HIFICRITIC audio review magazine
HIFICRITIC FORUMS
New Issue: Vol 8, No 1
HIFICRITIC
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Martin Colloms  
#1 Posted : 17 November 2011 18:29:18(UTC)
Martin Colloms


Rank: Moderator

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,159

Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
I had commented that the 24/96 was inferior to a CD dub , but I now see, hear, that the Hi Res is quieter and need to check more.

Is it lower mod level , or does the CD issue have some compression, a different master for release ?

Martin Colloms
Offline darkmatter  
#2 Posted : 17 November 2011 23:12:11(UTC)
darkmatter


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,811
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 20 times
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Martin Colloms wrote:
I had commented that the 24/96 was inferior to a CD dub , but I now see, hear, that the Hi Res is quieter and need to check more.

Is it lower mod level , or does the CD issue have some compression, a different master for release ?

Martin Colloms


Which CD issue have you used as reference? if it is the SBM remaster then that is a bad remaster dynamically shut in and fairly loud plus it lost the rhytm of the original an all round bad egg IMHO.

I prefer my original CD issue from 1985 pressed in West Germany but quite like the first press Japan as well
Offline paul_riordan  
#3 Posted : 21 November 2011 08:35:01(UTC)
paul_riordan


Rank: HIFI Newbie

Joined: 26/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 8
Location: Wiltshire, UK

Martin Colloms wrote:
I had commented that the 24/96 was inferior to a CD dub , but I now see, hear, that the Hi Res is quieter and need to check more.

Is it lower mod level , or does the CD issue have some compression, a different master for release ?

Martin Colloms



I wasn't aware that there was a 24/96 version of Brothers In Arms commercially available. I have the DVD-A disc (the stereo soundtrack is 24/48) which I have ripped and playback via my Linn DS and this definately sounds better than the CD version that I have. In addition I took the 5.1 (24/96) and downmixed it to stereo and I think that sounds even better. It is very surprising that what I understand was originally recorded digitally in 14 bits can somehow be transformed and sound so much better.

Paul

Edited by user 21 November 2011 12:03:04(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Matt  
#4 Posted : 13 December 2011 20:41:04(UTC)
Matt


Rank: HIFI Addict

Joined: 08/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 98

Thanks: 1 times
I found a chart showing the clipping on the 2005 version of the CD:

http://www.amazon.com/gp...ef=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all
Offline darkmatter  
#5 Posted : 14 December 2011 00:42:07(UTC)
darkmatter


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,811
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 20 times
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Matt wrote:
I found a chart showing the clipping on the 2005 version of the CD:

http://www.amazon.com/gp...ef=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all


I listened to the 2005 version for a few seconds and remember laughing out loud!! to the consernation of the other listeners Blink
It certainly did sound appalling to my ears!!
Offline frank23  
#6 Posted : 20 December 2011 21:09:44(UTC)
frank23


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 12/07/2009(UTC)
Posts: 367
Location: the netherlands

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
That is just horrible!

UserPostedImage
Offline Stratosphere  
#7 Posted : 21 December 2011 10:30:51(UTC)
Stratosphere


Rank: HIFI Novice

Joined: 10/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 77
United Kingdom
Location: Mid Sussex

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Maybe this explains why i cant listen to it anymore, i like the music mostly, especially the title track, but some tracks are just so overdone and in yer face, i just wont bother unless i feel i can handle the abuse..

This bothers me immensely though, the whole remastering lark, there seems to be less interest in genuine accuracy now. Manfred Eicher should start giving lessons.
Offline bdiament  
#8 Posted : 28 March 2012 17:10:24(UTC)
bdiament


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 09/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: New York

Originally Posted by: Martin Colloms Go to Quoted Post
I had commented that the 24/96 was inferior to a CD dub , but I now see, hear, that the Hi Res is quieter and need to check more.

Is it lower mod level , or does the CD issue have some compression, a different master for release ?

Martin Colloms


Hi Martin,

Unless this has been remixed from the original digital (16-bit) multitrack tapes (not sure if they were 44.1 or 48k), I am at loss to understand how a 24/96 version was derived.

It is possible of course, to take the original DAT mix (whether 16/44 or 16/48), convert to analog for "remastering" and reconvert at a higher resolution but as far as I know, the original "ceiling" cannot be raised. (Perhaps I'm missing something.)

As to your question in the original post about the CD having some compression, I would say that in pop music, I know of only one or two mastering engineers (I'm one of them) who do not *routinely* apply dynamic compression to every single project. (I've known mastering engineers who have their EQ and compression settings made *before* they hear the first note in the project!)

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

Edited by user 28 March 2012 17:12:51(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline darkmatter  
#9 Posted : 29 March 2012 11:27:29(UTC)
darkmatter


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,811
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 20 times
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your input this is how I read it as well, if they just upsampled using the SBM remaster then that is indeed a potential 'recipe for disaster'.
I need to read up on the SBM process and not sure what they used to work from to derive this "Hi-Rez" Brothers in Arms mastering project. This might have come from the original recording which I did read somewhere might well have been recorded at 16/48? Converted it up to 24/96??
I listened to my early West German pressing matrix 02 earliest I have found (Sounds better than my 07) and this is still a great sounding disc.
Regards
Simon
Offline Werner  
#10 Posted : 29 March 2012 17:51:15(UTC)
Werner


Rank: HIFI Novice

Joined: 28/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: Belgium

Sony PCM3324 24 track. That could have been 44.1k or 48k. The rationale was the avoidance
of analogue tape wear, something Knopfler was weary of since LoG.

Mastering presumably to PCM1610 or 1630 (what else was there?), and through a long chain
of analogue desk modules to warm it up. Most likely 44.1. They must have been
aware of CD by then, not?

Upconverted? There is no magic bullet. All you can do with 44.1k is properly reconstruct
it. Your DAC does so. If 'upconverted' for a 'hires' release that is just part
of the reconstruction being done by a well-paid bloke in a posh studio.


SBM is just Sony's noise shaper. It takes N bits in and outputs noise-shaped
16 bits. A bit pointless when starting from a 16 bit master, not? Unless they
went back and remixed everything from the 24 track source. This alone would cause
a massive difference in sound.

Offline bdiament  
#11 Posted : 29 March 2012 21:10:44(UTC)
bdiament


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 09/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: New York

Originally Posted by: darkmatter Go to Quoted Post
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your input this is how I read it as well, if they just upsampled using the SBM remaster then that is indeed a potential 'recipe for disaster'.
I need to read up on the SBM process and not sure what they used to work from to derive this "Hi-Rez" Brothers in Arms mastering project. This might have come from the original recording which I did read somewhere might well have been recorded at 16/48? Converted it up to 24/96??
I listened to my early West German pressing matrix 02 earliest I have found (Sounds better than my 07) and this is still a great sounding disc.
Regards
Simon


Hi Simon,

As Werner pointed out, SBM (Sony's "BM"?) is simply a dithering/noise shaping algorithm used when reducing word length.

Werner, to my knowledge, the album was mixed to DAT (at least, that's what the article says). They don't specify the machine. The most popular one in those days was a Technics MASH unit with picosecond jitter measurements requiring 4 digits (!). To my ears, that machine acted very much (among other things) like a dynamic compressor - everything recorded to it lost "punch" and dynamic Life. Of course, a different machine may have been used to mix this album.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Offline Werner  
#12 Posted : 03 April 2012 11:17:20(UTC)
Werner


Rank: HIFI Novice

Joined: 28/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: Belgium

A bit of a feat, that.

BiA dates from 1985.

DAT was launched in 1986 in Japan, and in 1987 in the rest of the world.



Offline bdiament  
#13 Posted : 08 April 2012 00:51:51(UTC)
bdiament


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 09/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: New York

Hi Werner,

Originally Posted by: Werner Go to Quoted Post
A bit of a feat, that.

BiA dates from 1985.

DAT was launched in 1986 in Japan, and in 1987 in the rest of the world.



Indeed. Since it was the producer/engineer himself who said they mixed to DAT, I wonder if perhaps they had access to some advance model before the commercial release.

http://www.soundonsound....s/classictracks_0506.htm

This certainly is a possibility. I had my current converters almost four years before they were announced to the public.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Offline darkmatter  
#14 Posted : 08 April 2012 09:48:14(UTC)
darkmatter


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,811
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 20 times
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: bdiament Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: darkmatter Go to Quoted Post
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your input this is how I read it as well, if they just upsampled using the SBM remaster then that is indeed a potential 'recipe for disaster'.
I need to read up on the SBM process and not sure what they used to work from to derive this "Hi-Rez" Brothers in Arms mastering project. This might have come from the original recording which I did read somewhere might well have been recorded at 16/48? Converted it up to 24/96??
I listened to my early West German pressing matrix 02 earliest I have found (Sounds better than my 07) and this is still a great sounding disc.
Regards
Simon


Hi Simon,

As Werner pointed out, SBM (Sony's "BM"?) is simply a dithering/noise shaping algorithm used when reducing word length.

Werner, to my knowledge, the album was mixed to DAT (at least, that's what the article says). They don't specify the machine. The most popular one in those days was a Technics MASH unit with picosecond jitter measurements requiring 4 digits (!). To my ears, that machine acted very much (among other things) like a dynamic compressor - everything recorded to it lost "punch" and dynamic Life. Of course, a different machine may have been used to mix this album.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com


:agree: smiley!!

I struggle with SBM mastered stuff you sum up my findings perfectly Smile
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Follow HIFICRITIC Email HIFICRITIC follow HIFICRITIC on Twitter Follow HIFICRITIC on Facebook