Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 426
  1. #251
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    But, if the null result is relevant to the argument that you put forth, then why would those not be published, yet you demand "proof" if someone states the opposite argument? If you do all this writing and reviewing, and this point is so important to you, then why not put the argument to the test directly? You obviously have the technical know-how and the inclination, so what's the hang up? You talk about the supposed transparency of 44.1/16 as if it is proven by the links that you posted, yet it's all a bunch of tangental material that doesn't touch upon that question directly.
    If there has been tests with positives then it is easy to show the results. Null results does not mean much especially if there is a positive result somewhere that can be repeated with the specific test material used. The null results only means that the test failed at that particular test, with the participants, and with the equpiment and music material used. It means nothing else. So it is not at all proven that there is an inadubility, because it is not possible to do that. So I don't demand "proof of the negative", only when there is a positive. Why, becuase I am a researcher and music lover and want to know why I seldom find good quality music to buy - when I know there are excellent recordings on CD and thus an excellent medium. If there are claims that the medium is poor, I want to know why. It does not hurt to push a little to get the truth.

    Well, if you're assuming that CD audio quality is purposely doctored to sound inferior to SACD, then you'll just have to live with that compromised level of sound quality unless you upgrade to a high res player, right? Regardless of the reasons, I purchase high res discs because at a practical level, they represent an improvement in sound quality. As for whether the improvement is technically based or just due to better attention to detail, I could care less. It's the same reason why I bought half-speed mastered LPs 20 years ago. I didn't care if it was due to the half-speed cutting lathe, higher density vinyl, first generation source material, or just a better mastering engineer at work, bottomline was better audio quality and that's all that mattered. Any conclusions about causal effect would have been mindless speculation.

    Am I sure these high res discs represent improvements? Yes, because whether something sounds better is a subjective assessment. For example, recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder remastered a series of his classic jazz sessions on CD, and in my assessment some of the remastered CDs sound worse than before.
    There are a few excellent CD recordings and they sound fabolus, but I don't think I am only "assuming" that unessecary poor quality are deliberately put on CD. Analysing the signals, spectral content, dynamics and clipping show that it is really bad of many CDs. So-called remastered versions have often been modified to the worse. This does not happen by accident. Now can you come up to one reason why this happens on CD but not on high-res media? Finally (this will be my last post in this thread) if high-res takes over, there is nothing saying that in a couple of years, the quality will follow the CD route.

  2. #252
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer

    Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions.
    If all you claimed was that you unleashed a massive fart, I would say that even a naysayer would take that on faith. Now if you claimed that your farts smelled like roses, they'd want a DBT. Better yet, if you claimed that you could tell what someone just ate by their farts, that would demand some testing. If it turned out that you could discern a chili fart from a pizza fart, or beer farts from deviled egg farts, I for one would be impressed. I would personally resurrect Ted Mack's Amateur Hour on TV and put you on as a headliner!

    I see both sides of the high-rez vs redbook digital battle. On the one hand, I think it's premature to determine that high-rez is audibly better as far as mediums go. I agree that there needs to be testing first. On the other hand, the results are what truly matter to me. That is why I prefer vinyl over either digital medium - simply because the end result sounds better to my ears. Hell, I've got CASSETTES that sound better than CD's! The dozen or so SACD's I own sound better than their redbook counterparts. If that continues, I'm onboard. And what I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that redbook is not able to give us multi-channel audio and that alone should justify its existence.

  3. #253
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive.
    My claims (supported by identical claims by other engineers) have been published in non peer magazine call Surround Professional. Why are your non peer reviewed claims more valid than mine?

    Why is it so difficult to publish the fact that some people can hear a difference, and some people cannot? Some people have better hearing than others. Some people have more balanced hearing than others (more even frequency response between ears). Some can hear higher frequencies better than others. Does anyone check the hearing of the partcipants in these DBT? I get my hearing checked at least once every year so I know exactly what losses have taken place, and how this effects how I hear when mixing.

    Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?
    Well what if a null result came from all previous testing of a particular subject matter, in other words no previous positives. Do they still publish that?

    One more thing, the market will decide only if there is two or more formats present. And as I said if the recording engineers deliberately put poor quality on CD, then they are responsible for that. Not me.
    This statement is an insult to EVERY audio engineer out who is busting there ass to do a good job. Do you think they mix in a vaccum?? The artist and producer MUST approve the sound of any mix a audio engineer does, so if it sounds like crap, that what the producer wants to hear. You would be surprised how many times we try and talk producers out of doing something, only to be rejected. With all this experience that you have, I am disappointed that you do not know just what role the mixer plays in relationship to the producer/artist.

    Currently the film community has three formats. All three have been in co-existence since 1993. The market decided that all three can stay. Right now the consumer market is supporting DVD-A, SACD, MP3, CD, and vinyl LP. It has been this way for about 3 years or so, I don't really see any of them disappearing any time soon. So much for your theory or market trends.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  4. #254
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    This statement is an insult to EVERY audio engineer out who is busting there ass to do a good job. Do you think they mix in a vaccum?? The artist and producer MUST approve the sound of any mix a audio engineer does, so if it sounds like crap, that what the producer wants to hear. You would be surprised how many times we try and talk producers out of doing something, only to be rejected. With all this experience that you have, I am disappointed that you do not know just what role the mixer plays in relationship to the producer/artist.
    Since I'll leave this thread I only have one more question: How come the producer/artist don't want to hear crap when there is a new medium available, all of a sudden? Because they think the medium is better?

  5. #255
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    Since I'll leave this thread I only have one more question: How come the producer/artist don't want to hear crap when there is a new medium available, all of a sudden? Because they think the medium is better?
    There has always been a premium format for high quality release in audio. Years ago the compact disc was the premiere format, and the LP was the compromised one since it was used by the most radio station all over this country. The cassette replace the eight track.

    Now radio stations use the CD as the common release format, so it has to be all things to all audio formats. So CD's HAVE to be mixed so they sound well no matter what medium is used. That usually set's up compromises because all audio media do not treat audio the same way. DVD-A and SACD are not used in radio, or any other audio format that is broadcast over the air. It does not have to be compromised because it is not used anywhere but in your home, where the only compromise it is subjected to is a poorly set up system.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  6. #256
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720

    Of course, it's easy to master two discs differently, but with resolution as another variable, who am I to rule out one variable versus another? And supposing that 44.1/16 and the higher resolutions indeed are transparent to the source, why would they need to be mixed differently?


    How else are you to sell a new product? It is no better than the old one? You need an edge, mixing is it, unless there is evidence to support the hi res.


