Lots of open ended discussion in your post for sure.
Let’s see how far we get…
So, with live sound and technology, there has always been a push to better the audio reinforcement aspect.
Yes, Woodstock was a nightmare rig compared to today’s flying line arrays and SMAART style implementation of venue analysis.
Any room can be dialed in even before the first roadcase hits the loading dock!
As far as mixing for earbuds and the tech behind that trend, one of the coolest things today is mixing for ATMOS which can be done on headphones in someone’s home studio rig! That in itself is amazing!
Although, the only drawback for me personally is that ATMOS still uses the PCM bitrate standard of today. Can you imagine if there was an ATMOS consideration towards DSD! One can still hope right? Lol.
So if one monitors on Adam near fields, will it translate to earbuds?
I believe one of the common mistakes is assuming all earbuds are cheap Dollar Store brands.
That is certainly not the case these days and why mix for cheap when your product was recorded with utmost care?
I think at this juncture we should divide our listening prejudices into casual listening and critical listening. Or maybe relaxed listening instead of mobile listening.
When i figure out how to post quotes from your text on my phone I’ll discuss the rest of your points. Take care. Thanks.
That makes sense. Really listening closely to audio/music requires studious concentration without distractions and without moving around. The highest fidelity makes sense for say Classical music, whereas head-banging Rock may not have a real need for that approach, just as an example.
I don’t know about doing it on a phone, but if you can just highlight some text on the screen, a virtual button that says “Quote” should appear. Click that and it will paste your highlighted text in your new post as a Quote. Some people used to use the TapaTalk app for phone, which may have helped with those functions. I haven’t seen that signature for quite some time, so I don’t know if the app is still available.
I’ve been around long enough to have sold the first generation of CD players. After all the hype, the majority of audiophiles in the early stages thought the Philips design was the best. If I’m not mistaken, ( it was a long time ago) it was a 14 bit playback device. The reason it sounded as good as it did was that the transport made less reading errors, so the DA converter didn’t have to guess as much.
For the next few years, all manufacturers tried to improve the performance by trying to get around the inherent shortcomings engineered into the format. Most of these attempts centered on oversampling in one form or another to allow the DA converters to work in their optimal range.
In an attempt to not ramble forever, the audio industry is always going to be concerned with selling product, which means that there needs to be a common denominator. This tends to eliminate most truly hi res formats because the market is extremely small.
Secondly, you made an interesting point: you want measurable results to be audible results. Those two factors don’t always go hand in hand, unfortunately. For instance, there are myriad speakers with flawless frequency response, but they all have different nuances and flaws that will draw you to a particular speaker. I used to have people buy very expensive speakers that they didn’t like as much solely based on specifications.
Lastly, it still boils down to fantasy land in most regards. A perfect recording to me should be something that is in all respects an exact duplication of a performance in a specific room. How many recordings qualify? Very, very few, in that they are almost all manipulated by the engineer and the producer to some degree, so is there much truth in the recording, and is high res doing anything to affect that truth? There are a number of recording formats that already exceed the limits of human hearing in terms of frequency response and dynamic range. I’m sure it would be great to hear them through a perfect system, which of course would still be subjective and cost prohibitive for all but the very fortunate. The ultimate problem is always going to be a lack of mass acceptance. Sadly, there just aren’t enough people who care to bring the investment cost down when 90% of people think a good set of earbuds is enough.
That’s an interesting twist I hadn’t expected, but very valid. What is truth? What is non-truth? That’s a whole other philosophical debate, but in this context - since music (and other forms of audio) is frequently an Entertainment medium - what experience are you trying to convey to the listener? Does it need to be truthful? (Yes/No/Maybe) And if it’s not truthful, what does that mean? Is an “illusion” non-truth, or is it just an exploration of what truth - or “alternative truth” means? Much of art and music uses imagination and emotional impressions to transport you to another place, another time, or another state of mind. So it’s not that truth doesn’t exist there, but maybe the experience is more for the sensory journey than the destination? Think also of cosmetics, fashion, “haute cuisine”, interior design, sculpted gardens, etc. You can think in terms of quality and sophistication perhaps, but how does truth relate to these things … they can be a form of illusion, or even in some cases deception (in fashion, horizontal lines make you look fatter, vertical lines make you look slimmer).
