Tom C
Major Contributor
I can’t see why anyone (except Sony) would think it does, or did.
Yes that was the idea, though the ordering of values doesn't have to be completely immaterial. Even if noise shaping constrains the available patterns, there may still remain more than 1 way to encode the same signal. Which must still be the case, the above mentioned data rates suggest DSD requires about twice the bit rate as PCM to get the same audio quality.... whether one could jump to the conclusion that MRC01 seemed to have in mind, that for each OSR number of 1-bit values, the ordering of the values is immaterial, and that it is only the proportion of 1s and 0s within that interval that mattered. ...
Aren't most of the DACs oversampling multibit nowadays (they use like 5-6 bits, being pretty much oversampled PCM to make up for the apparent lack of bit depth)? I also think that multi-level noise shaping techniques are prevalent, but I would like to your confirmation before settling with this knowledge.
My sigma-delta modulator has a (very slow) mode where it tries all the possible sequences up to a certain length before picking the best one.Yes that was the idea, though the ordering of values doesn't have to be completely immaterial. Even if noise shaping constrains the available patterns, there may still remain more than 1 way to encode the same signal.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that there two universal truths in audio:
1) On the recording side, it is all about the master. A great master is far more important than the format it is stored. I will take a well mastered 192kbs recording over a poorly mastered one at 192/24 or DSD.
2) On the playback side, it is the speakers and the room. The front end, once you get to any decent equipment with enough power, is otherwise irrelevant compared to the speakers and the room.
Outside of this, the rest is just salespeople (whether a manufacture, dealer, or audio writer) selling a story. There is nothing wrong with that, we all buy stories all the time (designer jeans, fancy vacations, luxury vehicles), the only difference is that audio seems to come with religious fever behind it.
There are other universal truths.. Like nearly non existent or shit standards. To the degree it taints the first truth you stated. There are no industry wide standards of practice that publish recording equipment and recording quality choice (sample rate, bit rate, etc...). Everything is a toss up even if someone hints at the provenance of the source of your music. SADC's suffer from this as well, seeing as how there's no way pre-2000's music was recorded using DSD, so what exactly do people think they're getting with a source that was never DSD, but now, is offered in DSD or through SACD?
Given the battle that people like Bob Katz have gone through to use standardized monitoring and recording levels for audio recording, a standard format seems to be a distant second. It is ironic that probably the biggest factor in standardizing levels has been music streaming services and their use of volume leveling which has helped to end the music wars. It seems that the majority of recording is being done at 96/24 now.
I wouldn't have a clue on how one would go about even figuring this out. Sites offering all sorts of formats, I just have no clue which was the native..
I know sometimes it was the case sites would sell upsampled music. That's the sort of garbage I wish at least could be avoided.
From what I've heard, the bulk of modern pop (and the bulk of new music) is recorded at 44.1/24 or 48/24 with most of the rest done at double rate. Very little is recorded at quad rate or higher.I wouldn't have a clue on how one would go about even figuring this out. Sites offering all sorts of formats, I just have no clue which was the native..
I know sometimes it was the case sites would sell upsampled music. That's the sort of garbage I wish at least could be avoided.
If something you want is only available as DSD, that's of course no reason not to buy it. It's not quite that terrible a format. What you shouldn't do is pay extra for DSD when the same music is available cheaper on another format. The most egregious pricing is probably that of Cookie Marenco who asks $15 for CD quality ($40 for a physical disc) and $50 for DSD256.
From what I've heard, the bulk of modern pop (and the bulk of new music) is recorded at 44.1/24 or 48/24 with most of the rest done at double rate. Very little is recorded at quad rate or higher.
Sometimes that information is available, sometimes not. Cookie's releases are the same across all formats, for instance. If the DR database has more than one version, that can also provide a clue.but how do you know the mastering, etc. is the same?
From what I've heard, the bulk of modern pop (and the bulk of new music) is recorded at 44.1/24 or 48/24 with most of the rest done at double rate. Very little is recorded at quad rate or higher.
For a particular recording, you may not be able find out for sure, though high-rate versions being offered for sale is at least a pretty good indication that something was recorded at that rate (or higher). Although upsampled "fakes" exist, they're not very common. Regarding what's common practice, when people working for major studios say they use mostly 44.1/48, I'm inclined to believe them. A sampling of 100 and some MQA titles on Tidal also supports this.I mean, I've heard the same, but how would anyone know aside from buying one of those nice albums that details exactly what's going on in the informational material?