    Why and how can I rule out anything if I don't have the tools and access to make my own determination?

    You shouldn't, which includes a mix difference, especially in light of the original post how compressed the CD has become. Rather simple.



    But, if the high resolution is one of the variables on those discs, then it's remains a potential causal effect if I don't know anything about any differences in the mastering processes used for the different versions.


    Yes, it is a potential cause. However, you seem to automatically rule out other causes and seem to accept without evidence that then the hi res must be the cause effect.

    Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical,

    Check the original post on this. Seems obvious to me what is going on.

    or did they use a vinyl playback as a reference for a remaster of a vintage recording, or were they transferred from the same playback feed? Absent that information, I don't know the magnitude of one variable versus another, so why would I conceive a conclusion on the basis of incomplete information?

    That is what it seems to be. Automatic acceptance of the cause as hi res format.



    More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different,

    If that is the case, then case is closed. You have no idea why the difference. Since there is no evidence to support that it is the hi res. don't know what else it could be. I wonder what it could be left.

    You seem to be jumping the gun by automatically ruling out the resolution and focusing exclusively on the mixing and mastering process without knowing anything about any specific discs in question.

    Oh, absent evidence is powerful evidence, a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis so it is evidence against it. Prof Johnathan Adler.
    mtrycrafts

  7. #257
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    There has always been a premium format for high quality release in audio. Years ago the compact disc was the premiere format, and the LP was the compromised one since it was used by the most radio station all over this country. The cassette replace the eight track.

    Now radio stations use the CD as the common release format, so it has to be all things to all audio formats. So CD's HAVE to be mixed so they sound well no matter what medium is used. That usually set's up compromises because all audio media do not treat audio the same way. DVD-A and SACD are not used in radio, or any other audio format that is broadcast over the air. It does not have to be compromised because it is not used anywhere but in your home, where the only compromise it is subjected to is a poorly set up system.
    I don't agree that CDs have to be compressed, limited etc just because to fit the radio (as Wmax said in the beginning of this thread). If it needs to be compressed there is something wrong with the information given between artist/producer and various recording engineers and broadcast engineers. See e.g. this citation from George Graham:

    "In the audio business, there is something of a chasm between broadcast audio engineers and recording engineers. Folks from one camp don't seem to know a lot about the practices and mindset of the other. I guess I'm lucky to work on both sides of the fence -- making music recordings for broadcast and then hearing just how they sound on the air. Every broadcast station already uses compression on the air. There is a legal limit, as regulated and monitored by the FCC, to the loudness of sound on the air. So to keep a signal loud enough not to be lost in fading, and static, compression, which varies by station and format, is inevitably used.

    The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. Compressing a CD will contribute to on-air loudness almost unnoticeably. Radio people have the brains to turn up a CD that's recorded at a normal level, and broadcast stations' existing compressors will even everything out anyway. The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue.

    Lately, this has been made worse by the increasing availablity of "desktop audio," which puts powerful compression tools in the realm of the home studio, by using a computer to perform the mastering function. Increasing numbers of CDs are being released that have come from home and "project" studios, with generally less-experienced people doing the mixing and mastering in these settings. So some serious damage is being done by people impressed by how much louder they can make their recording sound by crushing the dynamic range with relatively inexpensive software.

    Further, there is the phenomenon of "cascaded compression." When an already-compressed signal (e.g. a CD) is itself compressed (e.g. when played on a radio station), the compressors can actually "fight" each other, one bringing down the signal, followed by another one with different characteristics that might want to bring it back up at a slightly different rate. The result can border on distortion, and gives an especially annoying "pumping" sound, that ruins what is left of the dynamics of the music and can leave the artist and producer's sonic intent in shambles. And this is exactly the situation when a compressed CD is run on a radio station with its own compression."

    At

    http://www.georgegraham.com/compress.html

    More at:

    http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html

    And last,

    those who have not heard how CD can sound when transferred from an analogue source, listen to this record, found at Amazon (its an assortment of Christmas choir songs, a true reference for quality):

    Cantate Domino
    Oscars Motettkor, Torsten Nilsson, Alf Linder, Marianne Mellnas
    Label: Proprius Records
    Catalog: #7762
    ASIN: B000002480

    Bertil Alving made the recording 1976 and the mastering, 1993.
    Last edited by Thomas_A; 07-17-2004 at 04:41 AM.

  8. #258
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    I don't agree that CDs have to be compressed, limited etc just because to fit the radio (as Wmax said in the beginning of this thread). If it needs to be compressed there is something wrong with the information given between artist/producer and various recording engineers and broadcast engineers. See e.g. this citation from George Graham:
    George has his opinion(and they are not in short supply in this industry) the artist, producer, and other engineers have theirs. George Graham opinion is just another one. Sorry, but the name means nothing to me. Everyone has their opinion based on THEIR experience. What proof has George offered you to support his claims, a personal demo?

    "In the audio business, there is something of a chasm between broadcast audio engineers and recording engineers. Folks from one camp don't seem to know a lot about the practices and mindset of the other. I guess I'm lucky to work on both sides of the fence -- making music recordings for broadcast and then hearing just how they sound on the air. Every broadcast station already uses compression on the air. There is a legal limit, as regulated and monitored by the FCC, to the loudness of sound on the air. So to keep a signal loud enough not to be lost in fading, and static, compression, which varies by station and format, is inevitably used.
    His site was last updated in 1999. So this information is quite dated. Does he know that the title(and job) of broadcast audio engineer is a dying breed replaced by almost total automation? Does he understand that compressors and limiters found in radio stations all over the world very in quality, and some are not even regulated by the FCC? Don't you understand that if I compress my CD to match the loudness limits of the FCC in post production, it does not have to be processed quite so heavily by a processor of unknown quality? Nobody masters CD's for release in this country only. The music industry is world wide. The FCC only regulates here in America, what happens if my CD goes number one in a country NOT regulated by the FCC. Why don't you and Chris have this kind of forethought?

    The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. Compressing a CD will contribute to on-air loudness almost unnoticeably. Radio people have the brains to turn up a CD that's recorded at a normal level, and broadcast stations' existing compressors will even everything out anyway. The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue.
    For the record I do not approve of pushing my mixes to digital max or even close to clipping, even the ones destined for radio. I have my own personal way of mixing and mastering that get's the necessary loudness without the clipping that is so common in many CD mixes, especially pop. However, I have heard uncompressed and unlimited CD's on the radio, and the distortion, timbre altering, overly squashed sound of the radio's compressors made it sound absolutely horrible. This would horrify and piss off many a studio executive or producer who has invested many hundreds of thousand dollars on a product that is played over the air with that quality. The reality of todays world is, if you want the best mix, get SACD or DVD-A. The CD is joe six packs format now(you know the guys that like the sound of MP3), and that is just the way it is. Live with it, or not period.

