Time Out
It’s the end of the holiday weekend and it was a busy one. Thanksgiving Day in Ventura, my 32nd wedding anniversary on Black Friday, a surprise birthday party for my lovely wife Mona (yes she was surprised), and today it’s my youngest son’s birthday (and Mona’s)…I’m kind of glad to be returning to the routine tomorrow.
As I checked emails and responded to the daily comments, I noticed an article and some comments on Linked In that I thought I would share. Here’s one for starters:
“I think hi-res is just taking off now with normal people, with Neil behind it, people will pay attention to it. There has never been a better time to be an audiophile than now, we finally have access to uncompressed LPCM 24/96-192K original master recordings. Neil Young hates vinyl and CDs because they both compress the dynamics but he loves Blu-ray and hi res downloading, he released his entire collection on Blu-ray and now we see Jimmy Page remastering the Led Zep albums the same way, all for downloading or Blu-ray Pure Audio discs.”
Is this the best time to be an audiophile? I’m not so sure. Recordings are getting more and more compressed! There are download sites like HDtracks that provide transfers of the original master tapes in high-resolution formats but contrary to the comment, we do not have access to “uncompressed LPCM 24/96/192K original master recordings”. No such thing exists! The downloads being provided by the high-resolution download sites are transfers of standard analog master tapes. Led Zeppelin didn’t record using 96 kHz/24-bit LPCM for their masters.
I find it interesting that the comments references Neil Young and his aversion to vinyl and CDs. Actually when I spoke to Neil, he supported vinyl LPs but he railed against the compromises inherent in CDs. So why is his Ponomusic site populated with 99.9% CD spec rips instead of real HD-Audio? I’ll have to ask him.
As for Blu-ray Pure audio discs, neither Jimmy Page nor Neil Young have released any of their albums on Blu-ray Pure Audio. It’s all about downloads not physical discs. Forget about Blu-ray Pure Audio…more hype and confusing specifications. The advocates say it has the capacity for “ultimate fidelity” but they fail to note that every single Blu-ray Pure Audio disc is a rehashed standard resolution copy of an older recording in a more expensive disc format. Just buy the CD at Walmart for $7 and rip it yourself.
Here’s another comment from a so-called expert:
“MP3 music files are dynamically compressed 10 to 1, about the same as a vinyl album, with a dynamic range of about 60 dB. On headphones, the loss of dynamic range is not as bad as it would be if you played the same music on a real full range speaker in-room.”
The writer doesn’t understand the difference between dynamic compression and data compression. MP3 files are data compressed from CD standard rates of 10.6 megabytes per minute to around 1 megabyte per minute at 128 kbps…a moderate quality MP3 file. That is about 10 to 1. But vinyl LPs aren’t dynamically compressed or data compressed. Disc cutting mastering engineers do use tools to get the audio into the grooves but I don’t know of any disc cutter compressing this 10 to 1. The dynamic range remains unaltered between the source file and the lossy MP3 compressed file. The source CD is going to sound better than the MP3 but not because of any dynamic range reduction.
There’s as much truth in the comment about headphones vs. speakers as the compression comments.
Finally, there was this by a very knowledgeable advocate for analog tape:
“In the cutting room a lacquer cut has about 90 dB S/N and a well pressed record keeps close. A true linear system.”
This might be true in the very unique circumstance of a Direct Metal Master or Direct to Disc recording but it’s definitely not true with 99% of the vinyl LPs or lacquer masters that have been cut from third generation analog tapes. Analog tape delivers far less than 90 dB SNR…more like 60-72 under perfect conditions and first generation. In the real world analog tapes deliver about 30-40 dB SNR. Lacquer masters are cut from the analog master tapes. So how is the lacquer cut going to increase the dynamic range?
Read carefully…very carefully.
The one saving grace of Blu-Ray audio is that some releases imclude 5.1 mixes of some really great recordings–not all, but some. As far as I know, that is the only way to get those mixes. Not available as downloads.
Good point, I love surround music…but really how many of them have 5.1 surround mixes?
Certainly all the SACD and DVD-Audio titles I’ve purchased are 5.1 apart from two SACD when I didn’t realize SACD came with stereo only releases.
Of course not all are from digital recordings but still sound fine to me.
My two cents worth… I used to build very high quality speakers and I currently use CLASS A amps with my speakers. I have always been a Vinyl records in the past as my favorite source for the best rock recordings. I was a big fan of the Mobile Fidelity releases and the virgin vinyl Japan releases. My music is more ART ROCK / Progressive Rock. My favorite bands are YES, Supertramp, Genesis, Peter Gabriel, and King Crimson. Recently Steven Wilson has released many of the albums of YES and King Crimson using the BluRay format. They contain the original Mix (Eddie Offord for YES for instance), a stereo high resolution mix and a 5.1 mix (Some are really 4.1 because the center channel is not always used). These recordings reveal details that I never heard in the original recordings. This does not mean that a simple CD struck from these new mixes would not sound the same. I cannot say this for sure. But I can say that these are astounding and like hearing this material as new again! I love each one. So for me, I am buying these BluRay disks when they are from musicians which I enjoy. I agree that the dynamic range is limited but these bands did use dynamics as part of their “painting” of sound. So I will continue to search out and buy the BluRay versions of these for the highest possible quality sound from these original releases, and for the re-imagination of the surround sound versions as a wonderful bonus. I do agree that these new high resolution releases have the “potential” to be much more when not bound by the TAPE originals. But I can also tell you that with a top cartridge and turntable, good amps and speakers, these recordings where far better (Mobile Fidelity and Japan) then the commercial releases of the day. Today is new…. I am embracing the new format.
