Straight Transfers

[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 l>egacy 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 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. 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.

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 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
--
"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/bit-depth-vs-bit-rate.htm

[[email protected]]

And: http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/18/hd-formats-bit-rate-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 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


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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

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.
>


Bitrate is sampling rate times bit depth for PCM.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:35:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>And: http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/18/hd-formats-bit-rate-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.

Sorry, but that article is garbage. Bit rate is a data transmission
speed - bits per second. And now do the dimensional analysis

Bit depth: dimensionless number

x

Number of channels: dimensionless number

x

Sampling rate: Temporal

=

bit rate: temporal

It works out just fine.

d

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> And: http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/18/hd-formats-bit-rate-vs-bit-depth/
>
An article which is only of marginal relevance to audio.

A computer savvy person would refer to "word length" for the number of
bits per sample, the "sampling frequency" to refer to the number of
samples per channel per second, giving a data rate (Sometimes referred
to as baud rate) of ((Word length)x(sampling frequency)x(Number of
channels))


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Sorry: http://en.wikiaudio.org/images/7/79/SampleRateVsBitDepth.gif

Bit depth and Sample-rate/bitrate aren't even on the same AXES! But you go on believing what you want to.

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

It buys you more precision for any processing actions. And less cumulative
error on multiple processing actions when finally rendered to the final
format.

geoff

[geoff]

> wrote in message
...


> 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!!

Not to be pedantic, but ....

You can't "stop it already". Because if you'd stopped it already you
wouldn't need to be told to stop it !

Hyper compression could just as easily be done on vinyl or tape or MP3 or
whatever. Forget the CD rant.

geoff

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> Sorry: http://en.wikiaudio.org/images/7/79/SampleRateVsBitDepth.gif
>
> Bit depth and Sample-rate/bitrate aren't even on the same AXES! But you go on believing what you want to.

Bitrate ( a number) is sample size (a number) multiplied by the number
of samples per second (another number), all multiplied by the number of
channels in the stream (yet another number). Nothing hard to understand
about that.

So, for instance, an uncompressed CD quality audio stream is
(44100*16*2) bits per second. (Plus overheads such as error correction,
but we'll ignore that for now.)
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/5/2013 1:10 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

> Bitrate is sampling rate times bit depth for PCM.

Bit rate is one of those terms that has fallen into misuse and probably
will never recover its true meaning in popular literature.

Live with it. You can figure out what someone is talking about by
looking at the numbers.



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

[None]

<Thg Stupid @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> <FLUSH>

The Stupid is back, proving that he was dropped on his head as a
child. Many times. On concrete..

[None]

< Chrissie The Stupid @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> I both agree with and have been beating this same drum ad hominum,
> geoff!

What language is that, li'l Chrissie The Stupid? Aren't you really
just beating your head against a wall, because it's less painful than
thinking?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:06:01 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> <oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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!!
>
>
>
> Not to be pedantic, but ....
>
>
>
> You can't "stop it already". Because if you'd stopped it already you
>
> wouldn't need to be told to stop it !
>
>
>
> Hyper compression could just as easily be done on vinyl or tape or MP3 or
>
> whatever. Forget the CD rant.
>
>
>
> geoff
_______________

Well, it's being done 90% of the time to the CD, so that's where attention should be focused.

And in case you didn't realize, digital formats are far more "forgiving" of this style of ABUSE(calling it Mastering would be far too kind and dishonest), than would be analog tape or vinyl.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 6:00:07 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:

>
>
> Bitrate ( a number) is sample size (a number) multiplied by the number
>
> of samples per second (another number), all multiplied by the number of
>
> channels in the stream (yet another number). Nothing hard to understand
>
> about that.
>
>
>
> So, for instance, an uncompressed CD quality audio stream is
>
> (44100*16*2) bits per second. (Plus overheads such as error correction,
>
> but we'll ignore that for now.)
>
> --
>
> Tciao for Now!
>
>
>
> John.
___________________

I already know that, John! It's this revelation above that bit/sample-RATE and bit-DEPTH are both temporal measurements. They're NOT.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>And in case you didn't realize, digital formats are far more "forgiving" of this style of ABUSE(calling it Mastering would be far too kind and dishonest), than would be analog tape or vinyl.