    Lately, this has been made worse by the increasing availablity of "desktop audio," which puts powerful compression tools in the realm of the home studio, by using a computer to perform the mastering function. Increasing numbers of CDs are being released that have come from home and "project" studios, with generally less-experienced people doing the mixing and mastering in these settings. So some serious damage is being done by people impressed by how much louder they can make their recording sound by crushing the dynamic range with relatively inexpensive software.
    This is not even close to the norm these days. Mostly all of the product bound for the corporate controlled radio(which has severly limited the choice of music played) comes from master facilities of great quality. Rarely if never does the garage produced CD ever reach the airwaves. The corporatization of broadcast radio has contributed greatly to this end. To use this(somebody elses words I might add) to further your arguement just shows you are reaching for straws, and just trying to find something to latch on to, to legitimitize your arguement. Not buying it at all.

    Further, there is the phenomenon of "cascaded compression." When an already-compressed signal (e.g. a CD) is itself compressed (e.g. when played on a radio station), the compressors can actually "fight" each other, one bringing down the signal, followed by another one with different characteristics that might want to bring it back up at a slightly different rate. The result can border on distortion, and gives an especially annoying "pumping" sound, that ruins what is left of the dynamics of the music and can leave the artist and producer's sonic intent in shambles. And this is exactly the situation when a compressed CD is run on a radio station with its own compression."
    I am VERY familar with this phenomena. However, in the year 2004(as opposed to 1999 when this was originally written) most compressors in radio just don't automatically work the same way for every mix. The less the mix has been compressed, the harder the radio station compressor works. The more compressed the mix(up to FCC standards) the less the radio station compressors has to work.(at least this was the explaination given to me, I cannot attest to it's accuracy, but it was given to me by a very reliable and accurate source). This is largely a moot arguement because just like broadcast television, over the air analog is losing listeners to satellite digital radio by the thousands. It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium.

    Horribly outdated information. Pertinent pre 1999, irrelevant post 1999.



    And last,

    those who have not heard how CD can sound when transferred from an analogue source, listen to this record, found at Amazon (its an assortment of Christmas choir songs, a true reference for quality):

    Cantate Domino
    Oscars Motettkor, Torsten Nilsson, Alf Linder, Marianne Mellnas
    Label: Proprius Records
    Catalog: #7762
    ASIN: B000002480

    Bertil Alving made the recording 1976 and the mastering, 1993.
    Great info. However good it sounds, how does it stack up to the original master when compared? How was it recorded(how many channels) Was it mixed and mastered for radio play?

    The bottom line is this, the CD has outlived its usefulness as the primary medium for high end playback. In these days with between 30-50 channels being used for a typical high production product, mixing it for CD is like having a hoover dams worth of water going through a typically used kitchen funnel. So much eq, limiting, and compression has to be used to make all of these channels heard over each other after mixdown hardly makes anything pristine anymore. Recording in high rez, and downsampling to redbook is not a transparent process.

    CD can sound very good to the end user. But the real test is how well it stands up to the master tape itself. IMO on more occasions than so, it does not. Some differences are slight, some VERY audible. Regardless, the bottom line is we are moving away from redbook and the primary high quality delivery of audio. You can argue this until the moon turns blue, but you cannot prohibit change because it's coming whether you like it or not.

    Lastly, it is not in good form to quote someone elses words, and represent them as your own. To say you don't agree with something, and then use someone elses experiences to bolster your argument is disengenous and VERY uncool. If you have some personal experiences, or situations you have participated in, then that is one thing. But you are quoting people as if they are the foremost expert on all subject matter regarding audio, and that is just not the case. Opinions are abundant in this field, and so are counter opposing white papers. You must be very careful where you gravitate towards when you don't work in this industry.

    Now ask GG would he turn a client down if the client wanted HIS cd to sound as loud as the artist's competitors? I seriously doubt it.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #259
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft

    Of course, it's easy to master two discs differently, but with resolution as another variable, who am I to rule out one variable versus another? And supposing that 44.1/16 and the higher resolutions indeed are transparent to the source, why would they need to be mixed differently?


    How else are you to sell a new product? It is no better than the old one? You need an edge, mixing is it, unless there is evidence to support the hi res.
    You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Why and how can I rule out anything if I don't have the tools and access to make my own determination?

    You shouldn't, which includes a mix difference, especially in light of the original post how compressed the CD has become. Rather simple.
    But, absent any information about the mix difference itself, how would I draw conclusions?

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    But, if the high resolution is one of the variables on those discs, then it's remains a potential causal effect if I don't know anything about any differences in the mastering processes used for the different versions.

    Yes, it is a potential cause. However, you seem to automatically rule out other causes and seem to accept without evidence that then the hi res must be the cause effect.

    Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical,

    Check the original post on this. Seems obvious to me what is going on.
    Obvious for a specific example, but not necessarily applicable to any of the disc comparisons that I've done. Again, what information do I have that would automatically rule out the resolution as a potential causal factor if I do not know how a transfer was done and what the original master source sounds like?

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    or did they use a vinyl playback as a reference for a remaster of a vintage recording, or were they transferred from the same playback feed? Absent that information, I don't know the magnitude of one variable versus another, so why would I conceive a conclusion on the basis of incomplete information?

    That is what it seems to be. Automatic acceptance of the cause as hi res format.
    You seem desperate to churn this subject by implying that I "accept" any single causal effect over another. Like I said, I don't have complete information so why would I presume any one effect over another? Trying your usual stream of inneuendo seems to only work by trying to pin assertions on me that I've never made. Pretty weak effort, although I admire that you've refrained from the usual alien abduction and psychic stories so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different,

    If that is the case, then case is closed. You have no idea why the difference. Since there is no evidence to support that it is the hi res. don't know what else it could be. I wonder what it could be left.
    There's no evidence that it's solely due to the mixing and mastering either. If that's the conclusion that you draw, then I assume that you've isolated the resolution as a causal factor and done blind listenings against the master tapes? Didn't know you were on such good terms with Eliot Scheiner and other industry luminaries that they would give you the keys to the vaults and provide you with their session notes.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You seem to be jumping the gun by automatically ruling out the resolution and focusing exclusively on the mixing and mastering process without knowing anything about any specific discs in question.

