[Login] or [Signup]
Login
Username:
Password:
[Signup]
[Recover Account]

Navigation

Poll


You must be logged in to view polls
Bowie General > David Live (96/24 HD)

You are in:  Forums / Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD)
Locked
neilwilkesPosted at 2017-02-27 15:12:08(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 761.82 GB
Downloaded: 627.05 GB
Posts: 725

Ratio: 1.21
Location: United Kingdom


Okey Dokey - geek alert here.
Firstly, the 2005 remix version is not what you might think it is - it is not actually a stereo remix, but a stereo downmix taken from the 2005 surround mix (exactly the same way the 2010 Station To Station "remix" was done).
The DVDA version sounds quite different - and to my ears better - than the remastered version does as well. It has a fatter, warmer low end to it that just is not there in the remaster and the stereo image is a lot tighter on the DVDA in comparison as well. To get the full difference you really do need to have both files open in a DAW and switch between the 2 versions to hear this.

Sample Rates.
This is where it is going to get a little geeky along wi9th a large dollop of personal opinion as this stuff is so damned subjective it's not funny.
We shall start with 48 & 96k and then move on to discuss 192k - and what seems to happen in my experience with mixing is that the sample rate affects the sound. 48k seems to have a fatter, warmer low end and 96k seems to have a more detailed top end & more "space" in it. I am definitely reminded of the difference between 15IPS tape & 30IPS tape - we discovered this doing a 5.1 mix for a client where the multitracks were provided at 48k, and we did the mix & ran it out to masters at 24/48 resolution. Then, just for fun, I made a copy of the whole project and resampled the source files from 48k to 96k leaving everything else exactly the same & ran the mix again - and they sounded different. I would *not* claim one sounded better than the other - they both had their plus points - but they definitely sounded different.
192k to me is not only a waste of HDD space, but is going too far. The problem is that it brings biasing frequencies into play. This is the frequency used to "stir the magnetic pot" on tape & kind of excite the particles so they are receptive to new information. To quote directly from the "hyperphysics" web page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Audio/bias.html) on this:

Quote:

A music signal alone cannot be used to produce a faithful tape recording of a sound because the magnetization of the tape is so sensitive to its previous magnetic history, even the effects of the signal recorded just ahead of it. A high frequency bias signal is typically applied to the tape through the tape head along with the music signal to remove the effects of this magnetic history. This large bias signal (typically 40 to 150 kHz in frequency) keeps "stirring" the magnetization so that each signal to be recorded encounters the same magnetic starting conditions. The necessity for biasing has its origin in the magnetic property called hysteresis - the magnetic material tends to hold onto any magnetization it receives and must be actively driven back to zero to start over. Magnetic emulsions made with chromium dioxide require a larger biasing signal to make use of their wider dynamic range, so modern recorders have different bias settings for iron oxide, chromium dioxide, and metal tapes. With optimum biasing, the recorded magnetic image is proportional to the signal current applied to the record head.

One could become almost philosophical about the process by which one can produce the sound of a beautiful symphony from a "ribbon of rust". Biasing is critical to this process of imposing the design of the symphony upon a medium which would tend to have random variations because of thermal energy and a kind of "inertia" in the form of hysteresis that resists the production of an undistorted image of the music. Biasing plays the role of "scrambling" or "stirring" the medium dynamically so that each element of the musical image you intend to impose will have the same "blank slate" upon which to write. The scrambling process of biasing also increases the sensitivity for the recording of a clean signal, i.e., you can record with a much smaller input signal because the medium is more susceptible to the imposition of the pattern you intend.

So why does this matter, and why does it affect 192k recordings? Well, a 192k sample rate has a nominal frequency response up to 96kHz. Whilst this is ultrasonic and inaudible, the higher the BF the better the HF response - but (and this is a biggie) if the resulting tape transfer at 192kHz includes biasing frequencies - and it will unless these have been filtered out (in which case the 192k is a complete & utter waste of space) any downsampling that does not take this into account & filter it out will alias down to lower frequencies and will become a sort of distortion and definitely audible. See https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1ch for the details, but this is the summary:

Quote:

192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.

Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

Now to try & explain why all the different SR on offer with this catalogue:
A lot of archivists have a personal "rule" that says "if the tape is at 15IPS, digitize at 96k, but if the tape is at 30IPS digitize at 192k". This is of course stupid.
In the case of "David Live" the original multitracks will be on tape, but the mix will be probably 96k. The DVDA was done at 48k because of space constraints but I suspect Tony's original was at 96k.
The 192k is a mystery to me unless someone dumped the analogue remasters down to digital at 192k in the strange belief this would be somehow better. If you check these in a spectral analyzer, you will notice that the 192k & the 96k versions both have the same upper end of actual musical content (around 20kHz) with all subsequent information being noise. It is a similar thing with DSD - the claims of massive PCM sample rate equivalents are pure marketing bullshit as all that exists above 23kHz in DSD is noise (and a LOT of it) and in some cases this starts as low as 16kHz.
We see similar issues with FM broadcasts - have a good look and then think about why FM was bandwidth limited to around 16-18kHz. It is because there is a carrier harmonic at 19k, and this again will alias down and cause problems if not filtered out and we see on a LOT of FM transfers a spike at this frequency.

With "Blackstar" and "The Next Day", HDtrax state the given SR is 48k because some of the tracks are at 48k even though others are at 96k. It all seems to depend on the personal choices of the Mastering people if they go from digits to analogue & back to digits again. Some ME think it is better to use 192k than 96k - and they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

BTW - the Xiph.org article referenced also claims 24-bit is a waste of HDD space as well, but this is incorrect and here's why.
With 16-bit audio, the dither noise is at 12dB SPL (that is very low) but at 24-bit this drops to -36dB. 24-bit audio is 48dB better than 16-bit and it eliminates any chance of dither noise being heard over the DAC noise (which itself is dropped to -17dB SPL at 24-bit) so selling 24/96 makes sense because the end users may want to put these files on other devices - although fair warning, if you do this and resample OR change bit depth you must always dither properly.
Dither is a whole different subject though - I just wanted to point this out.

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
DavesolarDonatedPosted at 2017-02-27 17:55:00(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 812.01 GB
Downloaded: 407.33 GB
Posts: 268

Ratio: 1.99
Location: Germany


Oh dear, that is mighty work done, thank You Neil.
It will cost me some days (if ever) to try and understand Your article and all the links in it, but all is truly very interesting.
Let me ask a few 'little'questions, please: what do You think about playing music from a HD over a DAC with  24/192 into my stereo-system, is it completely useless on the playback side? Should I give a limit at 24/96, or are the problems in Your thread only for the recording, not the playback of music?

And again, thanks for all the work You've done for us here !

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
paperdragonPosted at 2017-02-27 18:01:14(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))
Fomer Admin RIP


Uploaded: 3.03 TB
Downloaded: 4.86 TB
Posts: 556

Ratio: 0.62
Location: Turkey


Holy shit, I'm a geek. I must be, since I understood (nearly) every word of that. Oh, and thanks for the confirmation that 24 bit is better than 16 bit. I've been saying that all along, and was always told I was wrong.


...and then my mind split open.
Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
DavesolarDonatedPosted at 2017-02-27 18:16:48(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 812.01 GB
Downloaded: 407.33 GB
Posts: 268

Ratio: 1.99
Location: Germany


paperdragon wrote:

Holy shit, I'm a geek....

No doubt about that..... :-)  :-)  B)

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
paperdragonPosted at 2017-02-27 18:37:21(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))
Fomer Admin RIP


Uploaded: 3.03 TB
Downloaded: 4.86 TB
Posts: 556

Ratio: 0.62
Location: Turkey


heh... some things even your best friends won't tell you....


...and then my mind split open.
Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
DavesolarDonatedPosted at 2017-02-27 19:28:20(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 812.01 GB
Downloaded: 407.33 GB
Posts: 268

Ratio: 1.99
Location: Germany


paperdragon wrote:

heh... some things even your best friends won't tell you....

....Your words, not mine....  :-@    ;)

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
paperdragonPosted at 2017-02-27 19:33:31(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))
Fomer Admin RIP


Uploaded: 3.03 TB
Downloaded: 4.86 TB
Posts: 556

Ratio: 0.62
Location: Turkey


Yeah...but don't listen to me. I'm a geek.


...and then my mind split open.
Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
DavesolarDonatedPosted at 2017-02-27 21:38:19(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 812.01 GB
Downloaded: 407.33 GB
Posts: 268

Ratio: 1.99
Location: Germany


Aren't we all Anoraks ?.....a bit...?

