• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Is there any music that actually requires 24 bits for replay?

Take a 24-bit track. Convert to 16 bits. Convert back to 24 bits. Use DeltaWave to compare original 24-bit track with converted track.

I'm getting results such as the following:

View attachment 416729

I understand that it might be useful sticking to 24 bits in the studio (for further processing), but what's the point of using 24-bit tracks for replay?

FWIW, good ol' redbook has always sounded perfectly fine to me.

Mani.
I'm going to post this article (from that Monty guy) that doesn't get enough links here IMO.



Tl;dr:
Human hearing is limited both in bandwidth and dynamic range.
More than 48kHz is not needed for the former
More than 16 bits (dithered) is not needed for the latter.

Higher bandwidth audio can actually reduce fidelity by intermodulation in the speaker and/or amp reflecting back into the audio bandwidth in an audible way.

(the above referring to reproduction rather than production)

Lots of useful illustration and explanation.
 
Quite interesting. Have never heard this done LIVE, but obviously quite familiar with Mahler and his symphonies, but just quite recently, did see an orchestra and still astonished every time I see a classical concert, the sheer power of the big bass drum!!

It is not so much LOUD, or anything like what my system at home does, but more like BIG and ROOM FILLING sound. Even though its a fairly BIG room!

Always leave, feeling that most audio systems can only "hint" at the size and scale of an actual orchestra, and its room filling ease.
Big orchestra in a good space from a good seat is always a stunning experience. I don't try to replicate it at home or even worry about the comparison. Go to symphony hall for those thrills. At home I have good enough playback and concern myself more with what recordings to play.
 
I still remember when I got the original CD (released in 1986 I think) of the soundtrack for Star Trek The Motion Picture, which is a full digital recording, only the soundtrack album, the music as it's heard on the movie was tracked and mixed down to analogue tape using Telefunken 's TelCom Noise Reduction.
The full digital soundtrack album recording sounds very dinamic with plenty of Deep bass, but It also sounds unnatural and synthetic. Strings on tracks like The Enterprise sound horrendous.
When this soundtrack was re-released as a 3 CD set back in 2012, It features the original soundtrack recording remixed from 1st gen analogue multitrack tapes, to 192/24 using ProTools, and downsampled to 44.1/16 for CD release. This remix sounds great.
It also features the full digital soundtrack album remastered, and It sounds as unnatural and synthetic as the original CD.
On a hunch, I'd try applying deemphasis to the offending digital recording and see whether that makes it sound OK. This may not be it, but it's worth a shot.
 
On a hunch, I'd try applying deemphasis to the offending digital recording and see whether that makes it sound OK. This may not be it, but it's worth a shot.
I had a Denon CD player back in 1993 that showed on its display if a CD used Deemphasis or not, and It didn't with the original CD for the Star Trek The Motion Picture CD.
Moreso, the original CD and the remastered version of the full digital album soundtrack featured on the 2012 La La Land 3 CD set sound identical, and I'm positively sure the 2012 re-release of the Star Trek The Motion Picture soundtrack on its 3 CD incarnation used preemphasis.
 
I had a Denon CD player back in 1993 that showed on its display if a CD used Deemphasis or not, and It didn't with the original CD for the Star Trek The Motion Picture CD.
Then again, neither was PE flagged on my copy of OMD's Architecture and Morality (CDID 12, reissue), even though it actually should have been. My point being, these kinds of oopsies shouldn't happen but sometimes they do. If you have an established workflow for applying DE, this shouldn't take more than a few minutes of your time and a few hundred megs of storage. (I'm using the Foobar2000 converter with foo_dsp_deemph and the requisite tag added.)
 
Then again, neither was PE flagged on my copy of OMD's Architecture and Morality (CDID 12, reissue), even though it actually should have been. My point being, these kinds of oopsies shouldn't happen but sometimes they do. If you have an established workflow for applying DE, this shouldn't take more than a few minutes of your time and a few hundred megs of storage. (I'm using the Foobar2000 converter with foo_dsp_deemph and the requisite tag added.)
I tested the original CD from (I think) 1986 that features the full digital recorded and mixed (using Sony digital equipment, as stated on the linear notes) by ripping It with dBpoweramp, twice, with and without applying Deemphasis, and the non-deemphasized rip sounds like the remastered version featured on the 2012 La La Land 3 CD set. So I Guess the original CD soundtrack album didn't use preemphasis.
The full digital recording soundtrack album sounds, in both masterings, the original 1986 CD and the 2012 remastered version, artificial, unnatural and , well, I don't know, it's hard to describe, but anything but pleasing to my ears.
It's not one of the worse full digital recordings I've ever listened to, but it's far from sounding natural and pleasing, despite its lack of Noise and high dinamic range.
Another similar recording that comes to mind IS the soundtrack for E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Soundtrack album tracked and mixed down to Sony digital equipment, but actual music on the film being a full Analogue recording.
First remixed and remastered CD of It was released no n 1996, then later for its 20th Anniversary remixed again and released both as a a CD and stereo and 5,1 SACD (my prefered versión Up to date, in stereo) and DSD one last time remixed again for its 35th Anniversary.
The 1982 full digital soundtrack album sounds not as artificial and unnatural as the Star Trek The Motion Picture soundtrack, but I don't find its sound pleasing as the rest of the analogue sourced remixes.
 