    Oh, absent evidence is powerful evidence, a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis so it is evidence against it. Prof Johnathan Adler.
    And what hypothesis am I putting forth? I only observed an effect, but made no assertions about cause. You're the one that seems to be making assertions here by trying to rule out a potential causal effect without evidence.

  10. #260
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


    You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

    How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
    "Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
    Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
    96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

    I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

    No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

    Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.
    mtrycrafts

  11. #261
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


    You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

    How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
    "Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
    Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
    96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

    I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

    No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

    Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.
    I hate to throw this newpaper on your front door step Mtry, but we are five years from 1999, and six from 1998. Alot has changed in this industry since then. Digging that far in the past for references means nothing today. Sony is not the only one turning out SACD releases, so pinning a problem on one Recording company amoung many in the industry does nothing to further your arguement. Most record companies are not marketing a format, and have no benefit form altering a CD layer to make is sound different than the SACD layer. Producers and artist approve all CD releases, if it sounds different, blame them. Have you any idea why sony supposidly alter the CD layer, and how was it done? If it is different eq, or compression levels, then possible the alter CD is being used as the primary format for many forms of broadcast. It is stupid to try and make a CD layer sound like the SACD layer if they are going to be used in different areas of audio.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  12. #262
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    "It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium."

    So why not stop this nonsense-loudness race, and allow the user to decide by using a built-in dynamic range control (DRC) on the digital radios available?

    Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). Your concern regarding my mix of direct experience and citing others is strange, since if I would be alone with my opinions, it would seem even stranger, wouldn't it?

    You are right, I cannot stop any change and I have no wish to do so. What can be done is to start a debate about the silly degradation of music that occurs and the following blaming of the CD medium as such when there is no evidence that it is audibly different from high-res.

    I'll skip your other comments, since there is no new information that high-res would be audibly different from CD.

  13. #263
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


    You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

    How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
    "Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
    Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
    96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

    I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

    No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

    Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.
    So if they're doctoring the CD mixes, then that's one contributory variable verified. But, does that automatically negate the resolution as another contributing factor? Again, I lack the information to make that judgment for myself. If there's "plenty of evidence for differences between CD and high res," why would I care whether or not they are due to the resolution, if in practice they sound different? If CDs are mixed one way by industry practice, and high res formats are done in a different manner, the theoretical angle is irrelevant. Like I said, I've yet to encounter a high res disc that does not sound at least as good as the CD version. The reasons why that is so do not matter, so long as it is so.

  14. #264
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    So if they're doctoring the CD mixes, then that's one contributory variable verified. But, does that automatically negate the resolution as another contributing factor?

    No, it doesn't but until the hi res is the onl;y difference no one can know. So far, no such demo has been offered by the people in the know and capability to do such a demo. One has to wonder why that is. Perhaps they know the answer just as the wire companies know the answer, or the writing on the wall.

    . Like I said, I've yet to encounter a high res disc that does not sound at least as good as the CD version.

    Well, I surely hope that they do sound at least as good as a CD.

    The reasons why that is so do not matter, so long as it is so.

    As long as only preferences are offered for the hi res. Otherwise, if testable claims are made, then evidence is in order.
    mtrycrafts

  15. #265
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    testable snoooooooore

    snnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre. yup, its a snore!
    ...regards...tr

  16. #266
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

    I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

    Letter From Mr. Bishop(6-09-04):

    Dear Mr. XXXXX,

    First of all, you should know that it is very improper (or at the very
    least, RUDE) email etiquette to post correspondence with any company or
    individual and post it on public forums without permission of all parties.
    It is especially improper when one takes quotes out of context for posting.
    I very much take objection to you posting our correspondence on public
    internet sites, especially since I have not even responded to your last
    email yet! I spend quite a bit of time posting and answering questions on
    various hi-fi audio and industry web sites and I am always very forthcoming
    and straightforward in my answers and assessments on those sites.

    Secondly, I happen to agree with Bob Katz's viewpoints on heavy-handed
    over-compression of audio and have stated so at many AES Convention panel
    discussions with Bob. I also happen to know there are examples of released
    audio product that Bob has mastered that have more compression on them than
    what he would like in an "ideal" world. I also happen to know that
    "Dancing in the Dark" would not be held up by a rational person as an
    example of over-compression. The reality is, we all have artists, clients,
    etc. to please at the same time as trying to get the best-possible audio
    quality. Especially when it comes to artists, as the engineer, I have to
    remember it is not MY name on the cover. When I wrote to you that
    compromises sometimes are made in mastering a project, that definitely did
    NOT mean that one purposely makes a bad-sounding or distorted product. It
    means that we try to reach a middle ground between the desires of all
    parties involved and what the "ideal" is.

    Certainly it would be wonderful to have totally uncompressed, full dynamic
    range music recordings in all genres of music, but let's get real! Very
    few, if any, music reproduction systems are capable of playing true natural
    dynamic range recordings with no alterations made in the master. When the
    recording or mastering engineer moves the volume faders in the least during
    a recording, the dynamic range is being altered. All analog recordings -
    tape or vinyl - without exception, have dynamic range compression taking
    place as a part of the recording process and the medium involved.
    Recordings long held in high reverence in the audiophile community have had
    fairly heavy recording medium and electronic dynamic range compression
    imposed on them in the original source recording. Since the audiophiles
    that hold these recordings in reverence were not present at the original
    sessions, they would have no point of reference for what was "pure,"
    "true," or not. The recordings just are what they are. Those that think
    there are no manipulations of dynamic range in even the most purest of
    audiophile recordings are simply fooling themselves. Engineers who make
    the recordings know otherwise, as even having the performers to alter
    dynamic range in performance to fit the recording medium (which is a common
    occurrence in-session) can be classified as dynamic range compression.
    There are also level controls at countless points in every
    recording/mastering chain. I would hope some are not so naive as to think
    those controls are NEVER touched.

    As for the Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD audio, I pointed out
    previously that no levels were over -0.10 dB digital peak level in the CD
    master. It is not even possible to make a CD master that has "illegal"
    levels with over 0 dB digital peak levels as the LBR would reject such a
    master. If you have been getting measurements that are over 0 dB, there is
    a serious flaw in your measurements or system. Overall mastering
    compression was chosen and adjusted to get to the best possible middle
    ground between preserving the performance and still have good apparent
    volume. Great care was taken to evaluate the effect of any process
    introduced at any point in the recording process and subsequent mastering.
    The final master was evaluated and was approved by the producer, the
    artists, and the manager of the editing department. As was evident on all
    our playback systems, not a single person made note of audible distortion
    on the CD pcm master that was presented to Sony Disc Manufacturing. The
    waveforms you present as evidence of a "defect" simply show peak limiting
    of the master. In my opinion, that limiting was very mild compared to the
    vast majority of similar CDs on the market. Many dozens of hours were
    spent in mastering and evaluating the CD master only, apart from the SACD
    master, so certainly the CD should not be considered to be the poor
    stepchild of the SACD release.

