Speaker Testing CDs?

Bummer.

NoCoPilot wrote:

AArrrgggghh.  Would you use a 1520x1080 picture for an icon?  Would you buy a Ferrari for hauling the kids to daycare?  Would you put $300 scotch in a punch?

1. For the original source picture, yes.
2. Yes.
3. I don't like scotch.

There are a lot of articles on mastering which explain why 24 bits are preferred for mastering.

Yeah I know. And the reason is the one I gave.

My question was, what's the point of mastering a 1950s Miles Davis recording in 24 or 20 bit if you have to convert to 16/44 anyway?

I doubt that I can answer this question to your satisfaction, NoCo. Nor to mine, either, actually.

The articles I have read and the forums I have scanned almost universally agree that when using greater bit depth and sampling rates, the mastering process can produce a better result when the final conversion to 16-44.1 is done. To me, this makes sense: you're using data that require less quantization, so you should be able to get through the mastering process with less noise and error introduced by the process itself.

Yes, a 24/96 master would be a more faithful copy of the analog master.

Of that there is no dispute.

What I don't understand -- and I guess you don't either -- is how 24/96 master downsampled to 16/44 is any better than a 16/44 original master. It makes no sense.

Of course there's a lot of hokum in audio. Perhaps it does *not* make sense.

NoCoPilot wrote:

What I don't understand -- and I guess you don't either -- is how  24/96 master downsampled to 16/44 is any better than a 16/44 original master.  It makes no sense.

I thought that was what I just addressed. We must differentiate between the source recordings and the master, which is a product of one or more source recordings after being subjected to a sometimes lengthy process. A source consisting of 24/96 data (whether initially recorded digitally at 24/96 or as a 24/96 conversion of analog tapes) allows for cleaner manipulation of the data during the creation of the master.

So you're thinking, after they take a 24/96 digital copy of the analog master tape, that's when they start fiddling with the sound? I suppose that makes sense -- brick wall compression, iron fist noise reduction, missed track starts/early track fadeouts.... Sounds about right.

Shitty masters can be made from anything. The recording "engineers" (knob twisters) have been proving that to us for many years now.

Some mastering engineers -- I can think of four -- are absolute wizards. Magicians.

But they're rarer than hen's teeth.

Unfortunately, true.

Of course we can't always blame the engineers. Don't forget the producers. They're the ones who want constant noise.

And we must keep in mind that masters for LPs, CDs, and iPods are different animals.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Ah-hem.  The first playing of Flim & the BBs was decidedly unimpressive -- the recording was very thin and hissy.  The bass was there -- and the drums were nice and sharp -- but in comparison to other Flim CDs or anything resembling high fidelity, it was not impressive.

Maybe I'll end up EQing it afterall....  

Where are you getting the input for your recording? Stylus output? Phono preamp? Preamp output? Just wondering if you are losing the RIAA curve.

My new turntable -- detailed elsewhere -- has an RIAA curve on the preamp I had to buy for it. It also has a nice flat response, neutral cartridge, inaudible rumble and no noticeable W&F. In A - B-ing a CD and LP with matching masters, the turntable was a shade less present in the high end, and a shade MORE present in the mid-bass : exactly the opposite of the EQ curves I had to apply to Flim.

Oh well. Originalism is for black Supreme Court justices.

Yeah, that's what the phono amp does - it restores the proper EQ.

What do you mean by "matching masters" for a CD and an LP? It's always been my understanding that studio masters for the two devices are very different. Which you have been experiencing in your recent travails.

Marc Johnson "Bass Desires" 1986 LP and 1986 CD, no mention of remastering on either one and no audible evidence of remastering. Playing the two simultaneously and switching between them revealed minor tonal balance differences. On the CD the high end was brighter, on the LP the mid-bass was a bit thicker. Low bass the CD was more prominent.

I believe, aside from the premastering required to cut an LP, there is no reason an LP and a CD can't be cut from the same master.

If by "master" you are referring to the original source recording, then you're absolutely right. No reason that cannot be used  as the source for both CD and LP printing masters.