Mark
I’m with you on these new versions…and I enjoy these bands as well.
Given you are discussing vinyl here this is an opportune time to ask a question about some comments that were in circulation at the time CD’s first came out. Some experts noted that early CD’s sounded terrible because in a rush to get CD’s out some manufacturers went to the analogue master that was used to cut the vinyl stamping master. Of course this master tape recording would have (might have) had RIAA equalisation applied to it meaning the resultant CD, not having the compensating RIAA filter in the playback chain as would a phono amp, would sound strange. This could be apocryphal – I don’t now.
I have only one CD that came out at about that time for which I know have the SACD. That is Roxy Music, Avalon, The CD sound fine but for some reason the SACD sounds much better. Given they ostensibly come from the same original analogue master, that is interesting.
Early CDs didn’t show off the full potential of the format for a variety of reasons. The use of pre-emphasis, poor transfers from the wrong masters, bad analog to digital converters and digital to analog converters, and the growing pains of a new format. The RIAA curve stuff is true and it’s still happening today as tapes are readied for HD download sites. We’ve gotten better at all things digital…to the point that it makes no sense to embrace vinyl LPs or analog tape unless there’s repertoire that’s unavailable anywhere else.
As long as we’re talking misinformation here, time to correct a few errors.
A great many analog recordings were made with noise reduction systems, notably Dolby A Type, and later in the 1980s, Dolby SR. These were double-ended systems where the signal recorded on tape was encoded, and decided during play. They were exactly complimentary systems, and because of Dolbys methods the encode/decode processes tracked each other extremely well without audible artifact (unlike the lower cost dbx system). Dolby A extended the dynamic range of tape an additional 10 or more db, SR did it to 20dB.
Even non-Dolby analog tape did 72dB from a somewhat arbitrary high level resulting in tolerable distortion to the noise floor. Simple copies add 6dB of noise, but the mix down from multitrack wasn’t ever a simple copy as track levels we obviously adjusted during the mix. The resulting master didn’t necessarily suffer from the 6db noise buildup. Put either of the Dolby NR systems around it, and noise build became negligible.
Either way it’s not correct to say master tapes had 30 – 40dB dyanamic range. That would be unlistenable and a commercial disaster.
The RIAA recording characteristic used on vinyl was never rececorded on a tape. It couldn’t be, the curve has a 40dB range to it bottom to top end, and tape saturated easily at high frequencies. The RIAA curve is applied just prior to the cutter amps. Always. Early CDs never included the RIAA curve, that would have made them devoid of bass and unlistenable.
Some CDs were mastered from what’s known as an “equalized master”, a tape that included final level and minor EQ adjustments intended to make the resulting vinyl somehow better or more consistent. Many of these would make for lousy CDs though.
CD preemphasis is a fixed high frequency boost shelf applied to the cd master, but every CD has the inverse cut shelf curve built in, and the subcode preemphasis bit switches it in when required. The two are exactly complimentary, the result is flat response with less peak capacity at the high end. It wasn’t used much, but nobody ever heard the non-deemphasized version.
I haven’t addressed Dolby A or SR and DBX encoding/decoding with regards to analog tape. You’re right that they increased the signal to noise ratio but at a pretty substantial cost to accuracy…the alignment procedures and complexity were daunting. It was never seamless.
Without noise reduction, a very good 1/4″ 2-channel tape could maybe get to 72 (equivalent to 12 bits in PCM land)…but that’s under ideal conditions. 24-track machines, the multitrack standard of the time, didn’t get to 72 dB without noise reduction and the mixdowns to 2-track suffered the generation loss associated with analog copies. Mastering engineers (I was one of them for 13 years) forced that dynamic range down even further. You say that a dynamic range of 30-40 dB would be unlistenable…but those numbers would be considered good these days. Dynamic ranges of commercial releases now are less than that…a lot less. And yet they are commercially successful.
Masters used for cassette tapes have severe EQs applied to the master AND some of those EQ’d masters have been used for high-resolution transfers according to the head of a major mastering facility. Early CDs used pre-emphasis and other adjustments.
I stand by the information I presented.
Thanks Stephen…I missed going to the mile high city this year.
Hello Mark, Miss you not being at the Rocky Mountain Audiofest after seeing you two years straight. I’ve been reading some of your news letters and want to Thank You for letting us know what’s the Real deal(Truth) Is going on. Sometimes when we buy music and audio electronic equipment, we want to believe(other Marketing Corp., Advertiser& other Reviewer are saying) that it sounds good and its time when our brain plays tricks or lead us to believe it sounds OK. A Person like you comes along to Wake us up to see the Light(Real Truth) on whats going on. I have Experienced in my religious and Spiritual life thinking and Believing its one way and finding out its another whole kind of truth out there. I’m learning, remembering and being more Objective on keeping an curious, questionable and open mind. Again Thank You for Sharing your Talent and Expert Advise! Keep up the Great Work! Peace, Love and Oneness! Audio Lover- Stephen(Colorado Audio Society)
Dear Mark,
I would like to hear from you on the following article “New Methods for Quantifying Sonic Performance” that appeared at the The Absolute Sound Magazine, Website: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/new-methods-for-quantifying-sonic-performance/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-316, dated Nov.24/2014.
Thanks for your comments.
All the best, Ronaldo Franchini from Brazil.
Ronaldo…I’ve read the piece and their previous articles regarding the FLAC vs. WAV file stuff. I’ll pull together an article asap. I would like to run the comparisons myself on some of my content. I can say that I’m somewhat dubious about their findings.