    In my opinion, many similar genre CD releases exhibit much more
    heavy-handed compression and severe peak limiting than the relatively mild
    compression that was employed on the Sutton CD. "Dancing in the Dark" is
    not the first Telarc CD to have compression applied in the mastering
    process by a long shot - it certainly won't be the last. Non-classical
    projects will always have different requirements and criteria to be
    satisfied compared to our classical projects. While the CD master is
    usually made from the same source as the SACD stereo master, the CD end
    product has to also be suitable in car audio situations, portable players,
    and still be good for home playback where background noise may not be a
    problem. We get many emails and letters from consumers that complain we
    put TOO MUCH dynamic range on our CDs and that they have to turn the volume
    up as compared to "other" CDs. I don't think we've gotten more than one
    email or letter asking for more dynamic range in the last five years.
    Being more of a "pop" release, "Dancing in the Dark" has to fit into all
    these other playback situations as well. This project has never been
    presented to the public as a purist audiophile recording, but rather a
    recording of a great singer and band presenting great tunes. I would hope
    that most people recognize the release as fitting that description.

    Mastering techniques are applied judiciously by any responsible engineer,
    not because anyone thinks the public is "stupid" as you put it in your
    email, but to make the release fit the many playback situations the CD may
    be played in. Several scientific and double-blind tests have shown without
    a doubt that the same recording played back with as little as .5 dB
    increase in level is perceived as the "better" recording.

    Mastering techniques are never, ever applied to optimize radio airplay.
    Every decent engineer knows what the broadcast chain does to a recording
    and how our work is undone at that point.

    About your choice of taking CD as the best that audio formats can offer: I
    have worked with pcm at every sample and bit rate possible since 1976 and
    analog recording for ten years before that in every format and speed. I
    have worked with DSD since 1996. If DSD went away tomorrow, I would be
    very disappointed to have to return to pcm for source recordings,
    regardless of the final release format. For my work, I choose to record in
    DSD. I'm thrilled the SACD is available so my DSD recordings can be heard
    at home without change, all other things being equal. In my opinion, the
    16-bit CD is far from being the ideal end product no matter what
    noise-shaping techniques are applied. Since I have been a part of every
    major (and not-so-major) dithering and noise-shaping test and development
    since 1986, I might know something about this.

    You apparently have no use for SACD and have no intention of even exploring
    the possibilities of the format. Therefore I see little point of making an
    exchange of your CD with the SACD version. Since you are so thoroughly
    dissatisfied with the Sutton disc, I can only offer that you exchange this
    CD with Telarc Customer Service for another single CD title of your choice.

    You are not to post, forward, or quote my correspondence with you without
    my prior authorization. Please respect that request.


    With Best Regards,

    Michael Bishop
    Recording Engineer
    Telarc International Corp.
    Here is my reply to above e-mail(6-09-04):

    >
    > First of all, you should know that it is very improper (or at the very
    > least, RUDE) email etiquette to post correspondence with any company or
    > individual and post it on public forums without permission of all parties.

    I did not agree to a non-disclosure agreement. THe email that you send,
    addressed to me, is my property.

    > It is especially improper when one takes quotes out of context for
    posting.

    Hold on. I posted your e-mail, in entiretey, as I recieved the email. Not
    one of your words, phrases, etc. were edited. I made commentary on some of
    your statements; obvisously for this, I would have to point to specific
    items in order to make comment on the items. Anyone has the entire email to
    read, and judge for themselves.

    > Secondly, I happen to agree with Bob Katz's viewpoints on heavy-handed
    > over-compression of audio and have stated so at many AES Convention panel
    > discussions with Bob. I also happen to know there are examples of
    released
    > audio product that Bob has mastered that have more compression on them
    than
    > what he would like in an "ideal" world. I also happen to know that
    > "Dancing in the Dark" would not be held up by a rational person as an
    > example of over-compression. The reality is, we all have artists,
    clients,
    > etc. to please at the same time as trying to get the best-possible audio
    > quality. Especially when it comes to artists, as the engineer, I have to
    > remember it is not MY name on the cover. When I wrote to you that
    > compromises sometimes are made in mastering a project, that definitely did
    > NOT mean that one purposely makes a bad-sounding or distorted product. It
    > means that we try to reach a middle ground between the desires of all
    > parties involved and what the "ideal" is.

    To be honest, I don't have much concern for the pressures or reasons why
    someone decides to degrade the product. I am a consumer, not a mastering
    engineer. What I DO CARE ABOUT, is that the average products I consume are
    being produced in relative low quality. My post on the forum, my reason for
    replying to you, is to make it known that I'm tired of the low quality
    product. Hopefully, many other people will start complaining and making a
    fuss. I don't specfically want to upset your or anyone else. However,
    nothing improves if everyone sits down and ignores the problem(s). This is
    historical pattern. If toes get stepped on in the process of achieving the
    objective, so let it be.

    >
    > Certainly it would be wonderful to have totally uncompressed, full dynamic
    > range music recordings in all genres of music, but let's get real! Very
    > few, if any, music reproduction systems are capable of playing true
    natural
    > dynamic range recordings with no alterations made in the master. When the
    > recording or mastering engineer moves the volume faders in the least
    during
    > a recording, the dynamic range is being altered. All analog recordings -
    > tape or vinyl - without exception, have dynamic range compression taking
    > place as a part of the recording process and the medium involved.
    > Recordings long held in high reverence in the audiophile community have
    had
    > fairly heavy recording medium and electronic dynamic range compression
    > imposed on them in the original source recording. Since the audiophiles
    > that hold these recordings in reverence were not present at the original
    > sessions, they would have no point of reference for what was "pure,"
    > "true," or not. The recordings just are what they are. Those that think
    > there are no manipulations of dynamic range in even the most purest of
    > audiophile recordings are simply fooling themselves. Engineers who make
    > the recordings know otherwise, as even having the performers to alter
    > dynamic range in performance to fit the recording medium (which is a
    common
    > occurrence in-session) can be classified as dynamic range compression.
    > There are also level controls at countless points in every
    > recording/mastering chain. I would hope some are not so naive as to think
    > those controls are NEVER touched.

