[Steve[_15_]]

I saw in stereophile they are releaing some old stones stuff in
http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...ez-downloads-=
rolling-stones
stuff "at 176kHz/24-bit and 88kHz/24-bit.".

Isn't this a greater resolution then the analog equipment used to
create and then transfer to digital these recordings which the article
describes as

"For the analog to digital transfers, vintage reel-to-reel tape
machines were utilized=97a modified Ampex 351 with original tube
electronics (full track mono and two track stereo) and an Ampex
ATR-102 modified with Aria Discrete Class-A Electronics (full track
mono and two track stereo). A Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation was
the chosen high resolution format and Meitner Design ADC8 and DAC8
MKlV converters were used for the conversion process."

Is this just another milk the consumer exercise?

[C. Leeds]

On 3/3/2011 9:12 AM, Steve wrote:
I saw in stereophile they are releaing some old stones stuff... "at 176kHz/24-bit and 88kHz/24-bit.".

Isn't this a greater resolution then the analog equipment used to
create and then transfer to digital these recordings...
Is this just another milk the consumer exercise?

There's certainly nothing new about record labels remastering old
material. Is there something wrong with allowing Stones fans to buy
their favorite recordings in the highest quality possible? Some people
think such remasterings - which sometimes are only subtly different than
the original - are pointless. But that's a subjective judgment. That
doesn't mean offering them for sale is a "milk the consumer exercise."

If you don't want the remastered recordings, don't buy them.

[Stephen McElroy]

In article ,
Steve wrote:

I saw in stereophile they are releaing some old stones stuff in
http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...ez-downloads-=
rolling-stones
stuff "at 176kHz/24-bit and 88kHz/24-bit.".

Isn't this a greater resolution then the analog equipment used to
create and then transfer to digital these recordings which the article
describes as

"For the analog to digital transfers, vintage reel-to-reel tape
machines were utilized=97a modified Ampex 351 with original tube
electronics (full track mono and two track stereo) and an Ampex
ATR-102 modified with Aria Discrete Class-A Electronics (full track
mono and two track stereo). A Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation was
the chosen high resolution format and Meitner Design ADC8 and DAC8
MKlV converters were used for the conversion process."

Is this just another milk the consumer exercise?

No, the consumer might be reassured that greater than usual care was
taken with the transfers. It might also be convenient to download to
server instead of ripping discs.

OTOH, I have a relatively recent singles two-cd set I think was based on
the dsd masters and it sounds great in casual listening.

Stephen

[Andrew Haley]

Steve wrote:
I saw in stereophile they are releaing some old stones stuff in
http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...ez-downloads-=
rolling-stones
stuff "at 176kHz/24-bit and 88kHz/24-bit.".

Isn't this a greater resolution then the analog equipment used to
create and then transfer to digital these recordings which the article
describes as

"For the analog to digital transfers, vintage reel-to-reel tape
machines were utilized: a modified Ampex 351 with original tube
electronics (full track mono and two track stereo) and an Ampex
ATR-102 modified with Aria Discrete Class-A Electronics (full track
mono and two track stereo). A Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation was
the chosen high resolution format and Meitner Design ADC8 and DAC8
MKlV converters were used for the conversion process."

Is this just another milk the consumer exercise?

Not exactly. Even though there is not much point it the super
high-res format, Bob Ludwig did a stellar job of the remastering back
in 2002.

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve" wrote in message


I saw in stereophile they are releaing some old stones
stuff in
http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...ez-downloads-=
rolling-stones stuff "at 176kHz/24-bit and 88kHz/24-bit.".

Isn't this a greater resolution then the analog equipment
used to create and then transfer to digital these
recordings which the article describes as

Not only greater resolution, but also far greater bandwidth.

"For the analog to digital transfers, vintage
reel-to-reel tape machines were utilized a modified
Ampex 351 with original tube electronics (full track mono
and two track stereo) and an Ampex ATR-102 modified with
Aria Discrete Class-A Electronics (full track mono and
two track stereo).

The ATR 102 was quite a piece of work. The 351, not so much.

A Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation
was the chosen high resolution format and Meitner Design
ADC8 and DAC8 MKlV converters were used for the
conversion process."

They could have done the transfer with the audio interface on the
motherboard of a fairly new PC with sonically equivalent results.

Is this just another milk the consumer exercise?

The mastering of some old Rolling Stones recordings was pretty nasty. The
super-science fair transfer equipment is overkill, of course.

A proper remastering job might be worth something to listeners.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:12:41 -0800, Steve wrote
(in article ):

I saw in stereophile they are releaing some old stones stuff in
http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...ez-downloads-=
rolling-stones
stuff "at 176kHz/24-bit and 88kHz/24-bit.".