You should have HEARD some of the 45s I cut when I was a kid. Slammed
hard, sounded godawful but really loud on a jukebox because that's what
everybody wanted.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>I already know that, John! It's this revelation above that bit/sample-RATE and bit-DEPTH are both temporal measurements. They're NOT.

Nobody ever said that.

It's time for a little elementary units analysis:

Word length aka sample size aka bit depth is measured in bits per sample.

Sample rate is measured in samples per second.

Bit rate (which is something you really only use when figuring out budgets
for transmission and storage) is in bits per second.

bits per sample*samples per second=bits per second
--scott



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

[S. King]

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 20:18:46 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > wrote:
>>And in case you didn't realize, digital formats are far more "forgiving"
>>of this style of ABUSE(calling it Mastering would be far too kind and
>>dishonest), than would be analog tape or vinyl.
>
> You should have HEARD some of the 45s I cut when I was a kid. Slammed
> hard, sounded godawful but really loud on a jukebox because that's what
> everybody wanted.
> --scott

Same here. In the late 60s for me. VU meter hardly moved. Loud on a
jukebox, which was important then and loud on AM radio, which still
dominated in rock 'n roll. Hammer the Fairchild. Hammer the Conax to
control the highs and keep the Neumann cutter head (Mono) from going
ballistic. This whole thread is very retro to me. All the complaints
about modern CDs were part of the discussion among the engineers back then
about 45s, but the clients, mostly A&R types were calling the shots and
paying the bills.

Steve King

[Brian[_11_]]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> 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

I'm always interested in anything technical
What is ad nauseam and the archive you are referring to Scott?

--
Regards Brian

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey: "Nobody ever said that"

Don Pearce did: "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit rate. "

[Brian[_11_]]

> wrote:
> 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/bit-depth-vs-bit-rate.htm

Thanks for the link. It is helpful in explaining it.

--
Regards Brian

[None]

< brane damidge @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey: "Nobody ever said that"
>
> Don Pearce did: "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels =
> bit rate. "

Nice of you to supply the quote that proves you wrong. Is proving
yourself to be an idiot the main reason you come here? If so, you're
doing a fine job!

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> 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.

You can't tell a reliable source from a pile of horse ****, so you
believe the horse ****.

> http://mp3.about.com/b/2012/03/07/bit-depth-vs-bit-rate.htm

So you take "about.com", a pile of horse ****, over an experienced
audio professional. Not surprising, since you are so dedicated to
being a ****ing moron.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey: "Nobody ever said that"
>
>Don Pearce did: "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit rate. "

Yes.

Bit depth = bits/sample

Sampling rate = samples/sec

number of channels = nondimensional

bit rate = bits/sec

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

Sampling rate and bit rate are both temporal because they both have a
unit of time in them. Bit depth is not temporal because it does not.
Do the units analysis.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott D: I already knew bit depth is not time-related. It has everything to do with amplitude above noise floor.

Something else to remember Scott: I may have graduated college, but I cannot even add 2+2.

Was passed on from U.S. 1st grade through 16th(Bachelors Degree in college) because everyone tried to teach me math but couldn't and gave up.

They couldn't hold me back because of just one subject in school!

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> I already know that, John! It's this revelation above that bit/sample-RATE and bit-DEPTH are both temporal measurements. They're NOT.
>
Nobody in this group has said that they are.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> Scott Dorsey: "Nobody ever said that"
>
> Don Pearce did: "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit rate. "

He is correct. He just phrased it in a slightly different way to others.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> Scott D: I already knew bit depth is not time-related. It has everything to do with amplitude above noise floor.
>
> Something else to remember Scott: I may have graduated college, but I cannot even add 2+2.
>
> Was passed on from U.S. 1st grade through 16th(Bachelors Degree in college) because everyone tried to teach me math but couldn't and gave up.
>
> They couldn't hold me back because of just one subject in school!