For a particular recording, you may not be able find out for sure, though high-rate versions being offered for sale is at least a pretty good indication that something was recorded at that rate (or higher). Although upsampled "fakes" exist, they're not very common. Regarding what's common practice, when people working for major studios say they use mostly 44.1/48, I'm inclined to believe them. A sampling of 100 and some MQA titles on Tidal also supports this.
When recording/mastering engineers say they work mostly in 44.1/48 kHz, why should we not believe them?Two things, when I said "heard that as well" I meant from other people simply declaring it as well. Not actually demonstrating it in some way.
It means I captured a few seconds from a bit over 100 tracks in the Tidal MQA showcase playlists and checked what original sample rate was indicated in the MQA signature. About half of them claimed to be made from 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz masters, ~40% double rate, and the remaining handful something higher. Some of the tracks might have been from the same album, but it was a pretty decent mix. Since MQA is always going on about the greatness of high-res, why would they lie and say the source was CD rate if in fact it was higher? If anything, I'd expect the MQA numbers to be skewed towards high-res.Second, what does "sampling" of Tidal even mean?
Since upsampled files are relatively rare (and easily detected), it is reasonable to assume that a particular piece of music was recorded at a rate at least as high as the highest offered for sale. Some releases might of course be offered only at lower rates, but if no high-rate version is available anywhere, our first assumption should be that the recording was done at 44.1/48 kHz. There will of course be exceptions. I'm talking about what's common practice in the recording industry.How does one distinguish from a 96kHz recording to the final product released as 48kHz? For bit depth I imagine it might be easier to find out by some measurement, but sample rate? It's not just a matter of fake oversamples, but also offerings of under sampling (where you would have an album offered as a fake in both directions, where perhaps the native is 96Khz, but also offered in192kHz and 48kHz, and of course perhaps even a CD which we know is neither of these three things.)
When recording/mastering engineers say they work mostly in 44.1/48 kHz, why should we not believe them?
It means I captured a few seconds from a bit over 100 tracks in the Tidal MQA showcase playlists and checked what original sample rate was indicated in the MQA signature. About half of them claimed to be made from 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz masters, ~40% double rate, and the remaining handful something higher. Some of the tracks might have been from the same album, but it was a pretty decent mix. Since MQA is always going on about the greatness of high-res, why would they lie and say the source was CD rate if in fact it was higher? If anything, I'd expect the MQA numbers to be skewed towards high-res.
Since upsampled files are relatively rare (and easily detected), it is reasonable to assume that a particular piece of music was recorded at a rate at least as high as the highest offered for sale. Some releases might of course be offered only at lower rates, but if no high-rate version is available anywhere, our first assumption should be that the recording was done at 44.1/48 kHz. There will of course be exceptions. I'm talking about what's common practice in the recording industry.
Look at the spectrum. If cuts off abruptly at ~22 kHz or ~24 kHz, it's upsampled. In music, the spectral intensity generally falls off roughly following a 1/f curve, vanishing into the noise somewhere in the 30-50 kHz range (depending on instruments, microphones, and noise levels). If you're trying to detect downsampled files, that's rather pointless. All good ADCs are sigma-delta designs that include a downsampling step anyway.Oh I believe them. Never said I wouldn't or shouldn't. I was more concerned with how would one verify. You say at the end it's "easily" done so in terms of detection, that's something I'd like to learn and find out how one would do such a thing. With MQA id have some assurance (if any thing from that dumb format I would at least expect that). But since most music isn't and sizable portions of downloadable music offers multiple formats on certain hi-res sites, I'd really to know how one would verify hi-res (seeing as producers are starting the majority is 44.1 or 48).
Yes, what about it?Final thing, since it seems you glanced over the other portion of my inquiry, what about bit depth?
Okay so, I have the Passion of The Christ album by John Debney. It shows a cutoff which would indicate an upsample, but this is from supposedly a 44.1Hz release. That would indicate it was created at even lower sample rates than 44.1 (I know this is a thing in video games for exmaple, didn't expect it from soundtracks). Also most music that throws me off doesn't actually have a true "abrupt" end. What my claim is, you can't actually tell all the time. Also, not sure why you would need to tell me down sampled is useless, it's not useless if I simply have a desire to know if that was an occurrence that was manifested.Look at the spectrum. If cuts off abruptly at ~22 kHz or ~24 kHz, it's upsampled. In music, the spectral intensity generally falls off roughly following a 1/f curve, vanishing into the noise somewhere in the 30-50 kHz range (depending on instruments, microphones, and noise levels). If you're trying to detect downsampled files, that's rather pointless. All good ADCs are sigma-delta designs that include a downsampling step anyway.
Yes, what about it?