24-bit/192kHz is pointless?

[Ashley James]

Two points.

 

1. I can't see any objection to using the equaliser in iTunes to "improve" the sound of some recordings, after all, isn't that what the Mastering Engineer did with similar equipment before it was considered saleable. Old fashioned analogue equalisers were not good, but digital ones are OK for this job.

 

2. You cannot alter the sound of a loudspeaker to compensate for room acoustic problems. Millions have been spent trying to show you can and it's all been wasted.

 

The important thing to remember is that you make your critical judgement of a sound source from its first arrival. Early reflections and reverberant energy in a listening room, will sabotage that room if they are excessive or uneven with frequency, but otherwise a listener can "tune them out", as he can the effects of a crap hi fi system, to a degree.

 

The reality is that we've unconsciously tuned our rooms to be pleasant to sit in, to relax in and talk in by filling them with sufficient carpets , curtains and soft furnishings till we're happy. There can be low frequency problems below human voice and most cope with these by buying speakers with more or less "bass" to suit.

 

In recording studios, where sound quality is paramount, measurements are made of the RT time at all frequencies and trapping is used to ensure that it's reasonably short and even with frequency. The low end of any room is always very uneven as result of dimensions. Where large Monitors are used, they are often wall mounted and suitable absorbers are made to remove resonances (booms). These may comprise of heavy plastic sheet on a frame of the appropriate size. However as our ears aren't very good judges of the quality of low frequency sound, it's easier for an enthusiast to pick speakers that sound balanced to his ears in his room, or add a good sub if it's needed.

 

Ash

 

[tfarney]

While I agree with you gentlemen, in theory, that the acoustics of rooms cannot be compensated for with equalization (alone), it is done, in practice, all the time. The world is filled with calibrated studio control rooms. The recordings you listen to are mixed and mastered in such rooms. Yes, those rooms are physically tuned first, and expecting room calibration to work miracles in living rooms full of acoustical problems is expecting something that won't happen, but expecting to address those same problems at the playback system's source is not expecting miracles, it is expecting a change of fuel injectors to reduce the whine of the tires. It's not an unrealistic expectation, it is an irrelevant one.

 

In any case, my reference to the Lyngdorf was about digital amplification, not room calibration.

 

Tim

 

[PeterSt]

>Millions have been spent trying to show you can and it's all been wasted.

 

Okay, we are way off topic now, but I hope it is interesting enough to continue on it a bit.

 

First of all, I found, say, "properties" completely on my own, which lateron appeared to be much more scientifically already been written by the late Steen Duelund. I don't know where that paper is, but can look it up if you want. Steen Duelund did not live long enough to workout his findings. But I did, even before I found out about his work ...

 

In this link http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=23.0 my friend Gerner is talking about the same subject. Gerner has been the best friend of Steen for decades, designed many loudspeaker systems, and worked with him on the project of this subject.

 

Knowing this, you will believe this Gerner is not as objective as he implies here http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=109.0 (jump to 4th post please).

 

If you are still interested, I can refer to you a more detailed topic, which is only a derival of what I found, but which may make clear better what this is all about. Ok, this is a specific topic about horn speakers, but it will give you some insight in what's happening at the higher level just the same, although that is far more difficult to scientifically explain (oh, I did my best in various topics, but they are all kind of fuzzy). One thing, it *does* work, which is sufficiently proven by all who care to listen.

Mind you, this all is from over one year ago (I started it two years ago), while right now I'm already much further on it. http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=166.0

Background on this last link -and for fun- this is again about the "ability" to hear through all stuff, seeing the digital wave and what's actually happening in there. This was about a session somewhere, everybody agreeing that Jan Garbarek's sax was nothing to listen to. Pain in the ears, and everybody agreed it was the recording. Now, the last link shows it just could be solved by software. Software which is bit-perfect at all times anyway ...

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

Tim, you just pointed out a for me most interesting subject. OTOTOT

 

A studio hence recordiong room can be made as dead as possible, in order to let that room not be a disturbance in my room.

 

or

 

The master can be mixed in such a way that in my room all sounds as intended (hall etc.).

 

or

 

Nothing can be done because the recording is in a church etc.

 

or

 

Of course something can be done about the latter, because the master can be mixed (less hall, blahblah).

 

 

So here we are. And as far as I can reason, there is no single solution to this. Of course, I would say that the church should be left alone. IOW it would most probably be crazy to mix out the hall etc. But what about the studio appliances ?

 

So here's my thoughts on this all :

 

The room we listen in while playing back the recording, is a given fact. Only when we make it completely dead we will be able to perceive what was recorded. However, I think most people can't bare that, already because of a lot of recordings do not take into account *that* the room is completely dead.

 

Ok, you referred to the Lyngdorf for another reason I see now, but do you know what happens when you'd use it to calibrate everything so the room disapppears ? you will get a major headache. Why ? because everything else you experience in that same room -which includes talking, moving cups or glasses of beer, handclapping from joy or otherwise - doesn't fit with what that heavily tweaked music brings you. Your brains can't cope.

 

And in the contrary to this : decorating the room obviously doesn't bring there problems.

 

My kind of preliminary conclusion to all this, is that it can't harm at all to let the room do its job, as long as it doesn't produce to much hall that you can't understand eachother while speaking. But, please note that to my findings, any not treated room with concrete walls and ceiling, a wooden floor (the worst you'd say), and just the normal amount of curtains only ... does not harm. Not how I perceive it here and at other places, with my before topic in mind.

 

I can tell you worse : in my own room I rather leave the curtains open, because I "need" the reflections to make all more realistic. At least that's what I think and choose for.

 

Since we are not able to reproduce exactly what was in the recording regarding room sizes and all (unless with a 100% dead room), in different rooms the music will be perceived differently.

To this aspect, I think, there is not much difference with the musicians playing in those different rooms, and in one room they will sound better than in the other. BUT :

 

Try to compare them acoustically playing and the problems coming from that in the various rooms, with the loudspeakers and the similar problems. The latter incur for way way more problems, and that can't be right (and of which I know it indeed is not).

When your wife shouts to you, she may sound loud with a high key voice. But does it hurt your ears ? Do you really need room decoration for that ? nah ...

 

YMMV of course, and I know I am a bit alone on this. :-)

Wait until be put taste into the mix ...

 

Thanks,

Peter

(I think I stop about the subject now, before I get banned).

 

[tfarney]

OT, indeed. A lot there to respond to, and a few misconceptions:

 

1) Studio recording rooms are not acoustically dead. Control rooms usually aren't either. An anechoic chamber doesn't produce particularly good results in anything but very near field monitoring configurations.

 

2) You may, indeed, need those curtains open to achieve what sounds to your ears like realism (see above).

 

3) I does no harm to "let the room do its job" if you like the results. If it sounds good it is good and all that. But if your objective is at all related to accuracy; if you'd like to actually hear the capabilities of your investment, simply letting the room do its job isn't likely to get you there unless you're very lucky. Tens of thousands of dollars of equipment carefully engineered to be transparent can be negated in an instant by letting the room do its job. I don't think you need to spend a ton of money on room treatments. There are, in fact, some cheap tricks that will do a lot of good, but simply setting up your gear and letting the room do its job runs a great risk of doing the job very poorly. And once you've done most of the work with the environment, a bit of calibration can work wonders.

 

4) An anechoic chamber could be the perfect environment for my wife's voice, depending, of course, on what she has to say.

 

And of course none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the source, but we are admittedly OT.

 

Tim

 

[Daphne]

Hi Dave:

 

I am by no means a microphone expert, but I do know there are mikes designed for specific tasks. There are omnidirectional, bidirectional, directional, small mikes for different instruments, mikes for just the human voice, and even ones for use underwater.

 

There are different microphones for different applications, even 72 year old RCA ribbon mikes. I do have one question Dave. Just out of curiosity, how do you get a 1936 RCA KU-3A microphone repaired.

 

The recording I was speaking of was made using DPA microphones, which are mostly ultra quiet and linear microphones.

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/

 

The Mozart CD:

http://www.2l.musiconline.no/shop/displayAlbum.asp?id=31396

 

daphne

 

[kana813]

Back on topic, here's a free download of the same track in both 16/44.1 & 24/96 for you to compare:

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

 

 

 

[Mallette]

>Just out of curiosity, how do you get a 1936 RCA KU-3A microphone repaired.

It's about the same problem as a Strad...it can be done, but the best thing is treat it like a Romanov egg and make sure it doesn't get broke on your watch. Not much to go wrong other than a severe shock to the ribbon.

 

Nothing I say here should be construed as suggesting that others techniques are wrong, but that they just are not my way.

 

I recognize only three patterns as acceptable. Figure 8, as in ribbon. 180 degrees, as in PZM, and omni, as in, well, omni. The others are based on phase cancellation, which is clearly audible and unnatural sounding to me. I only record acoustic music, and only in as perfect a space as possible. I consider the space to be an extension of the instrument and it cannot be fixed if it is not right. The type of processing discussed in this thread to "fix" environmental issues do not work for me. If the space is not right I will not record. It is pointless. I am a realist when it comes to preserving musical space-time events. My job is to freeze that moment as perfectly as my skills and technology allows, and any mixing, equalizing. attempting to fix acoustic issues and such is the equivalent of editorializing on the musicians work. I wouldn't dare. These people are artists and I am just a documentarian of their efforts.

 

While I find much to be admired in the VERY high end condensor mikes, I find them to be way overengineered compared to fine ribbons, whether vintage or modern. The ribbon is the closest thing to the human ear. It's speed of response and complete absense of noise makes it about as good as it can get, IMHO.

 

Dave

 

[Daphne]

Hi Dave:

 

I understand your point of view completely. Most of what I consider to be the best recordings are done with your process. There is something about placing a group of musicians in a room where they perform together, and then recording them live. The musicians interact with each other, the sound of the instruments blend. It is all part of what brings a sense of realism to the music. It is somewhat rare to hear a recording like that today, and when we do, words like "magic" are used. This method of recording is slowly becoming a lost art.

 

Music is delivered to us from so many different directions that many people just don't give a damn any more.

 

Many times today, musicians are marched into a recording studio, placed into individual isolation chambers, handed a set of headphones and expected to interact with each other with sound completely controlled by the recording engineer. Then the engineers mix and edit the 20 or 30 tracks in an attempt to recreate the time-space of having the various artists in the same room. In the end we have the performance of the recording engineer and not the artists. Then the engineers will gather to give each other awards for doing a good job, which is usually given to the top sellers.

 

The artists are addicted. The recording studio and engineers who produced their big money making albums are used again and again. The profits must flow, because with three ex-wives, five or more children, three homes, and a girlfriend who lives to shop, the quality of the recording is a very low priority.

 

As we all know, it gets worse. After an artist has been in the business for 20 years, it is absolutely imperative to compile an anthology of their work. They dig up the old tapes, bake them, and remaster. Of course, there must be one or two new tracks as a selling bonus (something previously unreleased because it was so horrible no one had the nerve to to include it on any media, or perhaps the artist/s will release something new which is also horrible). No recording needed here, just the skills of a mastering engineer. All the cool equipment and software will be applied.

 

I have a neighbor who lives across the street. He is a sound engineer who started his career at Hanna Barbera creating sound effects in the early 1980s, then to Disney Studios, and finally with Warner Bros. Now he just records dolphins. I hear stories of lockers filled with ribbon mikes from the 30s and 40s. Every movie for 40 years had an original soundtrack. Large studio rooms for recording small groups to whole orchestras. Now soundtracks are a collection of 20 to 50 prerecorded pop songs, few movies for the past decade have included original music.

 

Finding a good recording is becoming more and more difficult. Oh there are reviews available, but most are people bitching about the selection of songs, not the quality of the recording. I have a process for dealing with poor CDs I regret purchasing. I put them in my bottom drawer, then twice each year I will bag them, and make a donation to the local library.

 

Up until the early 1990s I remember seeing a large selection of electronic gadgets to enhance prerecorded music. What comes to mind right now were items from dbx, like dynamic range expanders, equalizers, and those time delay black boxes which one could choose the sound effects of a club, concert hall, or even a stadium. Now these effects are done with computers and software while mastering. So it leaves many of us wondering, why all the effort to enhance the recording to sound live. Why not just make a live recording? Or perhaps I'm missing something here.

 

Daphne

 

[Mallette]

Madame Daphne, if I weren't already married to the finest woman on the planet, I'd be stalking... :-).

 

>I hear stories of lockers filled with ribbon mikes from the 30s and 40s.

 

I have heard of such things. Gives me shivers! To open an old box in a Hollywood warehouse and find boxed DX's, KU's, etc. would be pretty near to stumbling on to the lost Ark for me.

 

As I said, I do not criticize modern engineers for what they do. If it makes people happy and makes some bucks, good on 'em. I'll never make anything doing my thing, but I can't do it otherwise. I've never used a process or processor yet that I did not take down and return to the original, or scrap the whole thing. It just doesn't work.

 

Bad music won't get better, bad musicians will never sound good, cheap instruments will belie their cost, and you can't fix poor acoustics in the mix. And you can't fix the mix.

 

I have to play the ball where it lies, and I appreciate your understanding of that which is now rather an eccentricity in this business.

 

If you like to check any of my efforts out (no money involved!), go to www.mbsdar.com. There are a few samples there.

 

Dave

 

[tfarney]

Hey! You kids! GET OFFA MY LAWN!!!!!

 

Tim

 

[Mallette]

Thought Chris said this was laid back...

 

Okies, on the sidewalk.

 

Wait a minute. It's not even your thread! Back on the lawn. :-).

 

Dave

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is really the niche of the niche. Audiophiles with a great sense of humor. I love it :-)

 

[Wavelength]

Daphne,

 

I am curious about DXD... it seems the web has not really caught onto the technology and so far everything I have read is misleading.

 

I mean if it is truely internally a 32 bit floating format then it would live perfectly in either OSX or Vista's sound stack.

 

Some places I read it's 24 bit pcm at 352.8 and others floating point. Of course there are no 32 floating point DAC or ADC chips out there. But it is easy too see that anything can be used to convert to that internally and then it would have the complete Audio Stack in the computer to do all kinds of things (i.e. eq, limiting, compression [bad]...).

 

Is this a Sony Philips thing?

 

Well getting ready for the show. I have like 80 or 90 high resolution disks for the show.

Thanks

Gordon

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Gordon - I know Digital Audio Denmark manufacturers a DXD DAC, but other than that it's pretty limited. As far as content goes I recently got a peak at a new DXD release, from a well respected label, to be released very soon.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_eXtreme_Definition

 

[tfarney]

The get offa my lawn was just a bit of humor. This discussion seemed to be getting a bit too serious and even, perhaps, a bit curmudgeonly .

 

Actually, I think the live/live in studio and layered multi-track studio recordings are almost two different art forms. But I don't think one is more legitimate than the other. "Revolver" (layered, layered, layered...) is, IMHO, a much better album than "Let It Be" (semi-live in studio). On the other hand, I greatly prefer the live recording of Van Morrison's "Listen to the Lion" from "It's Too Late To Stop Now" to the original studio recording on "St. Dominic's Preview." Which technique produces the best results depends on a lot of things.

 

Where I disagree with the discussion, to get serious about it, is with the notion that somehow multi-track albums are more the product of the producer than the musicians. Are there cases where the A&R man/producer/engineer were as responsible for the creative product as the artists themselves? Sometimes, sure. Little pop singers with little real creative talent are manipulated by producers and engineers, corrected in Pro Tools and yes, the end product is as much theirs as the artists'. But that's nothing new. The same conditions existed in the 50s for teen idols. They just used different tools.

 

Now, where I'll join you in your curmudgeonliness is the current fad in mastering, in which all the nuance and dynamic range is digitally squeezed from what would otherwise be great recordings, layered or otherwise. They make me crazy. They make me sad. They make me grumpy.

 

Hey! You mastering engineers! GET OFFA MY LAWN!!!!!

 

Tim

 

[Purite Audio]

I am paying a visit to 'Merging' tomorrow to hear their Pyramix DAW and listen to the Digital Audio Denmark dac, their stations are based on Vista!

Have you checked them out Chris? regards Keith.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Keith - I am currently waiting for an associate of mine to try out the DAC, then I'll probably look into all the DAD stuff. Le me know how your visit goes!

 

[Mallette]

>Where I disagree with the discussion, to get serious about it, is with the notion that somehow multi-track albums are more the product of the producer than the musicians.

 

Nothing I said should be construed as any critique of multi-track processes. I DID state that such monkeying with acoustic musicians and/or thier acoustic environment of the type I work with would be entirely out of line for me...but I only speak for me. In particular, I am a big fan of the concept albums you mention, as well as Tom Byrd/Field Hippies, Parsons, and am a collector of Firesign Theatre. These things would be impossible without uberdubbing und multitracking, and some other things, too.

 

However, I leave that to those who are best at it.

 

Dave

 

Dave

 

[tfarney]

Sorry, Dave, the sequence of the thread made things a bit unclear. The "get offa my lawn!!!" and follow-up was not a response to your post, but to Daphne's:

 

"Many times today, musicians are marched into a recording studio, placed into individual isolation chambers, handed a set of headphones and expected to interact with each other with sound completely controlled by the recording engineer. Then the engineers mix and edit the 20 or 30 tracks in an attempt to recreate the time-space of having the various artists in the same room. In the end we have the performance of the recording engineer and not the artists..........Why not just make a live recording? Or perhaps I'm missing something here."

 

And yes, she's missing something here: A whole world of studio recordings, an art form of their own, that simply could not exist if they had simply made a live recording.

 

Tim

 

[Mallette]

Sorry. My bad.

"I'll bet you think this song is about you, don't you?"

Dave

 

[Daphne]

Gorden:

 

From what I understand DXD has only been around for about four years or so. Equipment has only become available in the past 18 months.

 

It is not a system developed by Sony & Philips, but was approved by them for DSD use.

 

Sony has designed some equipment, but to my knowledge, it is only being toyed with at Sony BMG studios.

 

For now, DXD is just a recording and editing system which can easily create master files in both DSD and PCM, but will become a great aid in mastering and authoring 5.1 in the future. Here is a short article that can explain a little more.

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/technical_papers/axion/dxd%20Resolution%20v3.5.pdf

 

A Digital Audio Denmark article on the Mozart CD set I was referring to. http://www.digitalaudio.dk/Press_lindberg.htm

 

Merging Technologies:

http://www.merging.com/

 

There are currently only four of five audio recording studios in the US and Europe using DXD. Of course there could be more that I'm not aware of.

 

Daphne

 

[Daphne]

Come on guys! I was just offering examples of opposite poles regarding recording techniques. Of course there are many, many, many, examples of the good, the bad, and the ugly in between. In the future when making a general comment I will try to remember to include a spectrum of examples.

 

Sorry about the Lawn, but I have small feet, and I was wearing a hair net.

 

Daphne

 

[tfarney]

All meant in good humor, Daphne. And I appreciate the small footprint. No net necessary.

 

Tim

 

[Ashley James]

It's interesting that this discussion has done the rounds, but settled on the crucial bit, which is the music itself.

 

I'm all for improving quality and look forward to progress that gets us closer to the real thing. Some recent Classical recordings from newer labels are astonishingly good, Gimmell being an example. In may ways Classical Music is the most difficult to record, but we must never forget that a good performance can transcend most flaws in the recording process.

 

I have a 1911 recording of Sophie Tucker singing "Some of these Days" that a friend found an early 81 rpm record of. It started as a cylinder, was mechanically transferred before finally being chucked in a bin in Birmingham a year or so ago where a friend found it. He cleaned it in the washing up, recorded it digitally and sent me and MP3 of it. You can't get worse than that if you listen to some Audiophiles. But you can, it's bloody marvellous and I'll email it to anyone who contacts me via the company.

 

I also have the Emanuel Feuerrmann recordings of the Hayden D Cello Concerto and the Schubert Arpeggione, they were made before the War and are still breathtakingly beautiful now.

 

Another springs to mind to and that's Kathleen Ferrier singing the Brahms Alto Rhapsody. I almost cry thinking about it and that's how it should be. Music transcends all.

 

As a Hi Fi manufacturer my job is to try to produce equipment that plays anything that appeals to any of our customers better than anyone else, even if it's a 24k stream from Radio Dismuke. It's been an abiding passion all my life since I built my first hi fi system in the fifties and played Beethoven's fifth till it wore out!

IMO opinion this is the most exciting time in the history for hi fi because I'm told I've got access to 10,000 radio stations and I've even discovered I can download the original versions of the Buck Rogers Movies. I don't want to, but it's nice to know that so much is there for asking.

 

I've rambled again, but I hope the point is made

 

Ash