A Mark In Time
Previous Albums => Down The Road Wherever (2018) => Topic started by: Markus on December 01, 2018, 08:36:13 PM
-
Question in the Guy Fletcher forum
Will there be a high resolution (24/96 or 24/192) digital release of DTRW? I believe Tracker’s came about a month after the album was released. Hope that is the same scenario for this one.
Answer by Guy
Yes, there will. I will find out more about that.
-
That's some good news. Although I cannot imagine that DTRW would sound any better in Hi-Res.
-
That's some good news. Although I cannot imagine that DTRW would sound any better in Hi-Res.
It won't.
Not even Mozart would.
CDs can be made to sound perfect.
44.1khz is enough to reproduce frequencies up to 22.05khz, whereas your ear can't hear beyong 20hkz (most probably way less), you are not a dog.
And 16 bits is enough dynamics (with proper dithering) to reproduce a range from the drop a needle to the noise of a 747 taking off next to you.
"Hi-Res" is bullshit.
So is the so-called superiority of vynil. But at least, vynil has the nostalgia factor and nice 12'' covers going for it.
"High-res" has nothing going for it - neither technically nor emotionally.
-
So far, I have not heard any recordings in Hi-Res and therefore can not judge it.
-
That's some good news. Although I cannot imagine that DTRW would sound any better in Hi-Res.
It won't.
Not even Mozart would.
CDs can be made to sound perfect.
44.1khz is enough to reproduce frequencies up to 22.05khz, whereas your ear can't hear beyong 20hkz (most probably way less), you are not a dog.
And 16 bits is enough dynamics (with proper dithering) to reproduce a range from the drop a needle to the noise of a 747 taking off next to you.
"Hi-Res" is bullshit.
So is the so-called superiority of vynil. But at least, vynil has the nostalgia factor and nice 12'' covers going for it.
"High-res" has nothing going for it - neither technically nor emotionally.
Absolutely!
The reason some vinyl records sound better might be that these releases are not overcompressed due to the loudness war like the CD versions and thus have better dynamics.
The reason many records of today sound so bad is the production and not the format - most people cannot even hear a difference between a MP3 with 320kbps and a CD. How should they notice frequencies beyond the capability of the human ear?
But as long as there are so many people believing this BS like Neil Young's PONO - you can make a lot of money with it...
As Alan Parsons once said: "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment."
-
Maybe it's just my set up but I definitely find vinyl to be "warmer" with more MIDs than digital and less sterile.
Plus there's something cool about old records. New records not so much but MK's are just beautiful. Beautiful packaging, labels,inserts etc, they just ooze class. Plastic CD box just ain't the same.
-
Some useful info on the topic here: https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/
-
Some useful info on the topic here: https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/
Interesting but a bit convoluted: this article also talks about the sampling rate but draws no conclusion from it; it also says that "24 bit only sound slightly better than 16 bit" which is too weak a statement: it just sounds the same.
I prefer this paper, which explains everything very well: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Bottom line, and I am 100% sure of that:
1) Redbook CD resolutions (44.1Khz/16 bits) are enough to have a PERFECT playback, provided of course that the CD was properly mastered an engineered. If your CD does not sound good, don't blame the medium, blame the mastering and/or the engineering of the disc;
2) Neil Young and others adovocate of so-called "high-res sound" are lying to you, or to themselves, or both;
3) Same goes for Vinyl so-called "warmth", only due to imperfections. At least the vinyl has an emotional case going for it: nostalgia, fun, big covers...
-
Funny that Herlock is 100% sure of things which otherwise are controversial. I’d invite him round to show him in my pretty high end system examples of where hi res sounds better than 16/44, but I suspect he has closed ears on the subject so there would be little point.
Can anyone think of another example of a computer standard which was fixed in 1980 and is still valid? More to the point, the reason that many early transfers to digital were disappointing is that they used a brick wall filter to get rid of frequencies above the crucial Nyquist cut-off for 16/44 of 22.05 kHz. This had a serious impact on sound quality. Things are much better now, but there are still issues with the techniques used to filter off unwanted frequencies. It’s much better to use say 96kHz, which takes filtering issues well away from the audible spectrum. Having said all that, I find it easier to tell the difference between 24 bits and 16 than I do the sampling frequency. Incidentally, there’s a good double page spread in HiFi News every month where high res issues are reviewed and analysed.