Isn't this a greater resolution then the analog equipment used to
create and then transfer to digital these recordings which the article
describes as

"For the analog to digital transfers, vintage reel-to-reel tape
machines were utilized=97a modified Ampex 351 with original tube
electronics (full track mono and two track stereo) and an Ampex
ATR-102 modified with Aria Discrete Class-A Electronics (full track
mono and two track stereo). A Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation was
the chosen high resolution format and Meitner Design ADC8 and DAC8
MKlV converters were used for the conversion process."

Is this just another milk the consumer exercise?


Not really. If you buy the premise that CD resolution is insufficient to
accurately represent music (and many do including well known recoding and
mastering engineers), then quantizing these analog master tapes at
"high-resolution" formats makes plenty of sense. I've been sitting here
trying to come up with an analogy that will adequately explain the rationalle
behind this practice. The only one I can come up with is pretty lame, but it
might get the idea across.

High-Definition TV movie channels show both old and newer Hollywood films in
1080 X 1920. Occasionally, they show an old black-and-white non-widescreen
film from the 1950's or even the 1940's in HD. One would think that this was
overkill. Part of the appeal of HD is the larger color palette it affords
over regular TV as well as the ability to show wide-screen films without the
radical letter-boxing required to show these films on a regular NTSC
television. But the thing is that these old monochrome films look magnificent
in HD! There's a look to the film that the extra resolution heightens, a look
that regular TV never could elicit from these films. Recently, I saw a
gorgeous print of Carol Reed's magnum opus, "The Third Man" (With Orson
Welles and Joseph Cotton). The stark black and white photography of Vienna
after WWII never looked this good before! The night scenes with the wet
cobblestone streets and harsh lighting looked as they must have looked in a
first-run theater back in '49. So, what looks like overkill, turns out to
serve the program material very well, better than lower resolutions transfers
ever have.

Now Audio is different, I realize that, and the difference between
high-definition TV and regular TV is not controversial as is the difference
between regular CD and high-resolution audio formats.

And there's something else going on here too. It's the idea that many have
that since analog tape is continuous and digital is sampled, that the more
samples one takes per sampling rate interval, the more of that continuous
analog signal that is captured digitally. Of course, the reality is that
digital sampling doesn't work like that and the people who believe that high
bit rate and high sampling rates means that more of continuous nature of an
analog recording is captured, are operating under a misconception. Higher bit
rate and higher sampling rate does have it's advantages, but they're not what
they would seem to the casual observer, and it's not really clear that these
improvements over CD resolution are even audible.

[Andrew Barss]

Audio Empire wrote:
: On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:12:41 -0800, Steve wrote
: (in article ):

: I saw in stereophile they are releaing some old stones stuff in
: http://www.stereophile.com/content/h...ez-downloads-=
: rolling-stones
: stuff "at 176kHz/24-bit and 88kHz/24-bit.".
:
: Isn't this a greater resolution then the analog equipment used to
: create and then transfer to digital these recordings which the article
: describes as
: Not really. If you buy the premise that CD resolution is insufficient to
: accurately represent music (and many do including well known recoding and
: mastering engineers)

Some people think the sun goes to sleep at night. Doesn't make it correct!

: High-Definition TV movie channels show both old and newer Hollywood films in
: 1080 X 1920. Occasionally, they show an old black-and-white non-widescreen
: film from the 1950's or even the 1940's in HD. One would think that this was
: overkill.

That's a bad analogy. Movies shot on film have a MUCH higher resolution than
even Blu-Ray. Films are scanned at between 2 and 8 thousand lines horizontally.
Blu-Ray High-Def video has a resolution of 1920 x 1080, and "regular" HD DVD-video is
720x480 (I think).

Here's a link trying to estimate the pixel-resolution-equivalent of 35mm
film (he's a still photographer, but the majority of movies are shot on 35mm or greater):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

The estimate is 175 megapixels. That's around 13 thousand pixels by 13 thousand pixels.
About a hundred and sixty nine times the resolution of the highest
commercial video system!

Now, a crucial question, one obviously paralleling the isues about
audio sampling and so forth, is how much of that resolution is needed to
replicate the visual experience of the original film (i.e. beyond what pixel
density does a viewer not notice a difference). I don't know.
And one thing to keep in mind is that a movie (the original film print)
is meant to be displayed on a big screen, although I am usually
far enough away that I'm effectively farther way from the screen than
I am from my HDTV at home (in terms of visual angle).

But the thing is that these old monochrome films look magnificent
: in HD! There's a look to the film that the extra resolution heightens, a look
: that regular TV never could elicit from these films.

Yes. But it should, since the HD format and the standard format
differ by a factor of four, roughly, and HD is far below our
abolity to see detail. So a SD version (broadcast, DVD scan) of
an old movie misses even more data than a HD one.