So why are you arguing the toss about a subject where you, by your own
admission, know nothing?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 05:46:28 +0100, John Williamson
> wrote:

wrote:
>> I already know that, John! It's this revelation above that bit/sample-RATE and bit-DEPTH are both temporal measurements. They're NOT.
>>
>Nobody in this group has said that they are.

More to the point, if you multiplied together two temporal
measurements the units of the result would be Hz squared. Nonsense in
this context.

d

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

How do you know they were not recorded at a higher bit depth/sampling rate
before editing and remastering to standard bit depth/sampling rate as is
USUALLY the case these days?


>>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.

Right, but that's NOT necessarily the same as the recording sampling
rate/bit depth.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
> 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.

Actually "bit rate" is the combination of *both* sampling rate and bit
depth! Best to get the terminology right if you don't want arguments!
*Both* can be the standard CD rates, or more usually higher before editing
and resampling to standard sampling rate and depth.

I don't know anyone who does tape transfers at 16/44 all the way these days
myself, but perhaps someone does. The current optimum would be 24/176 IMO
though.
Whether that buys you anything you need for the job is another matter
entirely, but you won't lose anything as you might if you used 24/192 which
is not an interger multiple of the final sampling rate required.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
> Bit depth and Sample-rate/bitrate aren't even on the same AXES!

And what has that got to do with DATA storage exactly?


>But you go on believing what you want to.

And apparently you will believe any nonsense. Your can insist on your right
to be ignorant I suppose.

Trevor.

[PStamler]

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:20:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey: "Nobody ever said that"
>
>
>
> Don Pearce did: "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit rate. "

Which is entirely correct. A stream of 16 bits, sampled 44,100 times per second gives you 16 * 44,100 bits per second coming out of the A/D converter, and that's the bitrate you need to transmit the signal. Multiply that by the number of channels -- 2 for stereo -- and a stereo bitstream of CD quality gives 16 * 44,100 * 2 bits per second, or 1,411,200 bits per second (not including error correction and metadata). That's the bitrate necessary to transmit a CD-quality signal. Period.

Bitrate is a term that is and should be only applied to signal transmission..

Peace,
Paul

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> 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.
>
> It buys you more precision for any processing actions. And less cumulative
> error on multiple processing actions when finally rendered to the final
> format.

Exactly, at least someone gets it. Now it may be that 16/44 editing
precision is already sufficient overkill for most tape sources but there is
no cost penalty these days, so not doing so just seems silly to me.

Trevor.

[PStamler]

On Friday, September 6, 2013 12:42:09 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:

> How do you know they were not recorded at a higher bit depth/sampling rate
>
> before editing and remastering to standard bit depth/sampling rate as is
>
> USUALLY the case these days?

Yes -- *these* days. 1987 was 26 years ago, and in 1987 the technology to do greater bit depth and significantly greater sampling rates didn't exist in the commercial market -- it was strictly in the research labs. If you recorded digital, you recorded 16-bit 44,100 samples/sec (CD format or 48,000 samples (video format) or 50,000 samples per second (a few recorders like SoundStream and Mitsubishi), and that was it. Higher sampling rates in PCM were still a pipe dream. (I say "in PCM" because the dBx recording system sampled at higher rates, but that was a 1-bit delta-modulation system -- Basically a precursor to DSD -- not PCM.)

In fact, the digital equipment of the time was barely able to squeeze out 16 bits of performance.

Peace,
Paul

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> This is generally internal to the intermediate processing, at least
> since stuff started using 32 bit float for internal manipulation.

Right, but save the file for continued editing another day and you better be
carefull you are not continually saving it back to 16/44!


> 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

Exactly, just as easy to use 24/88 or 24/176 for example when going to CD,
as to use anything else.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
On Friday, September 6, 2013 12:42:09 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
>> How do you know they were not recorded at a higher bit depth/sampling
>> rate
> before editing and remastering to standard bit depth/sampling rate as is
> USUALLY the case these days?

}Yes -- *these* days. 1987 was 26 years ago, and.....

....the 2009 remasters mentioned are only 4 years ago.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote "He is correct. He just phrased it in a slightly different way to others."