I realise that most here aren’t terribly interested in this subject, but I can’t let Herlock's ‘100% certainties' go unchallenged. As it happens, I agree with him about vinyl, though it can sound good. But even if he thinks me self-delusional, I hope he agrees I should have been allowed to waste my money on a high res version of DTRW, just as I did with Privateering and Tracker.
-
Funny that Herlock is 100% sure of things which otherwise are controversial. I’d invite him round to show him in my pretty high end system examples of where hi res sounds better than 16/44, but I suspect he has closed ears on the subject so there would be little point.
Can anyone think of another example of a computer standard which was fixed in 1980 and is still valid? More to the point, the reason that many early transfers to digital were disappointing is that they used a brick wall filter to get rid of frequencies above the crucial Nyquist cut-off for 16/44 of 22.05 kHz. This had a serious impact on sound quality. Things are much better now, but there are still issues with the techniques used to filter off unwanted frequencies. It’s much better to use say 96kHz, which takes filtering issues well away from the audible spectrum. Having said all that, I find it easier to tell the difference between 24 bits and 16 than I do the sampling frequency. Incidentally, there’s a good double page spread in HiFi News every month where high res issues are reviewed and analysed.
I realise that most here aren’t terribly interested in this subject, but I can’t let Herlock's ‘100% certainties' go unchallenged. As it happens, I agree with him about vinyl, though it can sound good. But even if he thinks me self-delusional, I hope he agrees I should have been allowed to waste my money on a high res version of DTRW, just as I did with Privateering and Tracker.
How do you subjectively experience that 24 bit is better than 16 bit (honest question)? Is it a lower noise floor? (I'm somewhere in between the subjectivist and objectivist camps as far as all things hifi are concerned :) )
-
Funny that Herlock is 100% sure of things which otherwise are controversial. I’d invite him round to show him in my pretty high end system examples of where hi res sounds better than 16/44, but I suspect he has closed ears on the subject so there would be little point.
Can anyone think of another example of a computer standard which was fixed in 1980 and is still valid? More to the point, the reason that many early transfers to digital were disappointing is that they used a brick wall filter to get rid of frequencies above the crucial Nyquist cut-off for 16/44 of 22.05 kHz. This had a serious impact on sound quality. Things are much better now, but there are still issues with the techniques used to filter off unwanted frequencies. It’s much better to use say 96kHz, which takes filtering issues well away from the audible spectrum. Having said all that, I find it easier to tell the difference between 24 bits and 16 than I do the sampling frequency. Incidentally, there’s a good double page spread in HiFi News every month where high res issues are reviewed and analysed.
I realise that most here aren’t terribly interested in this subject, but I can’t let Herlock's ‘100% certainties' go unchallenged. As it happens, I agree with him about vinyl, though it can sound good. But even if he thinks me self-delusional, I hope he agrees I should have been allowed to waste my money on a high res version of DTRW, just as I did with Privateering and Tracker.
-It is not about refuting me, but the two well-documented papers quoted on this thread. I read nothing from you on the 24-bit side...
-I have never said that higher resolutions were not useful for *studio processing*. I said they were useless for *final playback*, which is way different. As explained in the paper I quoted, when recording every instrument on a different track, you may want to record ultrasounds, because when mixing these ultrasounds may interfere and produce sounds in audible frequencies. But during playback of a stereo mix, untrasounds are useless - you are not a dog, so you can't hear them, period.
-I have never said that vynils sound bad. They can sound pretty good (although limited to 60db, even less than 16 bit equivalent). I just said that they did not sound any better.
Sorry to say that I read nothing from you that will change my mind that you wasted your money on a so-called "high-res" system... But you can't fight religious beliefs :)
-
I didn’t say I had a 'high res' system. I said I had a high end system, in other words one that is capable of good quality reproduction of music. Good enough, in fact, to be able to differentiate between MP3, CD and higher res on a reasonably reliable basis (the differences between the latter two can be subtle and recording dependent. I listen mainly to classical which, with more realistic recording, can show the differences more effectively. I note that Herlock declines to debate the significance of cut-off filtering, which can be one of the critical weaknesses of 16/44. There’s plenty of scientific evidence for this, and if I have to, I’ll look some up. But I suspect that the two of us will never agree as he refuses to use his ears.
