-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
DTS music discs are my fav,just not much to choose from.
The answer's going to depend FAR more on how well it was mixed (in the case of a remix) and mastered, than on whether it's HDCD or SACD or DTS or whatever. And while subjectively it's going to come down to taste, the tendency since the early 90's or so has been to remaster stuff LOUDER than before, sometimes with ridiculous amounts of peak limiting and dynamic range compression....so it's no longer a safe bet that a 'remaster' will actually be of higher sonic quality than the previous issue (if it ever was).
-
Maybe but i've never got a remastered that wasnt better then the previous issue. Some just do it better then others also.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
Maybe but i've never got a remastered that wasnt better then the previous issue. Some just do it better then others also.
Well, given that psychoacousticaly, 'louder' tends to be interpreted as 'better', I suppose that's not too surprising. But I have some remasters that are just absurdly loud and dynamically compressed, compared to their previous issues. Some of those alas are also HDCD encoded.
-
Louder wasnt in my thinking of remastered being better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
Well, given that psychoacousticaly, 'louder' tends to be interpreted as 'better', I suppose that's not too surprising. But I have some remasters that are just absurdly loud and dynamically compressed, compared to their previous issues. Some of those alas are also HDCD encoded.
How do you know they are dynamically compressed? What would something dynamically compressed sound like? Also, while I also tend to think remasters sound louder, couldn't a lower noise floor be perceived as louder? I don't know, I'm just wondering out loud, ignorantly. Maybe a possible frame of reference would be the remaster of Kind of Blue? It sounds cleaner to me, more dynamic. I definately hear more detail. I can't say if it sounds or is louder, however, than the original issue. What's an example of a remaster you think is compressed?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
No noise is not a harmonic thing or acoustical musical instruments would make an awful lot of noise.
I guess I phrased that wrong. I know about musical instrument harmonics. From poor memory, I thougt that one of the reasons for increasing the sampling frequency higher than redbook 44.1 was that this lower sampling frequency supported/introduced(?) artificial potentially audible harmonic noise (that detract from music). Maybe I have it backward and that higher sample frequencies allowed retention of higher harmonic frequencies that are part of the music. A 44.1kHz rate supports a 22kHz wave...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
the tendency since the early 90's or so has been to remaster stuff LOUDER than before,
Another question I have (for TT too) is that if the limit for one end of the digital signal range is 0dB (maximal volume), then dynamic range is really greater extension toward silence, right? So are remaster's really mixed louder? Or is the peak tone on a track actually set at some -dB?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
First, this is not a shakti stone. It is a form of hemholtz resonator this is used as a diffusor. And yes, they actually work because it is based on sound scientific acoustical knowledge. Hemholtz resonators can be found in any audio, television, or film studio all over the world. I have two in my hometheater presently. If this is the basis of your argument, then you are on sand.
Quote:
I didn't say *none* of them do. Please read more carefully. But certainly the number of claims of difference I've read on the webpages and on forums frequented by RE's, *far* outnumber the stories about careful controlled comparison. Not everyone is Bob Katz , alas.
I cannot speak for all webpages or audio boards, I can speak for the ones I frequent. None of the ones I frequent do you see outrageous claims not being rebutted with science. Now you may frequent the ones full of amateur wanna bee recording engineers that get away with this, but not on the ones frequent.
Quote:
You can either *believe* that, or not. 'Recognize' implies that something has actually entered the realm of fact. It hasn't. Otherwise, you could say the same thing about Shakti Stones, couldn't you?
You have the option of interpreting whatever you desire, that is your right. However I have only conveyed my experience on this board. I have never portrayed my experience as word, just an opinion of one. For me, and based on my experience, some things have become "fact" for me, and me alone. Once again, you can choose to believe whatsoever you desire.
Quote:
Whereas sighted comparison can put you in a state where you convince yourself of something that simply isn't real.
And blinded comparisons can put you under such stress that everything sounds exactly alike, even when it doesn't.
