Living the Analog Dream
Here’s a little data point that left my jaw on the ground yesterday. If a particular mastering engineer receives a high-resolution digital file of any format, does their “mastering” thing using an analog mastering console and then re-digitizes the audio at higher specifications, should the resultant file be marketed and sold as a bona fide high-resolution audio track? Apparently. There are professional mastering engineers and others that believe the answer is an emphatic yes. The prospects for a successful re-launch of high-resolution audio suddenly took a major step back…again.
Figure 1 – Mastering a standard definition source through an analog console makes it “high-resolution”? No. [Click to enlarge]
I’ve tried to point out the difference between a real HD-Audio file and one that simply “pretending” to be a high-resolution audio track. The fidelity of a track is established at the time of the original recording. The signal to noise ratio and the frequency response cannot be fundamentally improved through subsequent postproduction phases. And in reality, maximizing either one of these parameters runs counter to the industry norms. Making “hits” isn’t about making something sound great! The records that we all cherish are special because of the song, the artist, the arrangement, the “soul” of the track and a myriad other factors. The actual fidelity of the record is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.
But wouldn’t it nice to try to produce a real high-definition version of a big hit record. I’ve tried to demonstrate that very possibility with my productions but they are clearly not hits. Just give me about 4 hours with John Mayer, Neil Young, Adele or any other artist that can really sing and I’ll show you what fidelity can contribute to the overall listening experience.
For many professional engineers, audiophiles and everyday music lovers, analog is the Holy Grail when it comes to reproducing the ultimate fidelity. The concept that an original recording of any resolution in any format can be magically transformed by merely passing through an analog stage prior to being digitized at a higher resolution into the same of a different format is ludicrous. The new “HD” tunes are marketed as high-resolution audio at premium prices and reviewers rave about them. But they’re not actually any better than what you had before.
There’s a lot of this going on in the world of high-resolution digital downloads. If I could only reveal what I hear from insiders, you’d never purchase another high-resolution audio track again. Do you really want to spend $25-30 on a track that was simply pulled from an SACD disc (which originated from an analog tape produced in 1958 or 2005)? Do you feel good about getting the same fidelity as your previous vinyl LP or CD version of a classic album in an “HD” version that simply bit doubles the file (resulting in no additional fidelity…just a larger file)?
Can the nascent HRA business survive another misstep? I don’t think so. The entire industry is marching arm in arm towards the cliff. And it seems we’re going to tumble into the abyss. I’m not encouraged. Some of the prime advocates simply don’t know what they’re talking about or they’ve chosen to ignore the facts in favor of a short term upside.
We need to establish a set of guidelines about what is and what isn’t high-resolution audio. We need meaningful specifications on both the source format and the delivery format of an individual album or track. We need to do a rigorous research project to determine whether HRA actually matters. We need to inform professionals about high-resolution audio through a series of seminars, an accurate website and marketing push. If we do these things, then maybe, just maybe we have a chance.
If you think it is a headache as a supplier, you can hardly imagine how much of a headache it is for the high-def audio consumer! We are talking about it all the time; how HD Tracks were caught out selling 16/44 material up-rezzed to 24/96+ and describing it as high-resolution audio, and how we don’t know what we are buying, because they won’t tell us anything about its ‘resolution path’ except the final download resolution. By itself, that information tells us nothing certain about the resolution of the music itself except the size of the file we will be downloading.
That’s exactly why I’m putting a new design of iTrax.com up in the first quarter of next year. More information will help everyone.
Yeah I have seen mastering engineers do this, it’s simply BS and willful ignorance on their part. All I want to say is where are the ears? Is there no audiophile complaint of a lack of depth of field? Or is everyone going to point at the sample rate numbers? I have trained at least a dozen young people and they all walk into the studio with some rudimentary DAW skills and the ability to “hear” with their eyeballs. It’s ridiculous!
Completey agree that some re-masterered cannot be any better than the original source, but can’t it be better than a standard CD?
If we remaster something from a high quality analogue recording, it seems possible that we can capture more of music information in the D-A conversion higher bitrates and depths than Redbook standards. The point here is that if the Redbook standard is limiting a given mastering process and the subsequent file, remastering should be able to improve on that.
James.
James…it’s a tough question whether a well-done CD can capture everything that an analog tape master contains. My contention is yes, it can if the analog master has gone through the usual mixing and mastering stage. There is much less than 16-bits worth of dynamic range on an analog tape (I’ve written about this several times) AND there is rarely any ultrasonic information on an analog tape. It does happen but only with audiophile recordings. So most commercial music can be completely captured on a well done CD.
Where there is great benefit is the production process, new recordings and high-resolution formats in PCM…and especially surround mixes. That’s what I’m pushing for.
I just discovered the site, and haven’t had a chance to read all the material here.
That’s an interesting point on the dynamic range of an analog recording (at least most).
Given that, I get your point. While a remaster may produce a better end product, it is not because it is done at a higher bit depth or rate since the CD standard is already capable of capturing everything from an analog master.
I’d love to get real HD audio files. I have tried one or two from HD Tracks. I did download some files from Linn music that were great, and I also have your samples (also great).
Hopefully a new standard will emerge that will get us there.
I do fine it ironic that at it’s core, music is an analog waveform, but we are depending on digital technology to capture and reproduct it faithfully.
Thanks for the site and response.
James.
Looking at the PONO website today I saw some ” Classic Holiday Albums In Hi-Res And On Sale “:
-Johnny Cash: The Christmas Spirit (Mono) in 24-96
-Johnny Mathis: Merry Christmas in 24-192
-The Everly Brothers: Christmas With The Everly Brothers in 24-192
-Andy Williams: The Andy Williams Christmas Album in 24-192
-Dean Martin: The Dean Martin Chrstmas Album in 24-96
and some other classics.
There is no Information which sources where used for the transfers. So my question is whether somebody reading this here knows an answer to this question?
Thank you!
Undoubtedly, these all came from CDs. The major labels haven’t started doing new “High-res Transfers” of records like those on the list yet. Go to iTunes or Walmart and save a nickel.