Re Hunter's question on how the differences manifest themselves: it’s not really a significantly different noise floor, at least not heard like that, though there is sometimes more detail observable at 24/96. Generally though, there’s an ease about listening at higher res, a feeling of greater 'certainty' about the sound, greater solidity in the stereo image. I find it makes listening more relaxing. These things can be relatively subtle, but they’re not negligible if you care about sound quality.
If anyone reading this lives anywhere near Guildford, PM me if you’d like a demo. I can limit this to MK's music if preferred!
-
You know nothing about me, so I'm kind of puzzled that you judge my ears or my will to debate. I am always open to debate, provided it is fact-based...
As you said it yourself, cut-off was a problem of the past, for the first CDs, and higher sampling frequencies are useful... In studio. Once the master is finished in high resolution, "downgrading" it to 16/44 is no problem at all with modern technology. Do you seriously believe that a CD engineered in British Grove Studio would have a cut-off problem ? C'mon ! You talk about debate, but have you read the article I posted, which explains very well how we can today produce perfect CDs ? Reading your arguments I doubt it...
Relax anyway, I am not the least hostile to you ! :) Point noted about your high-end system, this is a point we agree, a proper hi-fi amplified/set of speakers/DAC matter far more than the playback medium !
One question for you: when you compare 16/44 to higher resolutions, are you comparing the same master ? By introducing a limitation loop on the high-res recording ? It is soooo easy to have a better master on the supposedly better medium, and wrongly conclude that the difference lies on the medium ! The basis of a fair comparison is to change only one factor at a time ! Did you do proper A/B/X double blind tests, as described in my article ?
Cheers man, let's no fight over sound technology, it is not worth it :)
-
Truce agreed. And I also agree it's important that you've checked that you're listening to the same master when comparing resolution. Now, I'll get back to my self-delusional high res listening!
-
Truce agreed. And I also agree it's important that you've checked that you're listening to the same master when comparing resolution. Now, I'll get back to my self-delusional high res listening!
:)
I'll get back to listening DTRW with my plain, ordinary, 80's-ish, outdated, ridiculous, low-res 16/44 deluxe Redbook CD, on my nice LG player, amplifier and speakers - my barbarian's ears are perfectly happy with this ;)
-
Folks I have a 4892-bit version through thermonuclear reactors, so all of you just shut up
-
I am looking for blind test studies on the matter.
The last one I got, people were preferring MP3 sourced audio over studio quality sample.
That sound like shit to read this but it tells a lot about how our ear is cheating us when talking about "taste" when we have to choose in all (blinded) objectivity.
-
320kb/s MP3, despite being lossy, can be made to sound almost perfect.
Unless you listen to classical music on a very high-end system, it will be hard for most people to tell the difference with CD quality.
Proper mastering and quality of player, amplifier and speakers matter 100000 times more than the final medium, provided it is not shitty 128kb/s MP3...
A rock-solid simple CD player with a good DAC, a hi-fi amplifier and great speakers is all what you need for fantastic playbay, provided you careful choose CDs that are well mastered and not brickwalled...
This is when I want to treat myself with a quality listen, like DTRW first listen; most of the times I am happy with my Samsung sending Google Play MP3s via Bluetooth to my Blu-Ray player, which is technically horrible but still quite enjoyable !
Forget about LP, SACD, DVD-A, HDCD, 192/24 flac files... All useless :)
-
Oh, c'mon, Herlock. I thought we’d agreed a truce!
But I do listen mainly to classical music on a high end system.
Actually, I’ve been surprised once or twice by how decent 320k MP3 can be made to sound. Certainly adequate for non-critical listening such as in the car. (But I remember that once or twice cassettes didn’t sound too bad. And they’re the work of the devil!) But it ain’t as good as CD which ain’t as good as high res. Enough!
-
While we have human ears, hi-res, wav, cd, flac, 320 kps MP3, vinyl and cassette, played in a good sound system, is going to sound quite the same good quality.
-
While we have human ears, hi-res, wav, cd, flac, 320 kps MP3, vinyl and cassette, played in a good sound system, is going to sound quite the same good quality.
Exactly.
Ok, I won't argue any more about "high-res".
Anyway there is no market for it.
Most consummers are happy to listen to shitty music in shitty 128kb/s MP3 on shitty Apple players with shitty loudspeakers. CD is for them a thing of the 80s, and high-res is a geek thing they never heard about.