And it certainly threw me for a loop! lol :)

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>> 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.
>>
>> It buys you more precision for any processing actions. And less cumulative
>> error on multiple processing actions when finally rendered to the final
>> format.
>
> Exactly, at least someone gets it. Now it may be that 16/44 editing
> precision is already sufficient overkill for most tape sources but there is
> no cost penalty these days, so not doing so just seems silly to me.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

But we don't actually edit in 16/44.1 . Haven't since the '90s.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> This is generally internal to the intermediate processing, at least
>> since stuff started using 32 bit float for internal manipulation.
>
> Right, but save the file for continued editing another day and you better be
> carefull you are not continually saving it back to 16/44!
>
>

For bit depth; no. For sample rate, yes.

What I mean is: if you build a 'C'/C++ program with libsndfile that
does nothing more than read a file in @ 16/44.1 into an array of
64 bit floating point numbers and puts it back as 16 bit numbers, this
transform can be lossless.

It's not lossless out of the box, but you can fix this in the application.

>> 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
>
> Exactly, just as easy to use 24/88 or 24/176 for example when going to CD,
> as to use anything else.
>

Yet for some strange reason, people tend to use 96 ksamples when the end
target isn't digital video .

> Trevor.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
>>> It buys you more precision for any processing actions. And less
>>> cumulative
>>> error on multiple processing actions when finally rendered to the final
>>> format.
>>
>> Exactly, at least someone gets it. Now it may be that 16/44 editing
>> precision is already sufficient overkill for most tape sources but there
>> is
>> no cost penalty these days, so not doing so just seems silly to me.
>>
>
> But we don't actually edit in 16/44.1 . Haven't since the '90s.


Excatly, so why start there when you certainly don't want to save any
intermediate files there?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor wrote:
>> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> This is generally internal to the intermediate processing, at least
>>> since stuff started using 32 bit float for internal manipulation.
>>
>> Right, but save the file for continued editing another day and you better
>> be
>> carefull you are not continually saving it back to 16/44!
>
> For bit depth; no. For sample rate, yes.
> What I mean is: if you build a 'C'/C++ program with libsndfile that
> does nothing more than read a file in @ 16/44.1 into an array of
> 64 bit floating point numbers and puts it back as 16 bit numbers, this
> transform can be lossless.

So what?


>>> 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
>>
>> Exactly, just as easy to use 24/88 or 24/176 for example when going to
>> CD,
>> as to use anything else.
>
> Yet for some strange reason, people tend to use 96 ksamples when the end
> target isn't digital video .

Well that's simply due to their ignorance, hardly an uncommon problem.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/5/2013 10:05 PM, wrote:

> Something else to remember Scott: I may have graduated college, but
> I cannot even add 2+2.

Sure you can. Take two toothpicks and lay them on the table. Now, take
two more toothpicks and lay them on the table. Count the number of
toothpicks on the table and you've just added 2 +2.

> They couldn't hold me back because of just one subject in school!

But doesn't that hold you up in life? Or are you young enough so that
you always used a calculator when you needed arithmetic?



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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/6/2013 2:02 AM, PStamler wrote:

> Bitrate is a term that is and should be only applied to signal transmission.

And the reason why bit rate is used in connection with MP3 files (a 256
kbps file, for example) is because this is a form that's commonly
transmitted from one place to another in a situation where time is
important. It's what relates the transmission speed that you have
available with the time it takes to download a file of a given size.

Reducing the bit rate means the file is smaller and you can transfer it
in a shorter time. But something has to give in order to lower the bit
rate, either the sample rate, the effective word length, or the number
of channels. All of those things can be adjusted, of course, without the
help of the MP3 algorithm, it's just that usually an audio file reduced
to half the size by applying the MP3 process will sound a lot better
than reducing the size by, say, sampling at 8 bits of resolution rather
than 16.

It's all relative, though, in the case of MP3, throwing away what the
algorithm thinks you don't care about.