I think of Robert Johnson, and his music. Probably the opposite of hi-res audio! But to understand what it is, the era it was recorded in, the artist, the recording medium, etc. - it is historical and amazing for what it is. And the emotional authenticity comes through no matter the recording medium. Some may call that “source” and “performance”.
Should there be a different standard for non-music audio? Why, or why not? Does it make a difference? I guess how I approach this is that when listening to a podcast, a documentary, or other audio/video productions … I’m looking for an acceptable level of quality - i.e. not sucky audio. Sucky audio (bad audio) detracts from the enjoyment and experience, but how much does higher levels of quality add? I might suggest “diminishing returns” to some degree. Are we trying to design the perfect mouse trap?
Archiving, record keeping, documentation, all of these derivatives of each other coincide with the art of the performance.
To steal a stagecraft terminology, a “forced perspective”.
I heard an interview with the members of Genesis saying that each song of theirs is developed from a theatrical point of view.
Meaning, the whole Shakespeare’s intent of storytelling. Very relevant still to this day. We might not like the musical genre today, but those elements are still at work and being streamed daily.
Can we then separate MLK’s I have a Dream speech from its midrange intense archival method?
Should we remove the hiss from the moon landing footage?
Or deesser the, Ask not what your country can do for you speech?
Sure, we can mess with low fi. Hi fi, hi res and any other psycho acoustical trick we can think of.
Go for it!
My quest is to introduce a once important resolution standard that folks like Sony abandoned but picked up by guys like PS Audio etc. Namely in the name of preservation for my personal studio works. That’s all.
Anyone is welcomed to jump in, the water’s fine!
Thanks.
I definitely got that sense from early Genesis (with Peter Gabriel) “Dancing on a Volcano”. Also, later Genesis “I Can’t Dance”, I really love the groove of that song. Not so much of a fan of other Genesis stuff. Interesting that maybe Hip-Hip/RAP maybe plays on that too? I’m sure I don’t get it, but there must be some ancestral appeal to it.
Those clips are identifiable by their low-fi audio, to clean them up might seem like a crime. On that point, I guess I’m a low-fi purist - keep it as it was recorded, rather than do historical “revisionism”. I remember that the band Living Colour had a song with some audio clips at beginning and end that incorporate some of these, Kennedy and FDR at the end. There’s a clip of MLK in the middle (but not audio). The beginning clip I’m not sure what that’s from.
Guns N’ Roses probably had a song with historical audio too.
.
Good point!
The way I was taught in my studio internship was that a studio only sells one thing. TIME.
Going in a recording facility,
the client rightfully should expect:
good equipment.
A skilled engineer
Great sounding room
Those should be a given on anyone with aspirations in the studio business. So the only thing left really is the rate in which all these perform. Time billed for the work done.
I have a private studio so my focus can be a bit different. I will do a demo for a friend totally in the box. No real frills or fancy mics. Quick and easy with very little analog, tubes or ribbon mic selection etc. involved.
Now, on the paying client side, they get the full monty cuz they are paying for it.
My equipment ROI is a non issue since a good portion of my gear was part of the rental gear from my now dissolved business or it’s gear that has been given to me by other facilities. YMMV.
Different viewpoints and different goals, I suppose…
Audiophiles often focus on sonics for sonics’ sake, and tend to look to some identifiable, tangible metric to gauge the value of audio, whether that be the value of and/or components of high spec/high end sound reproduction equipment, or perhaps the measurements and specifications related such equipment. It tends toward a technical viewpoint.
Music production engineers are typically from a musical/musician background and primarily relate to music on an emotional level. When that is the case, often the equipment is immaterial insofar as its measurable sonic performance. In this case, equipment is valued for it’s ability to convey emotion, and produce whatever sonic textures are desired.