Let's all agree that the most important things are 1) proper mastering with no brickwalling, with professional oversampling and anti-aliasing fitering and 2) a quality hi-fi chain, DAC/Amplifier/speakers.
The rest is "sodomizing the flies",as we say in (slang) French :)
-
Oh, c'mon, Herlock. I thought we’d agreed a truce!
But I do listen mainly to classical music on a high end system.
Actually, I’ve been surprised once or twice by how decent 320k MP3 can be made to sound. Certainly adequate for non-critical listening such as in the car. (But I remember that once or twice cassettes didn’t sound too bad. And they’re the work of the devil!) But it ain’t as good as CD which ain’t as good as high res. Enough!
Actually in the car volume can be so high (for example while travelling on a highway) that's exactly the moment a 320k mp3 is not enough
-
Interesting discussion.
But!
It all means nothing if the music isn't great.
I had Brothers in Arms and the Money for Nothing comp on tape in the 80s and would play them on my Sanyo walkman and Aiwa ghetto blaster.
Loved every minute.
-
I see a direct relation between the way the sound fetishism of Guy and Mark increases and the way the musical quality scales down. Not that Mark has ever produced something bad sounding.
LE
-
I see a direct relation between the way the sound fetishism of Guy and Mark increases and the way the musical quality scales down. Not that Mark has ever produced something bad sounding.
LE
Made me think about Guy bragging about manual fade-outs. Man, if people can at least try to discuss the properties of High Definition audio, I think NOBODY, and I mean — nobody will hear the difference between manual and automatic fade-outs. Stuff like this to me is a complete fetishism and another sign of overproduction.
-
Made me think about Guy bragging about manual fade-outs. Man, if people can at least try to discuss the properties of High Definition audio, I think NOBODY, and I mean — nobody will hear the difference between manual and automatic fade-outs. Stuff like this to me is a complete fetishism and another sign of overproduction.
There is a case for manual fades as it's easier to control the curve in real time. Linear fades don't work that well (and although you can shape the curve in ProTools, I would tend to use a manual fade as well as it seems quicker and more intuitive). I suppose they master to tape in real time after all automation is final.
-
My Bacon Roll is faded out but at the very end of the fade you can hear that it has a "proper" ending. What kind of art is that?
LE
-
My Bacon Roll is faded out but at the very end of the fade you can hear that it has a "proper" ending. What kind of art is that?
LE
You got quite the ear... An interesting observation and ridiculous fact on its own. Pretty sure it's the best manual fade out they'd ever done.
-
several songs has this in rock history (I am preparing an article on blog about this) :
firsts that came to mind are :
Springsteen Glory days
Stones stray cat blues
Harrison Art of dying
I think they are more of course
-
I am not critizing it. It us just unusual to me and this is really a thing l would love to hear or read Guy talking about. It's a nice effect but makes me enjoying it and feel unsatisfied at the same time.
I am sure Guy would have good reasons for it.
LE
-
Herlock will be relieved to hear that Guy has described a hi res issue of DTRW as being 'on the back burner'. In other words, it ain’t going to happen, even though he’d earlier said it would. A bit like playing BotDF live, I suppose!
-
24/96 ?
we are lucky to have the cd version, after the kemper used by MK we could get only a 320k mp3 for the next album with a Zoom or Digitech instead of the Kemper
-
24/96 ?
we are lucky to have the cd version, after the kemper used by MK we could get only a 320k mp3 for the next album with a Zoom or Digitech instead of the Kemper
Stop it PensaGhost, you're starting to list the contents of my teenage bedroom ;D :D.....
-
Herlock will be relieved to hear that Guy has described a hi res issue of DTRW as being 'on the back burner'. In other words, it ain’t going to happen, even though he’d earlier said it would. A bit like playing BotDF live, I suppose!
I'm not relieved. I just completely don't care :)
Well this does not apply to BOTDF live. That is sad...
-
The US tour had not begun yet.
-
The US tour had not begun yet.
Stay tuned
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1838/0*YDNrlVEkls6wZSA4.jpg)
-
24/96 ?
we are lucky to have the cd version, after the kemper used by MK we could get only a 320k mp3 for the next album with a Zoom or Digitech instead of the Kemper
Stop it PensaGhost, you're starting to list the contents of my teenage bedroom ;D :D.....