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> It buys you more precision for any processing actions. And less
>>>> cumulative
>>>> error on multiple processing actions when finally rendered to the final
>>>> format.
>>>
>>> Exactly, at least someone gets it. Now it may be that 16/44 editing
>>> precision is already sufficient overkill for most tape sources but there
>>> is
>>> no cost penalty these days, so not doing so just seems silly to me.
>>>
>>
>> But we don't actually edit in 16/44.1 . Haven't since the '90s.
>
>
> Excatly, so why start there when you certainly don't want to save any
> intermediate files there?
>
> Trevor.
>
>

I am not sure why we would save any intermediate files. Again;
it won't hurt to convert from 16 to 24 and back ( or vice versa )
if you do it right and the source files are far enough from
the digital noise floor.

Extended bit depth is still all about headroom.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote "Sure you can. Take two toothpicks and lay them on the table. Now, take
two more toothpicks and lay them on the table. Count the number of "

Mike you don't know anything more about me than what you've read in my posts.

When I say I can't add 2 and 2 that means I can't add 2 and 2! Much less multiply or divide anything. I can use a tape measure on the diameter of a speaker cone, and read my weight on a scale or how fast I'm driving, but that's IT.

Literally!

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:13:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>Mike Rivers wrote "Sure you can. Take two toothpicks and lay them on the table. Now, take
>two more toothpicks and lay them on the table. Count the number of "
>
>Mike you don't know anything more about me than what you've read in my posts.
>
>When I say I can't add 2 and 2 that means I can't add 2 and 2! Much less multiply or divide anything. I can use a tape measure on the diameter of a speaker cone, and read my weight on a scale or how fast I'm driving, but that's IT.
>

Then what is it that you believe you can contribute to a thread about
mathematics? Besides an extraordinary ability to **** people off, of
course.

d

[[email protected]]

Don I. Pearce wrote: "- show quoted text -
Then what is it that you believe you can contribute to a thread about
mathematics? Besides an extraordinary ability to **** people off, of
course.

d"
________

I can contribute ideas, opinions, concepts, Don.

Yes, I suffer from innumeracy, but don't we all have a shortcoming or two of one sort or another? My point is, I won't let a disability keep me from pursuing a hobby or career of my choosing.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:58:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>Don I. Pearce wrote: "- show quoted text -
>Then what is it that you believe you can contribute to a thread about
>mathematics? Besides an extraordinary ability to **** people off, of
>course.
>
>d"
>________
>
>I can contribute ideas, opinions, concepts, Don.
>
>Yes, I suffer from innumeracy, but don't we all have a shortcoming or two of one sort or another? My point is, I won't let a disability keep me from pursuing a hobby or career of my choosing.

All very praiseworthy, I'm sure. But it's probably best to refrain
from comment in areas where you know yourself to be devoid of anything
useful to say.

d

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
> Don I. Pearce wrote: "- show quoted text - Then what is it that you
> believe you can contribute to a thread about mathematics? Besides an
> extraordinary ability to **** people off, of course.
>
> d" ________
>
> I can contribute ideas, opinions, concepts, Don.
>
> Yes, I suffer from innumeracy, but don't we all have a shortcoming or
> two of one sort or another?

People say that, but it's almost never actually true in my experience.
And if it is true, it's a completely soluble problem.

> My point is, I won't let a disability
> keep me from pursuing a hobby or career of my choosing.
>

Oh my.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

PStamler wrote:
> On Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:20:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey: "Nobody ever said that"
>>
>>
>>
>> Don Pearce did: "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit rate. "
>
> Which is entirely correct. A stream of 16 bits, sampled 44,100 times per second gives you 16 * 44,100 bits per second coming out of the A/D converter, and that's the bitrate you need to transmit the signal. Multiply that by the number of channels -- 2 for stereo -- and a stereo bitstream of CD quality gives 16 * 44,100 * 2 bits per second, or 1,411,200 bits per second (not including error correction and metadata). That's the bitrate necessary to transmit a CD-quality signal. Period.
>
> Bitrate is a term that is and should be only applied to signal transmission.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>

Unfortunately, bitrate is also congruent with/proportional
to informaiton content, so it has applicaitons outside of
signal transmission. It can be descriptively used in a great
many locations.