Quote:
Industry uses blind tests every day to find out which products consumers find 'good ' versus 'better', btw. But in the case of the sheer volume of potential nonsense propounded in audio, I'm more concerned with first getting some good data on what sounds *different* -- we can worry about 'better' later.
That is your opinion, and what you desire. Other are different, and have other methodolgies for coming to their conclusions. Different strokes for differnt folks. I personally never asked for your concern.
Quote:
You might want to do some reading in perceptual psychology or psychoacoustics before you make statements like that. 'Bias' needn't be conscious. Simple differences in level, for example, often lead listeners to find the louder presentation to sound 'better' -- not louder.
Please, do not tell me to read anything. You do not know what I have read, or what I have not. Everything mentioned in this paragraph I have learned, forgotten, and relearned several times over. Please do not waste my time with information that is as widely available as water. Sometimes a louder presentation is just louder, and not better at all.
Quote:
Most people aren't really well-informed about perceptual illusions or the scientific method.
Maybe that's why.
How do you know, have you asked most people? Are you suggesting that everyone should be a naysayer or a yasayer. Some people choose neither, even when armed with information about perceptual illusions and scientfic methodology.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
The answer's going to depend FAR more on how well it was mixed (in the case of a remix) and mastered, than on whether it's HDCD or SACD or DTS or whatever. And while subjectively it's going to come down to taste, the tendency since the early 90's or so has been to remaster stuff LOUDER than before, sometimes with ridiculous amounts of peak limiting and dynamic range compression....so it's no longer a safe bet that a 'remaster' will actually be of higher sonic quality than the previous issue (if it ever was).
I think equal weight should be placed on both the format, and the mix. I case you didn't know this, a great mix can be ruined by the format. For example a well done 5.1 mix, mixed down to two channel.
Not all music genres are dogged with peak limiting, and compression artifacts. This kind of volume pushing is usually relegated to pop, and some forms of jazz. And most often on PCM based recordings.
As I have elluded to earlier, sometimes louder is just louder, and not perceived as better at all. I think it is a assumption on you part to believe that anyone believes that louder is better. In some cases yes, but not in all cases.
Each mix must be taken on its own merit. You cannot assume anything, or make any negative claims about any mix until it is heard, or analyzed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
Another question I have (for TT too) is that if the limit for one end of the digital signal range is 0dB (maximal volume), then dynamic range is really greater extension toward silence, right? So are remaster's really mixed louder? Or is the peak tone on a track actually set at some -dB?
The loudness of recordings are all over the place. Since the music industry has no standards for mixing and playback volumes, you can find recording mixed very hot, or not hot enough to overcome the noise floor.
As a guidline for myself, I try and keep my peaks about 4-6db below 0 to keep from introducing clipping to the signal during peaks. However it has been heard and measured that some albums are recording alot louder, with less dynamic range, and with audible and measureable clipping distortion. This occurs mostly in pop, rock, and some jazz, and mostly with PCM based formats, with the CD being the most guilty.
-
Medium vs. Recording Art
OK: in my system the best HDCDs sound noticably better than the best non-HDCDs.
The same is true for XRCD and super bit. It seems less true for the so called gold CDs.
The problem is that the worst HDCD, XRCD and Gold CDs sound just as awful as bad standard CDs.
The difference is fairly small on an absolute level but little steps are pretty much what audiophilia is about. The differences I perceive (between two good recordings) are similar in amount as those between two decent cables. Not as big as the difference between mass market cable and a much more expensive one.
Please note that my ability to hear these differences did not exist with my older all Denon 20 bit player and integrated amp system. I was pretty much in the "expensive cables are snake oil" camp. Now that I own a system that is close to 10 times the price of the Denon stuff suddenly I can hear small changes far better - duh.
The very best standard CDs recorded very carefully by a company, a recoding engineer and a band that cares about sound quality are very close to the best of the better formats I have heard. IMHO only abut 10% of all recordings qualify on a good day for these accolades.
In other words the industry as a whole could do a lot more for us in controlling quality than they could by pushing yet another "better" format at us. By the way this is true even for recording sessions that are 50 years old, when carefully done they sound very, very close to the best (I've heard) available today.
:cool:
|