the originals, and instead made them as good as
possible. Never realsied previously that Paul played bass, and Ringo had
a
kick drum...

What a difference a decade made in digital processing, especially when
used
well.

geoff

I found this information about the remastering of the Beatles music.

The '87 Beatles CDs were limited by the era's technology; they were
remastered at a much lower bit-rate than is currently available and their
thin sound became more apparent as the decades passed.


What a load of ********. They could have easily been done at 16/44 all the
way and still been FAR better than what was done originally. :-(


The '09 CDs were
copied a track at a time into the digital format from the analog master
tapes at a higher bit rate, and there is a discernible upgrade. The
instruments have greater presence, the dense mixes are a bit more
transparent, and the modern-day oomph factor is there as well --- yes, the
Beatles now sound louder, with more pop in Ringo Starr's drums.

Right, all due to the remastering choices to make them to sound like that!


out of interest does anyone know the audio bit rate value they use when
remastering analog tapes?

It's largely irrelevent to the outcome (or more likely totally irrelevent
considering the source), but either 24/88 or 24/176 are the best choices if
going to CD to minimise sampling rate conversion errors.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Brian wrote:
The 87 Beatles CDs were limited by the eras technology; they were
remastered at a much lower bit-rate than is currently available and their
thin sound became more apparent as the decades passed. The 09 CDs were
copied a track at a time into the digital format from the analog master
tapes at a higher bit rate, and there is a discernible upgrade.

They were recorded at the only bit rate available for any CD, 44.1/16.

out of interest does anyone know the audio bit rate value they use when
remastering analog tapes?

Whatever the customer wants, but once it hits the disk it's 44.1/16. You
can use a longer sample size in order to make intermediate processing easier
but there's no real benefit in using a higher sampling rate for CD release.

I'd say the "thin sound" was more the result of the crappy converters in the
PCM1610 than anything to do with data formats.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
"geoff" wrote in message
...

As I say quite often, " If you've ever heard one CD that sounded fantastic,
then they ALL could..."

Right, pity you could never say that about vinyl. It was always a
lottery whether you got a halfway decent pressing or not, regardless
of the master quality :-(

Actually, what Trevor said is completely true, about any medium. (Read what he
said, not what you thought he said.)

I remember how, in the early days of CD, Larry Archibald (who then owned
"Stereophile") remarked that he couldn't understand why Gordon Holt's live
recordings (made with a PCM-F1, which by current standards isn't a very good
processor) were so much better than commercial CDs.

As long as artists, producers, and recording engineers continue to view
musical performances as "product" to be manipulated as they see fit, we will
continue to have lousy recordings.

[[email protected]]

Brian wrote: "know the audio bit rate value"

It's bit-DEPTH, not bitrate. Bitrate is over time, like samping rate. Bit depth concerns how far down the noise floor is.

[Brian[_11_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Brian wrote:
The €„¢87 Beatles CDs were limited by the era€„¢s technology; they were
remastered at a much lower bit-rate than is currently available and their
thin sound became more apparent as the decades passed. The €„¢09 CDs were
copied a track at a time into the digital format from the analog master
tapes at a higher bit rate, and there is a discernible upgrade.

They were recorded at the only bit rate available for any CD, 44.1/16.

out of interest does anyone know the audio bit rate value they use when
remastering analog tapes?

Whatever the customer wants, but once it hits the disk it's 44.1/16. You
can use a longer sample size in order to make intermediate processing easier
but there's no real benefit in using a higher sampling rate for CD release.

I'd say the "thin sound" was more the result of the crappy converters in the
PCM1610 than anything to do with data formats.
--scott

I was thinking the same when I read this as how can you increase the
sampling rate for a CD when the CD player designed to accept certain specs
from a CD. Maybe the analog tapes were sampled at a higher rate to create a
digital recording then they sampled from the Digital recording at 44.1/16
to create the CD.

--
Regards Brian

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote "..The hyper-compression thing on CDs and other media (while a reduced dynamic range is part of the vinyl parcel), is nothing to do witht the nature of the media itself - rather what CAN be done now with relative ease, and the taste.."

__________
I both agree with and have been beating this same drum ad hominum, geoff!


You put **** on a LP - you'll hear **** on playback. You put **** on a CD - you'll hear **** on there too.


My point is: STOP the double standard with multi-platform releases, and with CDs in general - Hypercompressing/brickwalling the master that goes to CD, yet using what compression is normally needed to fit it on vinyl.


I don't care WHERE the edict to squash the CD version comes from while leaving vinyl and even cassette relatively unscathed, just F__NG stop it already!!

And you know what will happen??

you might just see an increase in the sales of CDs....

[Scott Dorsey]

Brian wrote:

I was thinking the same when I read this as how can you increase the
sampling rate for a CD when the CD player designed to accept certain specs
from a CD. Maybe the analog tapes were sampled at a higher rate to create a
digital recording then they sampled from the Digital recording at 44.1/16
to create the CD.

Some folks have done their processing at higher sample rates and then
downsampled for issue on CD. I don't think this really buys you anything,
but the argument is that the higher sample rate may include information
that could be useful some day in the future.

One exception where this DOES buy you a whole lot is dubs from transcription
discs, where the ultrasonic information can make noise reduction a lot more
effective.

And of course if you intend on releasing on 96 ksamp/sec DVD or BluRay,
whether for marketing or technical purposes, you're better off recording
at that rate and downsampling for the CD. (Although to be honest there are
a lot of audiophile 96 ksamp/sec recordings that were made at 44.1 and
upsampled.)

All of this stuff was discussed here ad nauseam about a decade ago when
high sample rate stuff started appearing, and long discussions can be found
in the archives.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 06:36:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Brian wrote: "know the audio bit rate value"

It's bit-DEPTH, not bitrate. Bitrate is over time, like samping rate. Bit depth concerns how far down the noise floor is.

Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit rate.

d

[[email protected]]

Don P wrote "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit rate. "

Call it what you want - I'm sticking to what I learned from multiple sources.

http://mp3.about.com/b/2012/03/07/bi...s-bit-rate.htm

[[email protected]]

And: http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/18/...-vs-bit-depth/

RANGE of colors. Dynamic RANGE of audio. That is why it is called "bit-DEPTH", Don.

Bitrate and Sampling Rate are both TEMPORAL. Look that word up, Don.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Brian wrote:
The 87 Beatles CDs were limited by the eras technology; they were
remastered at a much lower bit-rate than is currently available and their
thin sound became more apparent as the decades passed. The 09 CDs were
copied a track at a time into the digital format from the analog master
tapes at a higher bit rate, and there is a discernible upgrade.

They were recorded at the only bit rate available for any CD, 44.1/16.

out of interest does anyone know the audio bit rate value they use when
remastering analog tapes?

Whatever the customer wants, but once it hits the disk it's 44.1/16. You
can use a longer sample size in order to make intermediate processing easier


This is generally internal to the intermediate processing, at least
since stuff started using 32 bit float for internal manipulation.

but there's no real benefit in using a higher sampling rate for CD release.


while there's plenty of *dis*benefit unless you use a harmonic
of 44.1

I'd say the "thin sound" was more the result of the crappy converters in the
PCM1610 than anything to do with data formats.
--scott


--
Les Cargill