I agree that DACs have advanced to a point that the only real issue is the recording. . . I feel we’ve stepped into a realm where mysticism often masquerades as truth and there aren’t enough of us that can push the recording industry to do the right thing. . .
As as far as 16/24 sounding great. Here’s why it is possible. Almost all records are produced from analog tape used in recording studios. Analog tape can only capture 73db of what the human ear can hear (130db in the range from +/-20k. Real world examples are a whisper to a jet engine) Every time analog tapes are copied it looses 6db. There are 5 copies made from each master and the record is being cut from those so a record at best can only capture 61db. This translates to about 12 bits in PCM digital. A traditional CD has 16 bits and the extent of human hearing can be captured digitally at 96kHz/24bit PCM.
The real issue is how the studio engineers are crushing the sound levels and loudness wars with little dynamics so it sounds good on earbuds and the radio. It doesn't matter if the production is then placed on analog or digital means of distribution, it all sounds bad. It's been common practice for many years and there are a few studios doing it right. Only those studios who record and produce the music digitally at 96/24 or higher throughout the music chain can claim the title of high resolution audio.
I get upset at studios taking old recordings and sticking them in big bit buckets and saying they are high resolution and making people feel they need to buy their music over again at 2-3 times the cost. If you analyze the file it's filled with air. Provenance of the recording is the most deficient aspect of the recording industry (detailing the entire recording chain). I wish the recording industry had standards they must follow and would detail where the song was made, mike technique, production chain, and bit depth range of the recording. . . Fortunately or unfortunately for us most music produced today can't take advantage of the increased dynamic range because they simply don't use it.
With a high resolution system you can hear great recordings done right. I’ve had to listen to streaming for awhile because my CD collection was buried. I pulled out Peter Hurford playing Bach and OMG. I swear I’m in the cathedral he is playing in, that’s all captured on 16/24 even the notes that vibrate my body. It’s great to hear that people are rediscovering how good CD really is. Most Redbook CDs were not recorded digitally at that bit depth or engineered at that rate unless they have been recorded and produced within the last few years even then it’s ubkikely. If at any point during the recording process the bit depth is reduced there is no adding in information. Most Redbook CDs were recorded on tape and so your CD counterparts easily capture what you’re listening to on Redbook.
- Steve
As as far as 16/24 sounding great. Here’s why it is possible. Almost all records are produced from analog tape used in recording studios. Analog tape can only capture 73db of what the human ear can hear (130db in the range from +/-20k. Real world examples are a whisper to a jet engine) Every time analog tapes are copied it looses 6db. There are 5 copies made from each master and the record is being cut from those so a record at best can only capture 61db. This translates to about 12 bits in PCM digital. A traditional CD has 16 bits and the extent of human hearing can be captured digitally at 96kHz/24bit PCM.
The real issue is how the studio engineers are crushing the sound levels and loudness wars with little dynamics so it sounds good on earbuds and the radio. It doesn't matter if the production is then placed on analog or digital means of distribution, it all sounds bad. It's been common practice for many years and there are a few studios doing it right. Only those studios who record and produce the music digitally at 96/24 or higher throughout the music chain can claim the title of high resolution audio.
I get upset at studios taking old recordings and sticking them in big bit buckets and saying they are high resolution and making people feel they need to buy their music over again at 2-3 times the cost. If you analyze the file it's filled with air. Provenance of the recording is the most deficient aspect of the recording industry (detailing the entire recording chain). I wish the recording industry had standards they must follow and would detail where the song was made, mike technique, production chain, and bit depth range of the recording. . . Fortunately or unfortunately for us most music produced today can't take advantage of the increased dynamic range because they simply don't use it.
With a high resolution system you can hear great recordings done right. I’ve had to listen to streaming for awhile because my CD collection was buried. I pulled out Peter Hurford playing Bach and OMG. I swear I’m in the cathedral he is playing in, that’s all captured on 16/24 even the notes that vibrate my body. It’s great to hear that people are rediscovering how good CD really is. Most Redbook CDs were not recorded digitally at that bit depth or engineered at that rate unless they have been recorded and produced within the last few years even then it’s ubkikely. If at any point during the recording process the bit depth is reduced there is no adding in information. Most Redbook CDs were recorded on tape and so your CD counterparts easily capture what you’re listening to on Redbook.
- Steve