: And there's something else going on here too. It's the idea that many have
: that since analog tape is continuous and digital is sampled, that the more
: samples one takes per sampling rate interval, the more of that continuous
: analog signal that is captured digitally. Of course, the reality is that
: digital sampling doesn't work like that and the people who believe that high
: bit rate and high sampling rates means that more of continuous nature of an
: analog recording is captured, are operating under a misconception. Higher bit
: rate and higher sampling rate does have it's advantages, but they're not what
: they would seem to the casual observer, and it's not really clear that these
: improvements over CD resolution are even audible.


Right. And that's where our visual and auditory systems seem to diverge: we
have extremely acute vision, and I don't know whether anyone has done the
sorts of tests on resolution and visual acuity that have been done on audio
resolution. Anyone know?

-- Andy Barss

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Not really. If you buy the premise that CD resolution is
insufficient to accurately represent music

Buying this premise requires considerable disregard or ignorance of the
recent findings of science.

(and many do including well known recoding and mastering engineers),

Being famous doesn't mean being smart. Pehaps we're talking about the
Lindsey Lohans of audio. ;-)


then quantizing these analog master tapes at
"high-resolution" formats makes plenty of sense.

Ignorance + notoriety = what?

I've been sitting here trying to come up with an analogy that
will adequately explain the rationalle behind this
practice.

How about throwing good bits after bad? ;-)

The only one I can come up with is pretty lame,
but it might get the idea across.

High-Definition TV movie channels show both old and
newer Hollywood films in 1080 X 1920. Occasionally, they
show an old black-and-white non-widescreen film from the
1950's or even the 1940's in HD. One would think that
this was overkill.

It all depends on the source material. AFAIK most of what is known about
making high resolution film and optics at any price was known back then.
Look at the Leicas of the day. The counterpoint is that high resolution
optics are merciless on less-than-perfect skin and sets. I suspect that that
the resolution that was delivered back in the 1930s and 1940s were already
the consequence of what shall we call them, artistic choices?

Part of the appeal of HD is the larger color palette it affords over
regular TV

I'm told by video experts that there is no such thing. After all, analog TV
was well, analog. Wasn't the resolution of colors well, infinite? ;-) It
takes more than digtial to increase the size of the RGB pallette. It is what
it is.

As far as color pallette goes, CRT-based displays are still the gold
standard, my videophile friends tell me. Most HDTV cameras sacrifice color
quality and low light performance to cobble up the huge number of pixels and
motion video.

as well as the ability to show wide-screen films without the radical
letter-boxing required to show these films on a regular NTSC television.

That can't be denied but only a tiny minority of films were color and/or
wide screen in the 30s and 40s. Even in the 50s.

But the thing is that these old
monochrome films look magnificent in HD!

Some do. Some look like mud even in SD.

There's a look
to the film that the extra resolution heightens, a look
that regular TV never could elicit from these films.

Its all those pixels.

Recently, I saw a gorgeous print of Carol Reed's magnum
opus, "The Third Man" (With Orson Welles and Joseph
Cotton). The stark black and white photography of Vienna
after WWII never looked this good before! The night
scenes with the wet cobblestone streets and harsh
lighting looked as they must have looked in a first-run
theater back in '49. So, what looks like overkill, turns
out to serve the program material very well, better than
lower resolutions transfers ever have.

Orson Welles was well known for his technical budgets.

Now Audio is different, I realize that, and the
difference between high-definition TV and regular TV is
not controversial as is the difference between regular CD
and high-resolution audio formats.

I have yet to see a rebuttal for this document:

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf


And there's something else going on here too. It's the
idea that many have that since analog tape is continuous
and digital is sampled, that the more samples one takes
per sampling rate interval, the more of that continuous
analog signal that is captured digitally.

That shows a lack of understanding of analog tape. Analog tape is quantized
at the level of the individual granules of magnetic media, which are
actually pretty large.

Of course, the
reality is that digital sampling doesn't work like that
and the people who believe that high bit rate and high
sampling rates means that more of continuous nature of an
analog recording is captured, are operating under a
misconception.

That shows a lack of understanding of Shannons Information Theory which has
gone unrebutted for over 50 years. There is no such thing as a "continuous
nature of an analog recording" because the dynamic range of rela world
analog media is crap compared to modern digital. Dynamic Range =
Resolution. Period.

If you want to properly digitize a LP or an analog tape and get everything
audible on it and then some, the on-board sound card for a cheap but modern
PC will suffice.

Higher bit rate and higher sampling rate
does have it's advantages,

Still no rebuttal for this document:

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf

but they're not what they
would seem to the casual observer, and it's not really
clear that these improvements over CD resolution are even
audible.

Its less than unclear - it has never been reliably been shown that anything
has more audible resolution than the CD format at its best. Remember that
the reference shown above demonstrated its point beyond reproach, and used a
brain dead implementation of 16/44 to do it.