    I don't know exactly the point. I can only assume you think I want NO
    compression EVER used. I did not make this comment. Specifically, this is
    about over compression. I guess the term 'radio-style' compression might be
    appropriate as a relative term.

    >
    > As for the Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD audio, I pointed out
    > previously that no levels were over -0.10 dB digital peak level in the CD
    > master. It is not even possible to make a CD master that has "illegal"
    > levels with over 0 dB digital peak levels as the LBR would reject such a
    > master. If you have been getting measurements that are over 0 dB, there
    is
    > a serious flaw in your measurements or system.

    Their are sections tht measure at 0dB. Confrimed with Goldwave and Adobe
    Audition software programs, of the ripped wave files. As for levels 'over'
    0dB. I never made such a claim. Point out where I made this claim.

    > compression was chosen and adjusted to get to the best possible middle
    > ground between preserving the performance and still have good apparent
    > volume. Great care was taken to evaluate the effect of any process
    > introduced at any point in the recording process and subsequent mastering.
    > The final master was evaluated and was approved by the producer, the
    > artists, and the manager of the editing department. As was evident on all
    > our playback systems, not a single person made note of audible distortion
    > on the CD pcm master that was presented to Sony Disc Manufacturing.

    Maybe something IS wrong my version of the disc? I percieve audible
    fuzz-like distortion in sections. After hearing these sections, I made note
    of the time on the CD player and then checked those times in the ripped wave
    file only to find clipped signals.


    > of the master. In my opinion, that limiting was very mild compared to the
    > vast majority of similar CDs on the market.

    Use of the words 'vast majority' is a bit of a generalization, especially in
    lack of actual statistics. However, I will say that i have noticed 'many'
    severely clipped CDs on the market. The very reason it makes me even more
    upset that an 'audiophile' company is also guilty.

    Several scientific and double-blind tests have shown without
    > a doubt that the same recording played back with as little as .5 dB
    > increase in level is perceived as the "better" recording.

    I am aware of these studies. Though I can not recollect the specific
    researcher/paper ids off the top of my head. However, this is in relation to
    the same song, everything else being equal. It also is not in relation to a
    louder but signficantly more compressed version. If you have information of
    that specific situation, please refer me to the paper. The papers also did
    not address louder but with audibly clipped peaks.

    > Mastering techniques are never, ever applied to optimize radio airplay.
    > Every decent engineer knows what the broadcast chain does to a recording
    > and how our work is undone at that point.

    O.K. However, I can assume every engineer is 'decent'.

    > About your choice of taking CD as the best that audio formats can offer:
    I
    > have worked with pcm at every sample and bit rate possible since 1976 and
    > analog recording for ten years before that in every format and speed. I
    > have worked with DSD since 1996. If DSD went away tomorrow, I would be
    > very disappointed to have to return to pcm for source recordings,
    > regardless of the final release format. For my work, I choose to record
    in
    > DSD. I'm thrilled the SACD is available so my DSD recordings can be heard
    > at home without change, all other things being equal. In my opinion, the
    > 16-bit CD is far from being the ideal end product no matter what
    > noise-shaping techniques are applied. Since I have been a part of every
    > major (and not-so-major) dithering and noise-shaping test and development
    > since 1986, I might know something about this.

    My comment on this aspect was based on the noise/dynamic range and bandwidth
    as related to playback only. I have not stated it is ideal for
    recording/editing. Show/refer me to a peer-reviewed, scientifically valid
    listenig test that demonstrated the bandwidth of RBCD is not optimal for
    music playback. The ones I am aware of, show that is is optimal for human
    audibility purposes of music playback.

    >
    > You apparently have no use for SACD and have no intention of even
    exploring
    > the possibilities of the format.

    Well, when/if they make a new SACD format that takes advantage of an
    extrmeley effective multichannel system such as Holman's 10.2 technology,
    then I would be 'all over it'. However, I may HAVE to buy a SACD player in
    order to have better quality recordings. I base this on your first email,
    claiming that the SACD version does not have the problems of the CD version.

    >Therefore I see little point of making an
    > exchange of your CD with the SACD version. Since you are so thoroughly
    > dissatisfied with the Sutton disc, I can only offer that you exchange this
    > CD with Telarc Customer Service for another single CD title of your
    choice.

    Actually, I like the artist Tierney Sutton. I'll listen to some of the
    samples on the website of new releases, and see if their is another artist
    that I want.

    >
    > You are not to post, forward, or quote my correspondence with you without
    > my prior authorization. Please respect that request.

    I'll consider your request. I'll make no promise in this regard.

    -Chris XXXXX


    Quote Originally Posted by WmAx

    Here is the email that Bishop was replying:


    "I checked the waveform example of the piano "distortion." In my opinion,
    what is seen there is the peak limiting and "soft clipping" imposed in the
    CD mastering process on this particular release..."

    " The piano is not distorted... If that was the case one would see jagged
    artifacts around the
    piano level "peak" rather than the level simply stopping 0.10 dB from the
    peak."

    "Of course, this does not mean that such a high peak will not cause
    distortion on some playback systems. That's entirely possible and is
    something out of our control."

    The highly audible distortion remains in all of these following cases: (1)
    playing CD in all players I have access (2) ripping waveform to computer,
    playing back through soundcard (3) reducing maximum level slightly of the
    waveform in a waveform editor, playing back on soundcard.

    Indeed, I believe this is easily preventable. Simply could have (1) limited
    the peaks (2) reduced absolute levels before downsampling(this is the proper
    method)

    "The Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD release is put up side-by-side
    with Diana Krall and Norah Jones releases and other similar jazz vocal CDs.
    Like it or not, those CDs are quite heavily compressed and limited (much
    more so than the Sutton CD) and have very high apparent volumes. They also
    exhibit an even more pronounced cut-off of peak levels. Since Tierney's CD
    will be put in multi-disc CD players alongside these other CDs, we have to
    make sure her CD stands at least a chance of being as "present" as the
    competition and still maintain as much of the dynamics of my original mixes
    as possible. "

    I don't understand. Competition of what? I simply do not believe consumer
    are this stupid to put a CD into the player and believe the quiter one is
    'bad' compared to the louder one. (1) You mean radio play? If so, this is
    not valid. Radio broadcast music is heavily compressed/limited before it is
    transmitted. As far as I know, this is a universal standard. Diffeernt
    levels on the CD istels will not manifest itself on broadcast end-use. (2)
    The telarc consumer, i would speculate, is more discriminating then the
    average consumer. I can not see this trickery as being effective.