A few weeks ago, I went to Amazon to buy a half dozen jazz CDs for my sister. Every damn one of them I looked at was labeled "Remastered!" That word bothers me so much that I wound up not buying any.

What I like to see is something like this note on an old Coltrane CD:

Quote :

The music on the CompactDisc was originally recorded on analog equipment. The sound of the original recording is reproduced here with utmost accuracy. Because of its high resolution, however, the CompactDisc can reveal the limitations of the source tape.

I'm agnostic about remasters. Many I've heard are fabulous. But I also think the music industry is eating its young by constantly recirculating music from 40 years ago instead of developing new artists for the future.

Some remasters are necessary. No doubt about that. But the trend created by the noise wars makes me hesitant to buy anything that was remastered in the past decade.

There actually are some fairly good young artists out there; you just never hear about them because they are on small labels. I don't think I've more than a half dozen recordings from the past ten or fifteen years other than those given to me by my daughter.

Since your daughter is in the biz she might have some pretty good recommendations.

I know a lot of musicians. I am tuned into a lot of forums where musc is discussed. There are some really interesting things going on out there.

But the mainstream doesn't know about them.

My daughter's tastes in music are eclectic. From Miles Davis to Captain Beefheart to Johnny Cash.
Or should that be "taste in music is eclectic"?
Never mind. I just Googled the definition of eclectic and the example they gave is "her musical tastes are eclectic". No kidding; Google "eclectic".


I will ask her if she has anything that might appeal to someone with music tastes similar to mine (which yours seem to be, largely). She took over a new label last year - well, the American operations of the label - so I am not yet familiar with any of those artists. But she may have some suggestions.

_Howard wrote:

I just Googled the definition of eclectic and ...

They had my picture?

NoCoPilot wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Tricycle is available both in gold disc and in SACD (unless they're one-and-the-same?)

Yup, one and the same.

Wikipedia wrote:

DMP Records released two of their albums "Tricycle" and "Big Notes" on a limited edition gold plated disc.

Tricycle gold disc, $188.00
Big Notes gold disc, $252.97

I've been checking now and then online for Flim SACD or Gold Discs at less than exorbitant prices. Finally last week I caught a gold disc of Tricycle for under $20 so I jumped on it -- not knowing if the seller was aware of the difference, and might be selling a standard old tin tricycle as a gold-plated vehicle.

Well it came today and goshbygolly it really *IS* a 24-karat gold disc, 20-bit remastered. I was quite frankly surprised.

Playing it now, comparing closely with the standard 16/44.

As expected, I can't hear any difference.

Nevertheless I'm sure I could sell it any day of the week for $200.

I looked up Flim's releases and found three releases of Tricycle. The original in 1983, a gold CD in 1994 and an SACD release in 1999 (the year that SACD was introduced).

I found no indication that the SACD release was on a gold disc, so I believe your gold disc is red book. There is no reason you should hear any difference, because it's all the same data.

Gold discs do look really cool. Back in the day, a gold CD was typically priced $20 or so above the standard CD. Don't know why Flim's label thought that $188 was a reasonable price.

My understanding -- flawed though it is -- according to the cover -- this is a "20-bit remastering" of the original 50.4 KHz digital recording --

• no indication of the bit depth of the original Mitsubishi X-80 digital recorder used for the session
  
• or the sampling frequency of the 20-bit remaster
  

Once this 2-track live digital master tape has been "remastered" to 20-bit, it then has "remastered" again to 16-bit 44.1 KHz to make the Red Book CD master.

So, I don't know what good the intermediate 20-bit step does.

Just looks good on the cover probably.

Incidentally, the SACD, although *I believe* it is capable of being in 24/96 reesolution, for "Tricycle" this is also a 20-bit remaster.

I can see how 20-bits would allow for more precise "fiddling" by the engineers. But I haven't the knowledge of the intimate practices of these folks to give any definitive reasons for it. Compare it to editing a photograph. If you start with a very-high-resolution photo, you have more options when you are editing it, even if your final product is lower resolution. That may or may not be a good analogy.

SACD uses one-bit DSD recording.