Maybe it should have been musicians vs. engineers.
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
But My Ears Say “NO!”
- Thread starter JJCalvillo
- Start date
Maybe it should have been musicians vs. engineers.
I think the most interesting part of that study is that there was a difference between the "native 44.1 and the downsampled 88.2. I wonder if the A to D in the separate 44.1 chain was somehow different in s meaningful way?
It's obvious to me that I need to get my hands on some more high res content. That soundtrack you mentioned sounds like a good place to start.
It's obvious to me that I need to get my hands on some more high res content. That soundtrack you mentioned sounds like a good place to start.
The guys that wrote the study @E-Stat linked are supposedly looking into that question.
I'm technically both, though I'm not the right kind of engineer.
E-stat-hdtracks vs pro studio Masters?
Any native 24 bit high resolution master of which I have many. Just not the forty third remastering of DSOM at “high resolution’” like found with the M-M study.
Do you ever attend live unamplified concerts?
Last edited:
The actual musical experience vs. looking at theory/specs on paper.
I've been in more of them than I've attended, most of the concerts I've been to have been amplified. I used to perform with a chamber choir and a barbershop quartet in a large acoustically wonderful auditorium that'd give me goosebumps even from the stage.
cpt_paranoia
Addicted Member
It appears that you are arguing against a strawman of your own invention, a strawman that is nothing to do with my posts.
If you want to argue with yourself, that's fine, but leave me out of it.
I'll reiterate: my posts were about creating distribution media from studio recordings; the production mastering process. Your high res files are, no doubt, something like 192k or 384kSa/s, yes? Because they are taken from the recording studio masters. The resampling process I was discussing is the one required to create a 44.1k CD master from that studio master. That process is absolutely necessary.
Resampling when you play music at home is not a necessity, provided your DAC can convert at the native sample rate of the file.
I'll reiterate: my posts were about buying recordings made at their native resolution. Resampling is not a "necessity" as you averred.
No foolin'.
Thanks.
Some other wide dynamic range 24 bit masters I enjoy are other recent works from John Williams The Force Awakens (Rey's Theme and Scherzo for X-Wings are favorites) and from Michael Giacchino Rogue One. I used the latter in Glenn's speaker video post since he asked for something to "showcase" dynamics which the He's Here For Us track has in spades:
BTW, I found Amirm's post to which I referred to earlier. It runs countless pages, but take note of a couple. In the first two pages, he analyzes failings with the M-M study. Later, once Arny gets there, he takes on Arny's challenge. Click here where Amirm blew threw Arny's jingling key test. And here where Amirm summarizes the failure of guys like Krueger to acknowledge that folks do hear such differences. He also noted that his hearing (like mine) is limited to about 12 kHz. It's not about extreme bandwidth.
Note I've provided five embedded links in this post for your reference.
Thanks.
Some other wide dynamic range 24 bit masters I enjoy are other recent works from John Williams The Force Awakens (Rey's Theme and Scherzo for X-Wings are favorites) and from Michael Giacchino Rogue One. I used the latter in Glenn's speaker video post since he asked for something to "showcase" dynamics which the He's Here For Us track has in spades:
BTW, I found Amirm's post to which I referred to earlier. It runs countless pages, but take note of a couple. In the first two pages, he analyzes failings with the M-M study. Later, once Arny gets there, he takes on Arny's challenge. Click here where Amirm blew threw Arny's jingling key test. And here where Amirm summarizes the failure of guys like Krueger to acknowledge that folks do hear such differences. He also noted that his hearing (like mine) is limited to about 12 kHz. It's not about extreme bandwidth.
Note I've provided five embedded links in this post for your reference.
Will read at lunch.
That's a beautiful waveform. I haven't seen that kind of dynamic range in a long time. I once noticed that a song from a band I liked sounded like utter garbage for no apparent reason. I loaded it up in Audacity and it was brickwalled through the ENTIRE song. I ran a clipping indicator on it and at least one of the instruments was basically constantly clipping, which explained the "hash" in the background of the song that I found so irritating. It had nothing to do with the format it was in, but was mastered right into the song. A crying shame as the band had great songwriting.
I downloaded the 192 khz version of The Last Jedi soundtrack (Had you mentioned that one before or did I get mixed up?) and it sounded fantastic through the only pair of headphones I had handy last night. I'll break out my Fostex and do some more critical listening tonight. I listened to the Spotify version at work this morning and I'd swear there's a difference, but using different headphones and a different source device (Same DAC) likely skews things. The dac I was using last night is only capable of 96khz so it was doing some downsampling. My desktop has a 192khz capable DAC as does my stereo.
Using my Dragonfly DAC with my phone has also alterted me to the fact that the Spotify App on Android is upsampling 44.1 to 48khz to match the system standard on Android, which is a bit disappointing.
Cheers,
Nathan
No, that was the first one I mentioned since it is more recent. Another is from the latest Fantastic Beasts the Crimes of Grindenwald soundtrack.
I'm with Mastering Engineer Brian Lacey's viewpoint found in this interview:
"Let’s just sell the 24 bit files at the mastering session sample rate, not higher and not lower, and call it a day?"