    I think Bob Katz has some very good points on this issue:

    http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8

    "It's a very delicate balancing act. Certainly compromises
    are made, just as in any other mainstream CD that has high apparent volume
    level. "

    I'm sorry to see such things happening with what I always considered a
    label(telarc) that prioritized ultimate sound quality.

    "I know one would find much more aggregious level compression taking
    place on most mainstream CDs than what you would find on "Dancing in the
    Dark."

    Yes. Why I always trusted Telarc to have high quality. I guess I have to
    change this view in response to this email.

    "If you are interested, the DSD stereo and surround programs on the SACD
    release of "Dancing in the Dark" (SA-63592) do NOT have this competitive
    compression imposed on the audio. The DSD programs represent what I
    recorded in the mixes from the sessions without the compromises needed on
    the CD-only release. However, the CD layer of the SACD is exactly the same
    as the CD-only release. To access the DSD programs, one needs the
    appropriate SACD player which is available at major electronic retailers
    starting at around $200 USD, although I never recommend that one gets the
    "bottom-of-the-line" player."

    I have a CD player that functions perfectly. It is rediculous that I must
    purchase a new format player to get versions of the albums that ARE NOT
    purposefully degraded.

    "I hope you have the opportunity to hear the DSD program of this release.
    That is, after all, the source I had recorded at Ms. Sutton's sessions and
    the pcm CD is a derivative of that source."

    I have paid close attention to the playback formats, and associated
    scientific research(NHK labs study, Ooashi nueroscicnce study and the
    original 1978 optimal bandwidth study(JAES). Besides the multi-channel
    format and copy protection(not advantage to consumers, only for record
    companies) I don't see any yet confirmed advantage to the added bandwidth. I
    also don't see how 16 bit wordlength is limiting for audio playback,e
    speciallly when combined with modern dithering techniques. Even if it was a
    problem, seems that these PURPOSEFULLY compromised and compressed versions
    of music supercede this issue.

    Thank you for responding.

    -Chris XXXXX

    -Chris

  17. #267
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    "It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium."

    So why not stop this nonsense-loudness race, and allow the user to decide by using a built-in dynamic range control (DRC) on the digital radios available?
    That is not a question that should be answered by audio engineers. We don't make radio's, or set standards. Maybe you should write the FCC, and ask them this question. As long as things are the way they are now, this is the standard practice.

    Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). Your concern regarding my mix of direct experience and citing others is strange, since if I would be alone with my opinions, it would seem even stranger, wouldn't it?
    Your comments mean nothing to me because I don't know the engineers you (supposidly)talk to, the context of the conversation, or what actual experience these engineers have in hi rez audio.

    Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word. In other words picking and choosing information that supports your position. I have talked to at least 40 or more audio engineers(who have STRONG EXPERIENCE in high rez audio(as I do) and they don't know why high rez sounds better, it just does to them(and myself). So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit.

    You are right, I cannot stop any change and I have no wish to do so. What can be done is to start a debate about the silly degradation of music that occurs and the following blaming of the CD medium as such when there is no evidence that it is audibly different from high-res.
    A debate on audioreveiw is pointless. I know of no other audio engineer that frequents this board. I know of no RIAA executive , studio executive, or producer who frequents this board. So what do you hope to accomplish by your continuous rant?

    The redbook CD platform has had problems from the very beginning. So many patches and fixes have been introduced to this format, that is makes your claims that it is so perfect as a audio delivery system seem silly. Redbook audio cannot be upgraded because the standards are set. Any attempt to improve on the audio just leads to degradation once it gets to the redbook platform. There is no support for multichannel, recording at 24bits requires downconversion, and noise to be added(dither) to restore lost dynamic range and punch from the downconversion. Oversampling MUST be used or the audio will suffer from ringing, time smearing, and distortion because of the use of brickwall filters. Anti imaging filters found in most CD players on the market allow for some aliasing/imaging to occur introducing some distortion to the playback chain according to a peer reviewed white paper by Richard Black, confirmed by DCs Ltd and company that makes VERY high quality A/D-D/A conversion filters and equipment.

    With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly. 24/96khz requires no dither, no downconversion, no filters with steep roll offs, no bit reduction, and no need for oversampling. It is transparent when compared to the analog source(or digital if recorded at either 24/192 or 24/96khz), and high quality mixing and mastering tools are already in place at most studios.

    You have one format that requires several bandaids and has a not so perfect filter system in most players. You have another that requires no band aids, improved audio, and needs no steep filtering system. I choose the one that has the least amount of trade offs as I think any intelligent person would.

    I'll skip your other comments, since there is no new information that high-res would be audibly different from CD.
    You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  18. #268
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    "Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word."

    It's not strange at all. Because you claim to have a positive result, yet not demonstrated any proof of it. All I need is the facts of the test procedure, number of positive results, blinding, randomization or a reference where it is stated.

    "So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit. "

    So I've noticed. I just want the facts.

    "A debate on audioreveiw is pointless."

    A debate without any data is even more pointless.

    "With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly."

    The "facts" you have presented? You mean DBTs showing that high-res is audibly different from redbook? I would love to see them.

    "You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway."

    So what ARE you trying to do then?

  19. #269
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by WmAx
    Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

    I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

    Letter From Mr. Bishop(6-09-04):


    Here is my reply to above e-mail(6-09-04):
    First, I think you were wrong for posting his letter without his permission. Whether you think you own the email or not, there is something called intended usage, and you didn't let him know your motivations. Very low class of you, and your excuse was feeble at best.

    Secondly, his statement mirriors the ones I gave you on this same issue. His answer to you is consistant with industry standards and practices, and he did NOTHING out of the ordinary to the mentioned CD. You usage of the words "degraded" is silly since the audio was already "degraded" in the transition from DSD to PCM. As he mentioned(and Wooch has reinterated time and time again) you were not present at the studio session, and do not know how much the CD version deviates from the original master.

    Your responses back to him show that you have no experience in the studio, have never had to please or work with record producers, have no idea about the condition, or how the original source material sounds. You very limited knowledge of the specifics of recording and playback makes you look silly and defensive when responding to his comments.

    You have taken Michael Bishops kindness(by responding to your email) and completely disrepected him. He has five hundred times the audio education , and fifty billion times the recording experience than you could ever think to have, yet you feel that you can challenge the information he afforded you. If I were him, I would be insulted by your arrogance, and would never respond to you again.