MK is going in that direction unfortunately ;D ;D
-
24/96 ?
we are lucky to have the cd version, after the kemper used by MK we could get only a 320k mp3 for the next album with a Zoom or Digitech instead of the Kemper
Stop it PensaGhost, you're starting to list the contents of my teenage bedroom ;D :D.....
MK is going in that direction unfortunately ;D ;D
Do you really think the kempers are that bad? I got hold of one myself through work just over a year ago and I have to say for what they are they are impressive and take amp modeling to a whole new space I never believed was possible.
To me it's a bit like the evolution of computer drums. Having run my own recording studio for way too many years I hated anything to do with synthetic drums, they were man's biggest evil, but then from about 15 years or so ago hearing what was possible with the latest itterations of Steinberg groove agent, addictive drums, and numerous other brilliant bits of software since I have to say that now I rarely ever use live drums. They take too long to set up, the mic placements can be a nightmare, and why go to the trouble when I can get better results with 30 minutes midi programming which can be tweaked and altered right down to the smallest of details right up to final mix....
The kempers are definitely a game changer. Just interested in the thoughts of a fellow musician....
-
24/96 ?
we are lucky to have the cd version, after the kemper used by MK we could get only a 320k mp3 for the next album with a Zoom or Digitech instead of the Kemper
Stop it PensaGhost, you're starting to list the contents of my teenage bedroom ;D :D.....
MK is going in that direction unfortunately ;D ;D
Do you really think the kempers are that bad? I got hold of one myself through work just over a year ago and I have to say for what they are they are impressive and take amp modeling to a whole new space I never believed was possible.
To me it's a bit like the evolution of computer drums. Having run my own recording studio for way too many years I hated anything to do with synthetic drums, they were man's biggest evil, but then from about 15 years or so ago hearing what was possible with the latest itterations of Steinberg groove agent, addictive drums, and numerous other brilliant bits of software since I have to say that now I rarely ever use live drums. They take too long to set up, the mic placements can be a nightmare, and why go to the trouble when I can get better results with 30 minutes midi programming which can be tweaked and altered right down to the smallest of details right up to final mix....
The kempers are definitely a game changer. Just interested in the thoughts of a fellow musician....
they are impressive for any amateur player, with only 2k euros you can have lots of high quality amps, it's great from that point of view yes but it's just ridiculous that a guitar legend tours with a kemper
when I was at the concert in Milan I immediately understood there was some crap going on, first time for the last 30 years I have heard that from MK
even Guy Fletcher admitted that they do not sound like a real amp few days ago in his forum
-
24/96 ?
we are lucky to have the cd version, after the kemper used by MK we could get only a 320k mp3 for the next album with a Zoom or Digitech instead of the Kemper
Stop it PensaGhost, you're starting to list the contents of my teenage bedroom ;D :D.....
MK is going in that direction unfortunately ;D ;D
Do you really think the kempers are that bad? I got hold of one myself through work just over a year ago and I have to say for what they are they are impressive and take amp modeling to a whole new space I never believed was possible.
To me it's a bit like the evolution of computer drums. Having run my own recording studio for way too many years I hated anything to do with synthetic drums, they were man's biggest evil, but then from about 15 years or so ago hearing what was possible with the latest itterations of Steinberg groove agent, addictive drums, and numerous other brilliant bits of software since I have to say that now I rarely ever use live drums. They take too long to set up, the mic placements can be a nightmare, and why go to the trouble when I can get better results with 30 minutes midi programming which can be tweaked and altered right down to the smallest of details right up to final mix....
The kempers are definitely a game changer. Just interested in the thoughts of a fellow musician....
they are impressive for any amateur player, with only 2k euros you can have lots of high quality amps, it's great from that point of view yes but it's just ridiculous that a guitar legend tours with a kemper
when I was at the concert in Milan I immediately understood there was some crap going on, first time for the last 30 years I have heard that from MK
even Guy Fletcher admitted that they do not sound like a real amp few days ago in his forum
I do understand what you mean....
If you get the chance to mess about with a Kemper take it and you'll see why perhaps the touring artist would choose to use them over the bespoke amp route. I agree with you that you can never truly replace a proper rig but these things (just like computer drum technology) are getting dangerously close.....
Wonder if anyone has done some blind tests using the kempers and equivalent rigs?
-
My Bacon Roll is faded out but at the very end of the fade you can hear that it has a "proper" ending. What kind of art is that?
LE
I always had this suspicion that How Long also had a proper ending but they just faded out on top of it.