Jim Alfredson Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Gizmodo weighs in: http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-young-is-selling-1678446860 I dunno; the writer failed to sway me. Even if what he writes is correct, his sneering tone makes me think his mind has preconceived notions. Take this for example: "The CD-quality standard—which Young and HRA proponents say isn't sufficient—wasn't adopted randomly. It's not a number plucked out of thin air. It's based on sampling theory and the actual limits of human hearing. To the human ear, audio sampled above 44.1 kHz/16-bit is inaudibly different." But I remember reading that within a few years of the CD's introduction, people thought 16-bit was inadequate. That's why even vinyl remasterings in the '90's touted 20- and 24-bit mastering. Yes, but that increased bit depth was in the mixing / production stage, not the final output stage. The bit depth of vinyl is essentially about 12bits if one were to convert vinyl specs into the digital world. Whenever you are processing digital audio it's always wise to use a higher bit-rate but for the final product 16bits gives you a theoretical 96db of dynamic range, which is more than enough for almost all music. Even the most dynamic orchestral recording usually has a swing of around 70db before the noise floor of the venue, the microphones, the preamps, and everything else starts to become a factor. A sample rate of 44.1kHz is also more than enough. I've done a lot of experiments. I even released a Blu-Ray version of my THEO album with stereo mixes in 24bit / 96kHz but honestly they don't sound any better than the 16bit / 44.1kHz mixes on the regular CD. As I mentioned in another thread, the low end on the 16bit mixes is a bit more "solidified" which is something 16bit does for some reason. It's not necessarily better, just slightly different. The cool part about the Blu-Ray is the surround mixes, imo. The argument that higher sampling rates result in more detail has never made any sense. It also goes against human physiology. Our ears can only hear up to 20kHz but most people don't even have that much upper end left. Most of us can only hear up to 16kHz or so due to hearing damage or simply age. Then there are the microphones that are used to capture the music. The majority of microphones drop off precipitously at 20kHz. Even some of the best only go to about 22kHz or so. There are a few measurement mics that go up to 30kHz but the majority of microphones in the average recording studio's mic locker do not capture much above 20kHz. Most dynamic mics, which are often used on drums, horns, and vocals, usually roll off steeply at 15kHz! And let's not forget the mic preamps that must amplify the minuscule electrical signal from the mic. They too are rarely linear beyond 20kHz... because why should they be? We can't hear that stuff anyway! And if the microphone isn't picking it up due to it's limitations and the preamp isn't amplifying it due to it's limitations, then how is it going to be on the recording? ESPECIALLY older, pre-digital recordings! The frequency response of even the best, well-maintained tape machine back then was barely over 25kHz. The upper frequency limit of 96kHz audio according to the Nyquist theorem is 48kHz. That's over twice what our ears can actually hear. For 192kHz it's 96kHz!!!! It's completely pointless. It would be like a TV manufacturer making a TV that can output colors in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. I don't care how good your eyes are, you cannot trump the physical bandwidth of your senses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Holy fuck, Jim! Can you copy that post and make it a sticky?! It would be like a TV manufacturer making a TV that can output colors in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. I don't care how good your eyes are, you cannot trump the physical bandwidth of your senses! Hence my comparison between allegedly hearing this big difference in "hi-res" music to having x-ray vision. But, at least I've found my new signature! Edited January 15, 2015 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 BTW, where did you get this: "The bit depth of vinyl is essentially about 12bits if one were to convert vinyl specs into the digital world." I know that a record's "bit rate" decreases as it plays, but wondered where that number comes from. Is it an average from outer to inner groove? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 It's definitely an estimation based on the dynamic range of vinyl which is only about 65db, maybe 70db if you really push it. Remember, bit depth is all about dynamic range. The dynamic range of 16bit audio is 96db. The dynamic range of 24bit is 144db. And remember that the decibel scale is logarithmic. So the difference between 96db and 144db is tremendous. The sampling rate determines the frequency range. Vinyl can actually reproduce supersonic frequencies above human hearing but that doesn't mean the needle, the phono pre, the amp, or the speakers can do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 I wonder how many folks who swear LPs are superior to digital would enjoy listening to digital at 12/44.1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) I've always felt new audio formats are doomed unless they do something substantially different to what is already there. Improved sound ceases to be an issue for most people after they've got what they consider to be 'good' sound (i.e. something they can listen to and enjoy without being distracted by imperfections). LPs, cassettes, CDs, downloads all succeeded because they made listening to music easier or more convenient. SACD was touted as the next big thing ten years ago (or more!) but has remained a