    Your demands for white papers on an issue this man knows loads about shows that you are off base, not so bright, and pretty foolhardy. I think you need to spend more time learning about standard recording practices, working with producers and artists, and how to actually mix and master before you approach this subject matter again. Studing white papers but having no experience with what you study is like walking with one leg, one arm, and one eye. It gives you a false sense of balance and perspective.

    Michael Bishops answers to you are consistant to what you will hear from every audio engineer at Mr. Bishops level. His answers(if you are not just being combative) should satisfy every question you would have about compression on CD.

    I think it is worth noting that he said the original recording was done in DSD and converted into PCM. So the best way to hear this project would probably be the SACD or two channel DSD layer. I think you will find in the near future that these kinds of conversions, and conversion from 24/96khz to 44.1khz will be the norm instead of the exception, and the CD platform will not be the most prominent or clean source for audio delivery. In other words, get used to the change, because it is not going to be reversed.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  20. #270
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    "Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word."

    It's not strange at all. Because you claim to have a positive result, yet not demonstrated any proof of it. All I need is the facts of the test procedure, number of positive results, blinding, randomization or a reference where it is stated.
    You claimed to have test that say 16/44.1khz is transparent, where are those tests results?

    "So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit. "

    So I've noticed. I just want the facts.
    Set up a listening test, you'll get all the facts you need.

    "A debate on audioreveiw is pointless."

    A debate without any data is even more pointless.
    Okay, so where is the data that states that 16/44.1khz is transparent?

    "With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly."

    The "facts" you have presented? You mean DBTs showing that high-res is audibly different from redbook? I would love to see them.
    Forget it Thomas, you can't read and that's a fact.

    "You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway."

    So what ARE you trying to do then?
    You figure it out.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  21. #271
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    So if they're doctoring the CD mixes, then that's one contributory variable verified. But, does that automatically negate the resolution as another contributing factor?

    No, it doesn't but until the hi res is the onl;y difference no one can know. So far, no such demo has been offered by the people in the know and capability to do such a demo. One has to wonder why that is. Perhaps they know the answer just as the wire companies know the answer, or the writing on the wall.
    In other words, you don't have the answer either.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    The reasons why that is so do not matter, so long as it is so.

    As long as only preferences are offered for the hi res. Otherwise, if testable claims are made, then evidence is in order.
    But, I'm not making a claim about the high res itself, only the discs that are sold under that banner. As I've said already, if common industry practice compromises what gets transferred onto CD, and does not compromise what goes onto high res discs, then I've got my guideline from which to make my purchasing decisions.

  22. #272
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    You claimed to have test that say 16/44.1khz is transparent, where are those tests results?
    No, I don't claim that it is transparent. It's not possible to prove that it is transparent according to the laws of science. Proof of a positive is. I claim that the tests that I know of have been negative and thus inconclusive. Details of one of the tests are given in one of my posts. And there are no other tests that I know of that would show any audibility of high-res vs redbook CD. You claim to hear a difference, but you don't want to show the data or give any other information than "AES" standards for the test procedure. It's been published you say, yet you don't want to say whether there were any DBTs involved to confirm the observations you made. Since you also say you need not to proove anything to anyone, I conclude there were no DBTs involved. Thus there is no proof of audible difference. I figured it out. Thanks.

  23. #273
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    ...
    I won't bother quoting you, or really reading your last post in it's entirety. I think it's worth noting that you rarely reply with a worthwhile comment. You seem to be caught up on unsubstantiated issues and argue the endlessly even though it's pointless, especially to the requests for substantiation by several of the people in this thread to date. To reply and argue about something you don't even know for certain, when these people are asking for substantiaion seems to me like you just enjoy pressing the keys on your keyboard, at least too me. You almost seem like a religous leader arguing in support of his religion without a damn thing to substantiate the claims except speculations, testimonials and other stuff worthless as 'proof'.

    -Chris

  24. #274
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by WmAx
    Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

    I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.
    Why would he reply given that you won't even acknowledge his request that you ask him before you go posting his replies on a public forum? I know that someone who doesn't care to abide by my confidentiality requests on e-mail correspondences would not deserve any of my time. If anyone has an attitude on this matter, it certainly doesn't seem to be Mr. Bishop. You seem more interested in perpetuating theoretical soapbox arguments than pursuing the highest possible audio quality for the music that you enjoy. If you don't like the audio quality for a particular CD, then either put up with it or invest in a universal player so you can access the SACD layer. It's not like those hybrid discs will force you to double dip and repurchase your music collection, and it's not like a universal player's an empty investment given that it also allows for multichannel audio.

    Like I was telling mtry, if it is common industry practice to alter the CD mixes during the mastering process and not doing these alterations with the high res versions, then why would all these tangental irrelevancies matter when you already know which version is likeliest to give you the best sound quality? The theoretical arguments are irrelevant. If you want to boycott Telarc for compressing the audio or bumping up the levels, then you'll have to boycott every other music company out there as well since Telarc is hardly alone in that practice. That leaves you with listening to test tones.

  25. #275
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Why would he reply given that you won't even acknowledge his request that you ask him before you go posting his replies on a public forum? I know that someone who doesn't care to abide by my confidentiality requests on e-mail correspondences would not deserve any of my time. If anyone has an attitude on this matter, it certainly doesn't seem to be Mr. Bishop.
    Everyone has an attitude. You assume I mean this in a negative manner. When someone has an 'attitude', this does mean anything negative. See the definition.

    You seem more interested in perpetuating theoretical soapbox arguments than pursuing the highest possible audio quality for the music that you enjoy.
    You are correct. That was one of the primary issues I intended in this thread.

    I don't claim to be 'nice'. I admit openly that I realize I may seem like an '*******' to many people. I considered this before I posted the email where he demands not to be posted. Indeed, I realized that it may incur responses such as yours before I posted. However, I felt it was important to share the entire communication. This at least allows a better-informed opinion by anyone who cares to read all of the correspondence from the beginning of this thread to the end.

    -Chris

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Simple SACD question!
    By N. Abstentia in forum General Audio
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 03:10 PM
  2. SACD 2 Channel Output - I'm Confused...
    By Sammy EX in forum General Audio
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-18-2004, 02:07 PM
  3. 5.1 sacd analog compatibility?
    By Jottle in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-14-2004, 10:20 PM
  4. Question regarding SACD connections
    By Tyler in forum General Audio
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-29-2004, 05:03 PM
  5. sacd superior to rbcd
    By hifitommy in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-07-2003, 11:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •