[ProAudio] [ProAud] The High-Resolution Challenge
Richard L. Hess
lists at richardhess.com
Tue Feb 11 12:27:56 EST 2020
On 2020-02-11 1:28 p.m., Bob Katz via ProAudio wrote:
>
> Come on, guys.... We've been down this road in this reflector several
> times. You may recall at least one of the tests I worked on with some
> of you many years ago. I've subsequently performed
> differently-designed tests designed to try to settle the issue of
> "bandwidth", and each time the listening tests lead to the same
> conclusions:
>
> Thus I am 99.9999999% convinced that the sonic differences between
> sample rates are not due to the bandwidth, but rather to the
> performance of the converters themselves. Unfortunately, the bandwidth
> mafia at HD Tracks keeps maintaining the illusion that what we can see
> has anything to do with what we can hear. And I hope that JJ does not
> make his application because it will continue to mislead the public.
>
Bob, I thank you for saying that. For some reason, the archival
community -- based mostly on the premise that 96 sounded better than
44.1 back in 2001 or so and I told them exactly that it was the
converters' filtering and topology that was making the difference, not
the actual bandwidth -- decided on the minimum standard of 96/24 for all
archival work. When I get in large (for me) collections of oral history
on cassettes recorded on the $40 book sized 5-C-cell recorders, I
really, really try and talk them out of 96/24 and suggest 48/24.
Part of this trend for the last two decades has been that archivists
learn 96/24 in archiving school and they're not audio engineers. Sadly,
96 kHz is too low to capture bias, but it does provide a more gentle
rolloff and some tape machines can go out to 35-40 kHz, so for
high-quality music I don't argue, but for the aforementioned cassettes I
tell people, "you want to use twice the data space for the project for
no benefit?" I get one of two responses, "OK, I understand, use 48" or
"No, our standard is 96 and we want you to use that."
Goran Finnberg also agrees with this premise and has been saying it for
two decades as well.
>
> In Bob Stuart's paper, which is open access so you do not have to be
> an AES member to download this:
>
> J. R. Stuart and P. G. Craven, “The Gentle Art of Dithering” J.
> Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 278–299, (2019 May.). DOI:
> https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2019.0011
>
> he points out on page 290 the number of decimators and upsampling
> filters that occur in typical chip-based converters. And that these
> stages are not dithered. And that there are fewer of these stages when
> the converters are used at a higher sample rate. Smoking gun....
>
> In a conversation I had with him at the New York AES last year, I told
> him that I discovered that audio sounds superior in many current
> converters if you upsample it and reproduce it at the higher rate. I
> also told him of my experiments showing that if you start with, for
> example, a 96 kHz recording, downsample it to 44.1 k and then
> reupsample it to 96k, that it sounds identical to the original, but
> the 44.1 k intermediate stage sounds worse, smaller and less resolved.
> In my book, I point out: How can a second generation in a chain sound
> worse than the third generation?
>
> Bob Stuart's explanation for this phenomenon is the design of the
> converters themselves.
>
> Thus my conclusion that the DACs perform better at the higher sample
> rate. Stuart explained that when the converters work at a higher
> sample rate, the audio goes through fewer stages of either decimation
> or upsampling, and that these stages are typically not dithered. The
> fewer of these stages, the better the audio sounds. So, folks, it's
> not the bandwidth that makes the higher sample rates sound better,
> it's the internal design of the converters themselves.
>
> Note that in one or more of his MQA papers Stuart describes the
> processes' restoration of high frequency information "just in case"
> but acknowledges that it may not be necessary. Like chicken soup,
> keeping the extra high frequency information couldn't hurt (except for
> wasting storage space and processing time). But I am resentful that
> many of my great-sounding masters that I have worked so carefully to
> make them sound better, including upsampling before processing ---
> have to be downsampled in order to be released on HD tracks because of
> the high res mafia.
>
>
> BK
>
>
> On 2/11/20 1:28 AM, James Johnston via ProAudio wrote:
>> I must say that I am sorely tempted to see if I can get somebody to
>> whip up an app that measures effective bandwidth of a PCM track at
>> any common sampling rate.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:15 PM mark whitehouse via ProAudio
>> <proaudio at bach.pgm.com <mailto:proaudio at bach.pgm.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Following on from our discussion of around 18 months ago,
>> I know in Australia there were moves to get some kind of "truth
>> in marketing"
>> in regards to High sample rate recordings.
>> And promoting the differences in standards that are now available.
>>
>> Essentially a standard that could be understood by and promoted
>> to consumers, musicians etc.
>>
>> It doesnt seem to have gone far and when you see things like this
>> http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html
>>
>>
>> It makes you wonder if things will improve.
>> Is there any consensus on getting this acknowledged?
>>
>> regards
>> Mark
>> To upload files to our server, Please click the following link
>> and follow the steps on the Hightail page.