Guitar amps are a good example of this. From a purely technical standpoint, some of the most desirable valve guitar amps are very poor at reproducing sound in terms of frequency range, distortion figures and efficiency - I’d even go so far as to say they could be considered technical abomination! But for a musician, an old valve guitar amp is the perfect tool to express emotion and reproduce the desired sound.
Perhaps it’s a case of higher resolutions not always being the best tool for the job? Could it be that it is similar to when guitar amp manufacturers at one time decided to introduce new products with less distortion and a wider frequency response? While “technically” superior, these amplifiers failed to be adopted with any enthusiasm when guitarists found the low distortion and wide frequency response were surplus to their requirements, and actually counter to their sonic goals.
On the other hand, there are clearly situations where a high sample rate is desirable, like when recording close miked brass and cymbals with condenser mics (where the strong high frequency response might result in audible aliasing causing a harsh and gritty top end), recording audio for sound design (where it is likely to be time-stretched and manipulated radically) or in audio restoration (where it is easier to detect and eliminate issues).
In a similar way, the video you posted above on 32bit recording nicely explains the advantages of why you might choose to use a higher bit rate. However, virtually all of the instances they refer to are non-music-related applications. What’s more, in both 24 bit and 32 bit recording devices, the noise floor of the actual signal path in the recording device exceeds the noise floor of the actual recording medium.
My Apollo Twin X, for example, has a noise floor of -127dB, which is far higher than the dynamic range of its 24bit recording capability at 144.5dB, both of which will be far exceeded by the noise floor of any typical recording space (bar perhaps an anechoic chamber), and certainly the space where I typically record. As he says at 2:28 “In most recording situations, this is absolutely fine for recording instruments, singing, interviews…etc… if you set your gain correctly.”
Ultimately, I think there is more nuance to the discussion than just “why aren’t we using higher sample rates and bit depth, because they are available”… It seems it really is about the right tool for the job…
This video from Present Day Production (the same team you referenced earlier with their excellent Bit depth video), go into the complications of this discussion in a lot more detail, not the least of which revolves around the limitations of the currently available AD/DA convertors and speaker systems.
Now, I’m not saying high resolution audio (as you’ve defined it here) is necessarily a bad thing in all situations - I’m just proposing some possible answers to your query as to why it hasn’t been received with unanimous enthusiasm by music production engineers.
Yep, and the rate or contract has to work for the business aspect. The one thing I would add is the vibe and personality of the engineer or studio staff. Hanging around a few studios here and there, I think a lot of it has to do with personalities and relationships. Usually there are good vibes and chill interactions, but sometimes bands and performers seemed to do well with the asshole slave-driver type. That always puzzled me. But of course, adversity sometimes creates more drama and passion than amicability does. Just think of Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumours” album.
The easiest high res analogy I can come up with is vocabulary. Let’s assume 24 bit recordings are the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree level vocabulary. If that were the case a 32 bit recording would have 512 times the vocabulary of the 24 bit bachelor’s degree holder.
Very impressive, however you now have to find others with the more descriptive vocabulary to have an intelligent conversation.
I appreciate the concept of hi res, especially when it is used to give the listener a more involving and accurate depiction of the original recording. Neil Young for instance helped to pioneer streaming music at higher resolution. I haven’t kept up with it, but it certainly remains out of the mainstream.
I guess a sarcastic summary of my vocabulary analogy is that you probably wouldn’t talk baseball with Stephen Hawking, but it would be fun if you did.
I reckon you could have that conversation, wildly insane as that concept might sound!
At first I thought, Hmm, that analogy is rather wacky! But upon further review, and the technology of instant replay, it is absolutely correct.
Baseball like audio/music/sound,
can be a game of pure statistical analysis. This is why they give you a scorecard when you enter the stadium. You and Stevie can have a great time months later even, reviewing the game.
OTOH, my buddy Rocker Joe who used to live a stone’s throw from the nuclear waste site, loves to drink loads of beer and yell at any player from the opposing team from his seat out in left field ( rightfully where he belongs!)
But if you asked him about the game, his would be a response of pure emotive joy, a blissful moment in time!