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
marksachDonatedPosted at 2017-02-28 07:32:48(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 784.27 GB
Downloaded: 397.00 GB
Posts: 39

Ratio: 1.98
Location: United Kingdom


Well, in my opinion, and I go by my ears, I have a lot of 192 & 96 recordings and they sound superb. All of the Dame's studio albums that have been included in the two box sets are out in 192 and, to me, they sound stunning. But there is an old saying "shit in, shit out" so basically if the original tape/mix whatever is waft (Tilbury word for shit) then it is going to sound waft ! For example, 'Rw Power' is never going to sound brilliant, but the Jeff Lynne, Steely Dan, Led Zeppelin stuff sounds magnificent, every one of them, and they are a mixture of 96 & 192.
The 'Lazarus' soundtrack album with the three 'new' tracks sounds amazing, especially 'No Plan' itself, so whatever the facts and figures say it is always going to be argumentative. In my opinion I always think that HD recordings just sound more 'defined' for want of a better word. I have a/b them with say a cd version and the stereo spread is more apparent, the reverb is easier to pick out, and the low end sounds more punchy and tight. The one Dame album which struck me as being the best so far is 'The Man Who Sold The World'. It instantly sounded far superior to any version I have ever heard and that is a 192/24.
I often wonder if people that doubt whether these things sound better are actually hearing them in the correct way, i.e. via a convertor that handles a 192/24 signal. I use my Mac Pro (Tower version) through a 'Apogee Duet 2' plus I have one of Neil Young's 'Pono' music players that are a dedicated HD player. And I can definitely hear the difference.
Interesting article though. Thanks very much.

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
neilwilkesPosted at 2017-03-01 08:43:19(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 761.82 GB
Downloaded: 627.05 GB
Posts: 725

Ratio: 1.21
Location: United Kingdom


I have no issues at all with up to 24/96 but remain absolutely certain that 192 is silly and/or pointless except as a marketing tool.
I also mix/master music and author for DVDA, DVDV & Blu-ray for a living, so please believe me when I say that I am 100% certain my systems are properly set up. As for anything at 192, I have a fair few of these and without exception they are all improved almost immediately by the proper application of a correctly specified Low Pass Filter and a reduction in sample rates down to 96kHz.
This includes Zeppelin (and I am not at all convinced by the latest batch of Zep remasters either - I have better versions in my private collection) and Bowie material.
But, as I also said, the problem is that this is so subjective and when you add in expectation bias it gets messy. I have also seen people claim that the HR version sounds better to them when neither their amplifiers, loudspeakers or even players could actually handle the files.

@marksach.
Please don't use the "HD" phrase for audio - it's not "High Definition" (that is a video expression that is meaningless in audio terms) but "High Resolution" and I am of the firmly held opinion that instead of messing about with silly sample rates for marketing purposes (larger number = better) they should instead concentrate on improving the audible end of the spectrum instead, and especially with 24-bit files stop the insane habit of limiting out headroom and using range all the way up to 0dBFS. There is no need to do this, you gain nothing & lose loads. At 24-bit there is headroom to burn and we should stop using PPM (Peak Program Meters) and revert back to using the modern equivalent of the good old VU meter instead and giving the music some headroom instead.

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
40compassesDonatedPosted at 2017-03-01 10:22:55(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 118.42 GB
Downloaded: 63.69 GB
Posts: 41

Ratio: 1.86
Location: unknown


marksach wrote:

For example, 'Rw Power' is never going to sound brilliant,

...because you've never really heard it ?

Lots of roads to brilliance, via environment, settings, euphoric states etc, but don't say never!

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
marksachDonatedPosted at 2017-03-01 12:11:51(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 784.27 GB
Downloaded: 397.00 GB
Posts: 39

Ratio: 1.98
Location: United Kingdom


Lol. @ neilwilkes. I used HD as all the people that sell these things call themselves HD !  
@ 40compasses. I simply mean 'RP' isn't or is meant to be an HR (that means His or Her Royal to me) 'sound' experience. How you enjoy your music with full volume, balance to the left only, a spliff, in a squat or whatever isn't about the recorded 'sound'.

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
neilwilkesPosted at 2017-03-01 15:21:15(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 761.82 GB
Downloaded: 627.05 GB
Posts: 725

Ratio: 1.21
Location: United Kingdom


marksach wrote:

Well, in my opinion, and I go by my ears, I have a lot of 192 & 96 recordings and they sound superb. All of the Dame's studio albums that have been included in the two box sets are out in 192 and, to me, they sound stunning. But there is an old saying "shit in, shit out" so basically if the original tape/mix whatever is waft (Tilbury word for shit) then it is going to sound waft ! For example, 'Rw Power' is never going to sound brilliant, but the Jeff Lynne, Steely Dan, Led Zeppelin stuff sounds magnificent, every one of them, and they are a mixture of 96 & 192.The 'Lazarus' soundtrack album with the three 'new' tracks sounds amazing, especially 'No Plan' itself, so whatever the facts and figures say it is always going to be argumentative. In my opinion I always think that HD recordings just sound more 'defined' for want of a better word. I have a/b them with say a cd version and the stereo spread is more apparent, the reverb is easier to pick out, and the low end sounds more punchy and tight. The one Dame album which struck me as being the best so far is 'The Man Who Sold The World'. It instantly sounded far superior to any version I have ever heard and that is a 192/24. I often wonder if people that doubt whether these things sound better are actually hearing them in the correct way, i.e. via a convertor that handles a 192/24 signal. I use my Mac Pro (Tower version) through a 'Apogee Duet 2' plus I have one of Neil Young's 'Pono' music players that are a dedicated HD player. And I can definitely hear the difference.Interesting article though. Thanks very much.

The problem with 192k sample rates in media players or devices that upsample the content "on the fly" is that they are almost certainly using Asynchronous converters and these can destabilize the stereo image and are really best avoided. If you do know of a synchronous SRC that runs in real time then I would very much like to know what it is - real-time synchronous converters are usually restricted to an upper limit of 96k and asynchronous hardware resamplers that work in real time should really only be used if it is absolutely necessary to do so (IE Video applications, or where pulldown is needed or even pull ups such as 47.952kHz). This is not to say they are all bad - quality ranges from Good to Excellent, but superior quality will always be obtained from synchronous SRC.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there is more to high sample rates than is first apparent. The benefit is not from the extended frequency response as this is Ultrasonic & inaudible. However, try this (taken from Bob Katz' superb "Mastering Audio - the Art & the Science", 3rd edition)
Load up an orchestral track that has a lot of cymbals and put a high pass filter into it & listen to the residual (set the filter to around 5kHz so there is nothing present below this frequency). It sounds like a shivery, swimming HF sound. Now push the filter higher - 10k, 15k or even 20k - and listen again. Do you still hear that residual? It is for this reason that checking in an FFT for "ultrasonic content" is the wrong approach.
The problem with low sample rates is in the reproduction because of the steep filters used - steep low-pass filters (and an LPF must be used in a DAC) at or near the high frequency limit of the ear interact with the cochlear filter creating a nasty pre-echo which the ear interprets as a loss of transient response (and couple this with the stupidly over-limited garbage that is being fobbed off onto us by some of the labels that reduces transient response even further to the point there are almost no transients left) which then obscures the sharpness or clarity of the reproduced sound. We can get around this problem though.....Peter Craven (an audio researcher at the AES) has demonstrated that this effect can be completely eliminated by adding a properly specified gentle slope filter anywhere in the record or reproduction chain!! What this means is that there can be a profound difference in sound even if we take a regular CD quality file & upsample it to 96kHz as long as the 96k file has the gentle slope required in the filter - and a 96k sample rate allows us to do this and not remove any musical information at all. This alone would justify upsampling to 96k - and I will state this again to emphasize it - as long as the LPF is a properly specified gentle slope (say 12dB/Octave and no higher). Most low sample rate playback systems use a steep slope - often as steep as 48dB/Octave.
BUT - with a 192k rate, distortion increases and conversion accuracy decreases. If you must use 192, make sure the DAC chip is one designed to work at 192k and not just one that will do it - there is a large difference - so ensure the converter works better at 192 than at 96 (and the chances of this in any consumer playback system is extremely remote to put it mildly).

I hope this is of some help to you guys.
In summary:
Resample from CD quality to 24/96 = a good idea. Quality will actually improve if the work is done properly.
Resample to 192kHz = pointless. You will almost certtainly/inevitably degrade your sound quality at playback.

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
CrackedActorPosted at 2017-03-01 20:45:54(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 3.10 GB
Downloaded: 6.18 GB
Posts: 31

Ratio: 0.50
Location: United Kingdom


Quote:

192kHz = pointless

This

Last edited by CrackedActor on 2017-03-01 20:48:01


Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
paperdragonPosted at 2017-03-03 02:00:45(374 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))
Fomer Admin RIP


Uploaded: 3.03 TB
Downloaded: 4.86 TB
Posts: 556

Ratio: 0.62
Location: Turkey


Can't we just go back to LP? Analogue beats the hell out of anything digital.


...and then my mind split open.
Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
DavesolarDonatedPosted at 2017-03-03 08:24:46(373 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 812.01 GB
Downloaded: 407.33 GB
Posts: 268

Ratio: 1.99
Location: Germany


paperdragon wrote:

Can't we just go back to LP? Analogue beats the hell out of anything digital.