>> https://spaces.hightail.com/uplink/ProCopy-Data
>>
>> Pro-Copy - Promote Media Group
>> Unit 2 39 Enterprise Crescent
>> Malaga
>> WA 6090
>>
>> PH +61 (08) 9375 3902
>> AustWide: 1300 4 PROCOPY
>> For general enquiries email - info at procopy.com.au
>> <mailto:info at procopy.com.au>
>> www.procopy.com.au <http://www.procopy.com.au/>
>>
>>
>> This transmission is confidential. This e-mail including any
>> attachments, is for the original addressee only. Virus detection
>> software has been used to detect the presence of any computer
>> viruses, however, we cannot guarantee that this e-mail and any
>> attached files are virus free.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:25 AM Mark Waldrep
>> <mwaldrep at aixmediagroup.com <mailto:mwaldrep at aixmediagroup.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> In the interest of exploring the issue of perceptibility of
>> high-resolution vs. Redbook versions of the exact same file,
>> I've posted on my blog page today "The High-Resolution Audio
>> Challenge". I've prepared 6 of my AIX Records native 96
>> kHz/24-bit PCM masters as A and B versions. One is the
>> original high-res master and the other is a Redbook
>> downconversion. You are welcome to download the files and
>> play them. Please do not share them outside of the group. I'm
>> conducting a casual survey to see if people can detect
>> differences. I don't claim this will be definitive. However,
>> I've always complained that previous tests failed because the
>> source materials weren't actual high-resolution files. This
>> removes that flaw. These are the real deal. The conversion
>> was done using triangular dither and noise shaping.
>>
>> You can find the article at http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6197
>>
>> Mark Waldrep, Ph.D.
>> AIX Records and author of
>> Music and Audio: A User Guide To Better Sound
>>
>>
>> On 6/14/18, 3:13 PM, "Stephen Morley"
>> <proaudio-bounces at bach.pgm.com
>> <mailto:proaudio-bounces at bach.pgm.com> on behalf of
>> stephenmorley at iprimus.com.au
>> <mailto:stephenmorley at iprimus.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>> I can record DXD and the downsample in Pyramix, or else
>> at 192/24 and then downsample to 44/24
>> -------- Original message --------From: James Johnston
>> <audioskeptic at gmail.com <mailto:audioskeptic at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 14/6/18 8:56 pm (GMT+10:00) To: proaudio at bach.pgm.com
>> <mailto:proaudio at bach.pgm.com> Subject: Re: [ProAud] Wow.
>> 384/32 LPCM!
>> Just make sure the content is identical on both.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Stephen Morley <
>> stephenmorley at iprimus.com.au
>> <mailto:stephenmorley at iprimus.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi James,I could send something, but not until next
>> week when I return
>> > from leave.Stephen
>> > -------- Original message --------From: James Johnston <
>> > audioskeptic at gmail.com <mailto:audioskeptic at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 13/6/18 8:53 am (GMT+10:00) To:
>> > proaudio at bach.pgm.com <mailto:proaudio at bach.pgm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [ProAud] Wow. 384/32 LPCM!
>> > I'll repeat my request:
>> >
>> > Send me some recordings at 24/192 and a similar one at
>> 44/16. I can and
>> > will measure the actual "information" present, via SFM
>> and bit depth.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ProAudio mailing list
>> > ProAudio at bach.pgm.com <mailto:ProAudio at bach.pgm.com>
>> > http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James D. (jj) Johnston
>> Independent Audio and Electroacoustics Consultant
>> _______________________________________________
>> ProAudio mailing list
>> ProAudio at bach.pgm.com <mailto:ProAudio at bach.pgm.com>
>> http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>> _______________________________________________
>> ProAudio mailing list
>> ProAudio at bach.pgm.com <mailto:ProAudio at bach.pgm.com>
>> http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ProAudio mailing list
>> ProAudio at bach.pgm.com <mailto:ProAudio at bach.pgm.com>
>> http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ProAudio mailing list
>> ProAudio at bach.pgm.com <mailto:ProAudio at bach.pgm.com>
>> http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James D. (jj) Johnston
>> Independent Audio and Electroacoustics Consultant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ProAudio mailing list
>> ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
>> http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
> --
> If you want good sound on your album, come to Bob Katz 407-831-0233
> DIGITAL DOMAIN MASTERING STUDIO Author: *Mastering Audio* Digital
> Domain Website <https://www.digido.com/> No trees were killed in the
> sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were
> terribly inconvenienced.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ProAudio mailing list
> ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
> http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
--
Richard L. Hess email: richard at richardhess.com
Aurora, Ontario, Canada http://www.richardhess.com/
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bach.pgm.com/pipermail/proaudio/attachments/20200211/57416844/attachment.html>
More information about the ProAudio
mailing list