--
Les Cargill

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/6/2013 1:20 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> wrote:
>> Don I. Pearce wrote: "- show quoted text - Then what is it that you
>> believe you can contribute to a thread about mathematics? Besides an
>> extraordinary ability to **** people off, of course.
>>
>> d" ________
>>
>> I can contribute ideas, opinions, concepts, Don.
>>
>> Yes, I suffer from innumeracy, but don't we all have a shortcoming or
>> two of one sort or another?
>
> People say that, but it's almost never actually true in my experience.
> And if it is true, it's a completely soluble problem.
>
>> My point is, I won't let a disability
>> keep me from pursuing a hobby or career of my choosing.
>>
>
> Oh my.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Odd that someone with innumeracy might choose
to offer opinions on mathematical concepts.

On the point of innumeracy, it seems innumeracy
(like illiteracy) can be overcome through education.

However, from his description it would seem he
exhibits symptoms of dyscalculia. Dyscalculia looks
to be a recognized genetic learning disability.

Ah, but what do any of us really know about him?

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/6/2013 1:23 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> PStamler wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:20:08 PM UTC-5,
>> wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey: "Nobody ever said that"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Pearce did: "Bit depth x sampling rate x number of channels = bit
>>> rate. "
>>
>> Which is entirely correct. A stream of 16 bits, sampled 44,100 times
>> per second gives you 16 * 44,100 bits per second coming out of the A/D
>> converter, and that's the bitrate you need to transmit the signal.
>> Multiply that by the number of channels -- 2 for stereo -- and a
>> stereo bitstream of CD quality gives 16 * 44,100 * 2 bits per second,
>> or 1,411,200 bits per second (not including error correction and
>> metadata). That's the bitrate necessary to transmit a CD-quality
>> signal. Period.
>>
>> Bitrate is a term that is and should be only applied to signal
>> transmission.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>>
>
> Unfortunately, bitrate is also congruent with/proportional
> to informaiton content, so it has applicaitons outside of
> signal transmission. It can be descriptively used in a great
> many locations.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
>
>
....and that would open up discussion of the whole field
of communication theory and channel capacity.
Please, let's not go there again!

==
Later....
Ron Capik
--

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

Don Pearce > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 05:46:28 +0100, John Williamson
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> I already know that, John! It's this revelation above that
>>> bit/sample-RATE and bit-DEPTH are both temporal measurements. They're NOT.
>>>
>> Nobody in this group has said that they are.
>
> More to the point, if you multiplied together two temporal
> measurements the units of the result would be Hz squared. Nonsense in
> this context.
>
> d

Boy, that really Hz...

[geoff]

"S. King" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sam All the complaints
> about modern CDs were part of the discussion among the engineers back then
> about 45s, but the clients, mostly A&R types were calling the shots and
> paying the bills.

And to think that one major selling-pojint of the CD format was the
increased possible dymanic range !

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Ron C wrote:
> On 9/6/2013 1:20 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Don I. Pearce wrote: "- show quoted text - Then what is it that you
>>> believe you can contribute to a thread about mathematics? Besides an
>>> extraordinary ability to **** people off, of course.
>>>
>>> d" ________
>>>
>>> I can contribute ideas, opinions, concepts, Don.
>>>
>>> Yes, I suffer from innumeracy, but don't we all have a shortcoming or
>>> two of one sort or another?
>>
>> People say that, but it's almost never actually true in my experience.
>> And if it is true, it's a completely soluble problem.
>>
>>> My point is, I won't let a disability
>>> keep me from pursuing a hobby or career of my choosing.
>>>
>>
>> Oh my.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Odd that someone with innumeracy might choose
> to offer opinions on mathematical concepts.
>
> On the point of innumeracy, it seems innumeracy
> (like illiteracy) can be overcome through education.
>

We're all innumerate about something.

> However, from his description it would seem he
> exhibits symptoms of dyscalculia. Dyscalculia looks
> to be a recognized genetic learning disability.
>

Interesting. Not familiar with it.

> Ah, but what do any of us really know about him?
>

Nuffin.

> ==
> Later...
> Ron Capik
> --

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/6/2013 9:42 PM, geoff wrote:

> And to think that one major selling-pojint of the CD format was the
> increased possible dymanic range !

Well, it's more than on a phonograph record, and more than most people
can use in a home listening environment, so I'd say the CD scored on
this point.