Could be my point, but how would You make a Torrent out of vinyl ??   :-)  :)

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
MossGardenPosted at 2017-03-03 11:19:45(373 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 62.20 GB
Downloaded: 120.16 GB
Posts: 222

Ratio: 0.52
Location: Denmark


I would love torrent vinyl
 My wife less so, there would be no space left in the flat :D

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
DavesolarDonatedPosted at 2017-03-03 17:11:31(373 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 812.01 GB
Downloaded: 407.33 GB
Posts: 268

Ratio: 1.99
Location: Germany


MossGarden wrote:

I would love torrent vinyl  My wife less so, there would be no space left in the flat :D

....the next 'Oscar' goes to....  "A Man And His Turntable" ....     B)  :D   :-@

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
neilwilkesPosted at 2017-03-04 13:20:28(373 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 761.82 GB
Downloaded: 627.05 GB
Posts: 725

Ratio: 1.21
Location: United Kingdom


paperdragon wrote:

Can't we just go back to LP? Analogue beats the hell out of anything digital.

Here comes another geek alert warning.
Vinyl should never be capable of better quality than digital - even CD Red Book - as long as the masters are done properly, and that is the whole problem. We are currently making CD with worse noise figures than old Edison Wax Cylinders when it should be superb. Even at 16-bit a well made CD master should destroy any vinyl version ever made and a properly made 24-bit file should smoke vinyl.
The problem is the modern habit of using limiters to remove all the headroom which leaves the transients shaved off and with no room to breathe, and this is why CD can sound so bloody awful.

With 24-bit audio the mastering engineers and recording/mixing engineers should never, ever go anywhere near to 0dBFS - there is no need to do this at all, and doing this will inevitably result in a harsh, fatiguing sound. Vinyl has headroom built in - it's 0dB VU level is equivalent to -18dBFS so headroom is built in to the format because you cannot cut the record any louder.
That said vinyl is not, never was & certainly never should be described as High Fidelity. It degrades more every time you play it, the bass is summed to mono anywhere between 50-100Hz and the upper midrange & top end is artificially hyped because of the limitations of vinyl.

That said though, the vinyl set of the 5 years box actually sounds superior to the CD & the 24/96 download versions but (and this is important) ONLY because some silly bastard removed all the headroom by limiting up the volume. Whoever did this needs to be beaten with a heavy club & left to lie bleeding in the moonlight (with thanks to the late, great George Carlin for that line) because there is absolutely no need to do this - it is butchery, pure and simple.

Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
majakelDonatedPosted at 2017-03-05 12:10:07(373 wks ago) (Bowie General / David Live (96/24 HD))


Uploaded: 6.22 TB
Downloaded: 3.09 TB
Posts: 13

Ratio: 2.01
Location: Sweden


who said "never start a sound quality discussion"?

Last edited by majakel on 2017-03-05 12:11:36


Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 

<< Prev  1 2 3   Next >>

Locked
You are not permitted to post in this forum.

Latest Forum Posts
Latest Topic TitleRepliesViewsAuthorLast Post
Lady Grinning Soul262209giqueby professormouse
2024-04-28 22:15:37
First Bowie bootlegs4223direwolfby russellmael
2024-04-28 20:08:55
Qbittorrent Stalled172273homebrewby bofinken57
2024-04-25 18:03:16
Ziggy Box Track List352718Steveboyby ayres
2024-04-24 17:00:55
Req. Syd Barrett - Have You Got it Yet - April 270179nightmare77by nightmare77
2024-04-23 17:17:18
RIP Dennis P. McCann (Paperdragon)18557JanErikby averybowie
2024-04-22 16:51:34
"Changes" and "TVC15" on "Live Nassau Coliseum '76" album404716yasukoby russellmael
2024-04-19 17:43:39
What is the worst bootleg from each david bowie tour346133averybowieby Stranger09
2024-04-17 23:27:43
RSD 2024 - Underwhelming or what?201542neilwilkesby professormouse
2024-04-08 23:45:01
So what is left ??241933Portlandbillby professormouse
2024-04-08 23:38:23
DB in 360 Spatial Audio4421marksachby Steveboy
2024-04-06 16:03:44
Rainbowman - Jerome Soligny2490SteveMaturinby neilwilkes
2024-04-02 11:47:30


Online Users

Newest Members
Modified by JanErik |- Page Generated In 0.061624 secs.
-|- RSS Feed -|- Feed Info
Theme Base By: Nikkbu | Modified by: paperdragon | Graphics by: MossGarden
Email: bowiestation(AT)bowiestation.com