It gets good when all aspects of the game are in play. This is why its an art as well as a science. Audio that is, you shouldn’t have one without the other.
My hi res inquiries are my own.
I cant force good folks to follow me to the river, and i can’t make them be baptized in the waters of DSD either. However, I’ll try my best to document my results as I am trying to do in this forum.
Thanks.
not to derail this thread, Hawkins was actually very well versed in Baseball talk. The brief moment I met him about a quick discussion about quantum physics, he started with a baseball. That is one guy you could have had a conversation about anything lol.
RIP
Just to be clear, I am all for hi res conceptually. I always thought it was weird that the big lead up to CDs and digital recording was so severely hamstrung from the beginning.
I honestly think engineers looked at it from a perspective of longevity rather than the ultimate in fidelity. After all, a CD wasn’t supposed to wear out, or skip ( big oopsy on that one) or degrade like vinyl.
It was always a debate about how to turn a waveform into math, and they set the bar too low to make it accessible to everyone.
SACD and DSD. are both great tools, but they are still in a sense another attempt at more accurately capturing a waveform in a format that does not degrade over time and offers higher resolution by using a better system than what was designed in the first place.
If you have what you need to do it, go for it. I wish everybody thought about it like you do.
Super intelligent people with personality are amazing to talk with. They are generally at peace with their gifts and don’t consider themselves as being superior except in their field. Of course, he could have done a brief symposium about vectors and variants on knuckleballs, but he didn’t feel the need.
i am trying to find a video that further explains the high res concept of pushing some form of digital hash outside the audio spectrum that is inclusionary in anything below our current industry standards. Meaning, PCM at 48/24 or maybe even 96khz.
Well, at least it’s a start, but there was another one besides Paul’s little fireside chats that had more of that techy stuff like charts and graphs n stuff!
Anyway, keep us posted what’s on your mind about this little side venture of mine. Maybe, perhaps, possibly it could be a side venture for you too! Thanks.
Simply stating that there is a huge difference doesn’t actually make it so.
As humans we can’t tell the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and 44.1/16-bit WAV, so I doubt that an inaudible decrease in noise floor and an increase in frequencies that are not only outside the range of human hearing, but also outside the range of most equipment’s reproductive and capturing capabilities are going to make any difference.
To answer your question, the people on the side of “high res” are safe in their beliefs. They posit unfalsifiable notions. Nobody can disprove their purely subjective assertions, therefore they believe they are right.
16 bits gives a dynamic range of 96 db. Unless you’re recording a symphony orchestra, you’re likely to use about 10% of that. For the symphony orchestra you could move to 24 bits, but otherwise, any increase in bit depth is pointless.
Simlarly, 44.1kHz allows frequencies of 22khz to be faithfully reproduced. Virtually no one on the planet can hear those frequencies, so there is no need for anything higher.
48k , 24bit or 96k, 24bit is turning into the common standard slowly as 44.1 is slowly but steadily being phased out. Not because the difference is inaudible but because of signal processing later down the chain. Multiples of 48k (x2, x3, x4) match up better with most video converters and streaming platforms with less sampling or oversampling errors.
Why bother converting 44.1k one more time to multiples of 48 when it is just as easy to record 48k. Boz Millar can likely easily verify the underlying process behind all this as he writes sampling plugins and many others.
It is more of an aesthetic because we “can”…just like hd vs 4k. Difference is imperceptible unless bloated up on a super large screen.
No one can hear these differences but it does make processing later down the chain easier with a well recorded sample. It is a pain to work with a poorly gain staged sample from 16bit recordings, so 24bit is a good starting point today. It will likely get to 32bit eventually with enough early adopters as hard drive and cloud storage become less of an issue…
I’m not so sure of that. CDs currently still account for a large slice of the global market, and there will always be a demand for a physical product, so I don’t think the format is going away any time soon.
Not sure what you mean. Bit depth plays no part in gain staging.
I could just as easily ask, why bother recording at 48kHz when the end product is going to be a CD?
The key in any session is to ascertain the format of the final master before you start recording, and then record in that format so that there is no need for conversion.
