Thread: The Source is God!

Posts: 10

Post by Hotso November 17, 2003 (1 of 10)
Just thought I would begin a dialogue about the source of SACD.
I presume that material recorded in the last 20 years is in the main
16 bit 44.1khz in it's multi-track form. However you mix this, the resolution is still 16 bit 44.1 !! So, record companies may very well release material that says "remixed for SACD" or similar, but in reality, they have just upsampled it to 24 bit 96khz or whatever!
It seems too that most analogue 24 track masters that are used as source material are copied over to 24bit 96khz before mixing and not 192khz as you would imagine!!
What do you all think about the above?
What should SACD be as a medium?

Lastly, does anyone out there know about the payment of royalties for SACD. Have the record companies renegotiated existing contracts to take the sale of SACD's into account for Songwriters/Composers? Does it already exist in the guise of Multi-Media releases?

Thanks

Hotso

Post by zeus November 17, 2003 (2 of 10)
Hotso said:

Just thought I would begin a dialogue about the source of SACD.
I presume that material recorded in the last 20 years is in the main
16 bit 44.1khz in it's multi-track form.

1. DSD recording has been going on for about 5 years, as far as I can reckon. Only a percentage of these have made it to SACD.

2. Not all recording in the past 20 years is PCM. Analogue recording is still done today, often with excellent results.

3. I don't know the exact spread of resolutions, but would think that 16-bit/44.1kHz recording is rare today. 48kHz is probably more prevalent. Resolutions above 16-bit/44.1kHz can be preserved on SACD, but not CD. (My player doesn't support HDCD but I understand that this increases the bit depth slightly.)

4. Many people report that old 16-bit/44.1kHz recordings converted to DSD sound pretty good! This is a gray area but it seems that DSD's ultra-sonic "noise" aids in resolving detail, somewhat similar to how dither works.

Listening is the thing!

Post by Khorn November 18, 2003 (3 of 10)
zeus said:

Many people report that old 16-bit/44.1kHz recordings converted to DSD sound pretty good! This is a gray area but it seems that DSD's ultra-sonic "noise" aids in resolving detail, somewhat similar to how dither works.

Listening is the thing!

A GREAT example is Steve Earle: Guitar Town. Wonderful sound.

Post by Hotso November 18, 2003 (4 of 10)
Hotso
Thanks for that Zeus,

I understood that dithering or otherwise adding noise, didn't actually increase the resolution but just made it sound more 'natural'. Low level noise added to the signal hides the quantisation noise in the lower level signals. For example, the end of fades, quiet intro's etc.
As for HDCD, I'm still waiting an explanation of how 16bit 44.1khz can be
upsampled to higher rates and made sound better!!!
But it's good to hear comments from people
Keep posting please

Post by david elias November 18, 2003 (5 of 10)
zeus said:

3. I don't know the exact spread of resolutions, but would think that 16-bit/44.1kHz recording is rare today. 48kHz is probably more prevalent. Resolutions above 16-bit/44.1kHz can be preserved on SACD, but not CD. (My player doesn't support HDCD but I understand that this increases the bit depth slightly.)

Listening is the thing!

From my experience, 48kHz 24-bit is the low-end of PCM recording today. You can get it in many of the home-studio recorders out there such as Alesis. These may scale up to 96kHz as well in the same package. Pretty amazing!

Someone else asked about SACD royalties. There are none as far as the DSD/SACD technology is concerned.

Post by Dan Popp November 18, 2003 (6 of 10)
I think I will address some of these comments from various posters, as I'm involved in reccording every day.

"I presume that material recorded in the last 20 years is in the main
16 bit 44.1khz in it's multi-track form."

Actually, Hotso, most Pop, Rock and similar genres have been sticking with analog to a remarkable degree. The exception would be Country, which went for digital in a big way in the 80's and never looked back. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages, but probably well, well over half of the Pop/Rock/Rap stuff is recorded to analog first. If it isn't, the 2-track mix is often re-recorded to analog!

"It seems too that most analogue 24 track masters that are used as source material are copied over to 24bit 96khz before mixing and not 192khz as you would imagine!!"

Since there is no standard yet/still/again in the PCM world, there are masters all over the map. There are probably a few 18-bit/48 masters out there somewhere on a Magneto-Optical Drive...


Zeus wrote:
"3. I don't know the exact spread of resolutions, but would think that 16-bit/44.1kHz recording is rare today. 48kHz is probably more prevalent. "

Personally I stay away from 48k except for video work... A better choice for CD release would be 88.2k because you avoid all the file reconversion gremlins to make it a 44.1 product. Just throw away every other sample and be done with it. My best guess (and that's all it is) is that others in that position feel the same way. If I had to choose between 44.1 and 48k for a CD release, I would choose 44.1k every time. Sample rate conversion has been, and probably always will be, the enemy.

Post by Hotso November 19, 2003 (7 of 10)
Dan Popp said:


Actually, Hotso, most Pop, Rock and similar genres have been sticking with analog to a remarkable degree. The exception would be Country, which went for digital in a big way in the 80's and never looked back. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages, but probably well, well over half of the Pop/Rock/Rap stuff is recorded to analog first. If it isn't, the 2-track mix is often re-recorded to analog!

Personally I stay away from 48k except for video work... A better choice for CD release would be 88.2k because you avoid all the file reconversion gremlins to make it a 44.1 product. Just throw away every other sample and be done with it. My best guess (and that's all it is) is that others in that position feel the same way. If I had to choose between 44.1 and 48k for a CD release, I would choose 44.1k every time. Sample rate conversion has been, and probably always will be, the enemy.

Hi Dan,

I use Pro Tools HD for recording and like you, use 88.2k. 24 bit for nearly all work. You're right in the conversion to 44.1 is nice and easy.
It's a while since I produced a master on 1/2 inch Studer running at 30ips (non Dolby) or 15 ips (Dolby SR) !
But if we are to take in account SACD as the finished product what do you think we should be using?

Philip

Post by zeus November 19, 2003 (8 of 10)
Hotso said:

But if we are to take in account SACD as the finished product what do you think we should be using?

DSD and 176kHz PCM would seem to be optimal. Rightly or wrongly, you'll earn more brownie points with prospective buyers of the end product if your recording was done in DSD.

Post by Dan Popp November 19, 2003 (9 of 10)
Hotso said:

But if we are to take in account SACD as the finished product what do you think we should be using?

Philip

Philip,
Yeah, I'm with Zeus, higher is always better - with the caveat that odd sample rate conversions (like 48k-to-44.1) are likely to do more harm than good. I really hope that more editing tools become available in DSD. Everything else seems like a stopgap until we can finally be done with PCM on the recording side - that's how I feel about it anyway.

Post by david elias November 20, 2003 (10 of 10)
Dan Popp said:

Philip,
Yeah, I'm with Zeus, higher is always better - with the caveat that odd sample rate conversions (like 48k-to-44.1) are likely to do more harm than good. I really hope that more editing tools become available in DSD. Everything else seems like a stopgap until we can finally be done with PCM on the recording side - that's how I feel about it anyway.

Dan - I totally agree! DSD recording combined with SBM downsampling to create an SACD hybrid is a magic combination that will present an amazing result on any CD player, SACD or otherwise.

Regards - David Elias

Closed