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

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
>>> But we don't actually edit in 16/44.1 . Haven't since the '90s.
>>
>>
>> Excatly, so why start there when you certainly don't want to save any
>> intermediate files there?
>
> I am not sure why we would save any intermediate files.

Because I rarely do all edits in one session.


>Again;
> it won't hurt to convert from 16 to 24 and back ( or vice versa )
> if you do it right and the source files are far enough from
> the digital noise floor.

It will always hurt the more times you do it. May not matter to you, but I
simply can't see the point in doing it badly on purpose.
Once upon a time you may have used file storage size as an excuse, but these
days I wouldn't be doing it at all if that was a major consideration.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
> Yes, I suffer from innumeracy, but don't we all have a shortcoming or two
> of one sort or another?
> My point is, I won't let a disability keep me from pursuing a hobby or
> career of my choosing.

Or ignorance of it's basic concepts apparently. Which would be fine if you
didn't find it necessary to continually argue with those who do have some
knowledge.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/6/2013 9:42 PM, geoff wrote:
>
>> And to think that one major selling-pojint of the CD format was the
>> increased possible dymanic range !

The operative word here is "possible"


> Well, it's more than on a phonograph record, and more than most people can
> use in a home listening environment, so I'd say the CD scored on this
> point.

Exactly.

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> But we don't actually edit in 16/44.1 . Haven't since the '90s.
>>>
>>>
>>> Excatly, so why start there when you certainly don't want to save any
>>> intermediate files there?
>>
>> I am not sure why we would save any intermediate files.
>
> Because I rarely do all edits in one session.
>

Ah - well, then I'd edit unconverted files in that case.
>
>> Again;
>> it won't hurt to convert from 16 to 24 and back ( or vice versa )
>> if you do it right and the source files are far enough from
>> the digital noise floor.
>
> It will always hurt the more times you do it. May not matter to you, but I
> simply can't see the point in doing it badly on purpose.

It's kinda silly to convert back and forth. I'd agree there.

> Once upon a time you may have used file storage size as an excuse, but these
> days I wouldn't be doing it at all if that was a major consideration.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> But we don't actually edit in 16/44.1 . Haven't since the '90s.
>>>>
>>>> Excatly, so why start there when you certainly don't want to save any
>>>> intermediate files there?
>>>
>>> I am not sure why we would save any intermediate files.
>>
>> Because I rarely do all edits in one session.
>
> Ah - well, then I'd edit unconverted files in that case.

We were talking about tape transfers, so what is your initial "unconverted
file", 16/44 or something greater as I have suggested all along, and been
continually challenged on for some reason?


>>> Again;
>>> it won't hurt to convert from 16 to 24 and back ( or vice versa )
>>> if you do it right and the source files are far enough from
>>> the digital noise floor.
>>
>> It will always hurt the more times you do it. May not matter to you, but
>> I
>> simply can't see the point in doing it badly on purpose.
>
> It's kinda silly to convert back and forth. I'd agree there.

Right, which was my point all along.

Trevor.

[PStamler]

On Sunday, September 8, 2013 11:00:57 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:

> We were talking about tape transfers, so what is your initial "unconverted
>
> file", 16/44 or something greater as I have suggested all along, and been
>
> continually challenged on for some reason?

Speaking only for myself: I don't at all challenge your assertion that it's best to do tape transfers at high resolution. All I questioned was your assertion that the 1987 Beatles transfers should have been done that way. Yes, they should, but it didn't happen because the technology to do so didn't exist in 1987. at least not outside the research laboratories.

Peace,
Paul

[Trevor]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 8, 2013 11:00:57 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
>> We were talking about tape transfers, so what is your initial
>> "unconverted
>> file", 16/44 or something greater as I have suggested all along, and been
>> continually challenged for some reason?

}Speaking only for myself: I don't at all challenge your assertion that it's
best to do tape transfers at high resolution.
}All I questioned was your assertion that the 1987 Beatles transfers should
have been done that way.
}Yes, they should, but it didn't happen because the technology to do so
didn't exist in 1987. at least not outside the research laboratories.


Actually I replied to the question about the 2009 transfers.

Trevor.