minority interest of the audiophile. Similarly, those technologies from the 80s or 90s which ultimately survived as recording technologies rather than playback (can't recall what they were called). This new thing will survive or fall based on how far it can engage the audiophile. I'd predict a similar limited release future that you get with SACD. Seems to be different in the visual world - Bluray has caught on widely as a better visual experience than DVD even if it doesn't do much else different (except, perhaps, offer more space and audio possibilities). Maybe it's those big TV screens. Maybe it's just that people are more visually sensitive. Edited January 15, 2015 by A Lark Ascending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 It would be nice if we had more good new music and new opportunities for musicians instead of new formats recycling the same old music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 It would be nice if we had more good new music and new opportunities for musicians instead of new formats recycling the same old music. There is plenty of good new music. The problem is that it's simply variations on old music. I feel like the possibilities, especially in Jazz, have been exhausted. How far can you take it before it's no longer Jazz? Seems as though 60's era Free Jazz was the ceiling. European Improv certainly doesn't sound like Jazz, so where to go from here? A Lark, Blu-ray actually is higher resolution than DVD. The difference is especially noticeable on HD televisions. That said, audibly I find no difference between the two formats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 If there's so much good music, why is 95% of what's written here is about old music? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Reynolds Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) If there's so much good music, why is 95% of what's written here is about old music? I see and hear great new music live and on recordings quite often. Especially live - and fwiw, it's still jazz. This Friday if I could make it: Harris Eisenstadt/Michael Moore Then: Craig Taborn - Wurlitzer Mat Maneri - Viola Ches Smith - Drums Now they/someone needs to record these groups - especially the trio who have been very good to otherworldly the three times I've seen them. And it's new, fresh - twice free improv - the third time compositions by the drummer. Now with Taborn on electric!! Could be awesome!!! And it is without a doubt jazz - and no other trio sounds remotely like them! Edited January 15, 2015 by Steve Reynolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 If there's so much good music, why is 95% of what's written here is about old music? Old folks stuck in a rut? Seriously, it's like I said before, the new stuff is just variations on the old stuff. Which we all cut our teeth on. So it's no longer exciting and new. Either way, I started a thread about J.D. Allen some time back which caught little traction. I've also talked about Fredrik Kronkvist. The William Parker circle of friends still creates interesting music. There's all kinds of great new stuff out there. But, many on this board seem more concerned with the latest reissue/remaster of stuff from the 40's/50's/60's. No big deal, that's just the way most on this board roll. Doesn't mean there isn't plenty of great new music, it's just not their focus. Steve also mentioned some great modern artists above. Cats like Vijay Iyer and Brad Meldau have also been putting out some really interesting music. Taborn, etc... It may not be the golden age, but there is still a lot of great new material out there. Don't let those who choose to chase after the 12th reissue of a 50's Blue Note title make you think otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 I'm never short of new music to keep me entertained (in all sorts of styles and levels of...ahem...'seriousness'). Nor of old music that is new to my ears. Enormous diversity too, I'm just not interested in duplicating what I've already got in the search for 'the best possible sound'. Even my favourite records get played at best once every couple of years (after initially getting to know them). How many more times will I play them? Not enough to justify another copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 OH! And how could I have forgotten to mention Mary Halvorson in my post above?! She may be the most exciting modern artist currently. A Lark, I don't get the "must have every possible reissue/remaster available" thing either. There are a few cases where it pays off. A Love Supreme Deluxe Edition comes to mind because they finally had the first gen master, and the sound quality was a vast improvement over any of the previous issues. But, in most cases it's just a fetish. And more of a case of listening to their equipment more than the music itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Reynolds Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Scott - one day get to NY and we will go see Mary from less than 10 feet away. Last two times she was beyond incredible. 2 weeks ago with Jon Irabagon and Nasheet Waits. My wife loved her playing and her attitude. Her with the great drummer are an awesome pair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) My wife and I have it on our to do list, Steve. I haven't been there since I went to Viz back in '07. That's too long. This year we're going back to Phoenix to visit Kelly's grandmother, who isn't doing well these days. But we've got a NYC/Boston trip simmering. Hopefully next year. I'll let you know when it happens, though. Would love to see Mary up close. Not only is she a mean ass guitarists, but I think she's an absolute doll. Edited January 16, 2015 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.