I tested the original CD from (I think) 1986 that features the full digital recorded and mixed (using Sony digital equipment, as stated on the linear notes) by ripping It with dBpoweramp, twice, with and without applying Deemphasis, and the non-deemphasized rip sounds like the remastered version featured on the 2012 La La Land 3 CD set. So I Guess the original CD soundtrack album didn't use preemphasis.
The full digital recording soundtrack album sounds, in both masterings, the original 1986 CD and the 2012 remastered version, artificial, unnatural and , well, I don't know, it's hard to describe, but anything but pleasing to my ears.
It's not one of the worse full digital recordings I've ever listened to, but it's far from sounding natural and pleasing, despite its lack of Noise and high dinamic range.
Another similar recording that comes to mind IS the soundtrack for E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Soundtrack album tracked and mixed down to Sony digital equipment, but actual music on the film being a full Analogue recording.
First remixed and remastered CD of It was released no n 1996, then later for its 20th Anniversary remixed again and released both as a a CD and stereo and 5,1 SACD (my prefered versión Up to date, in stereo) and DSD one last time remixed again for its 35th Anniversary.
The 1982 full digital soundtrack album sounds not as artificial and unnatural as the Star Trek The Motion Picture soundtrack, but I don't find its sound pleasing as the rest of the analogue sourced remixes.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what would appear by checking the CD contents with the first of this two pieces of software designed by Prof. Jim Lesurf and described in the below articles :
 
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what would appear by checking the CD contents with the first of this two pieces of software designed by Prof. Jim Lesurf and described in the below articles :
I've read your post, the links you've postee and 'though I understand and respect the point they're trying to make, on the case of the recordings I've cited, all I need are my ears, not software.
I've owned and played these recordings for a long, long time (I'm 51 and I got the E.T. soundtrack when It was released, when I was 8 years old), and during all this long time I've played them on very different pieces of equipment (Marantz integrated amplifiers have been a constant since 1994) but the result/opinion/perception of these two early full digital recordings have always been the same.
 
I've read your post, the links you've postee and 'though I understand and respect the point they're trying to make, on the case of the recordings I've cited, all I need are my ears, not software.
I've owned and played these recordings for a long, long time (I'm 51 and I got the E.T. soundtrack when It was released, when I was 8 years old), and during all this long time I've played them on very different pieces of equipment (Marantz integrated amplifiers have been a constant since 1994) but the result/opinion/perception of these two early full digital recordings have always been the same.
I don't quite understand your reaction.

I didn't question your judgment on the sound quality.

I simply suggested a tool which could help to understand the cause of this poor sound quality.
 
I don't quite understand your reaction.

I didn't question your judgment on the sound quality.

I simply suggested a tool which could help to understand the cause of this poor sound quality.
Please don't take me wrong, I wasn't trying to question you either.
The point I'm trying to make IS that digital audio since it's birth and for over a decade or more (maybe 20 years from the very early Denon/NHK very first digital recordings?) , digital audio started from some premises, and It complied with them: high dinamic range, very high Signal to Noise ratio and imperceptible wow and flutter.
But other issues arised as can still be heard on early digital recordings from the late 70's and the 80's. In a nutshell, early digital recordings didn't sound natural and for most of people, pleasing to the ears.
I remember when I was a kid/teenager, many Classical Music recordings, Herbert Von Karajan was one of the most famous orchestral conductors, that embraced New digital recording. I'm sure many, if not most of his recordings of the 80's recorded and mixed with Sony digital equipment are outstanding performing-wise. But from a technical/hearing pleasing point of view they're both obsolete and unpleaant from a listening point of view.
Can anything be done to those fourty something digital recordings to sound better? I honestly don't know. I',m not a pro, just a sound enthusiast/aficionado. Maybe AI may do something with those recordings to make them sound more life-like. I've checked what AI can do for video and film shot movies released to 4K with HDR, and the material I've seen looks promising, and this is just the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Please don't take me wrong, I wasn't trying to question you either.
The point I'm trying to make IS that digital audio since it's birth and for over a decade or more (maybe 20 years from the very early Denon/NHK very first digital recordings?) , digital audio started from some premises, and It complied with them: high dinamic range, very high Signal to Noise ratio and imperceptible wow and flutter.
But other issues arised as can still be heard on early digital recordings from the late 70's and the 80's. In a nutshell, early digital recordings didn't sound natural and for most of people, pleasing to the ears.
I remember when I was a kid/teenager, many Classical Music recordings, Herbert Von Karajan was one of the most famous orchestral conductors, that embraced New digital recording. I'm sure many, if not most of his recordings of the 80's recorded and mixed with Sony digital equipment are outstanding performing-wise. But from a technical/hearing pleasing point of view they're both obsolete and unpleaant from a listening point of view.
Can anything be done to those fourty something digital recordings to sound better? I honestly don't know. I',m not a pro, just a sound enthusiast/aficionado. Maybe AI may do something with those recordings to make them sound more life-like. I've checked what AI can do for video and film shot movies released to 4K with HDR, and the material I've seen looks promising, and this is just the beginning.
In a nutshell, early digital recordings didn't sound natural and for most of people, pleasing to the ears.

As even that early recording system was pretty transparent the reason it may not be pleasing has nothing at all to do with digital. One would look to mastering, mixing or other choices for why it may not please you. As plenty of recordings from then are quite pleasing the issue is not digital from those days. Using software to figure out why it might sound off or have other issues is a very good approach.
 
Last edited:
In a nutshell, early digital recordings didn't sound natural and for most of people, pleasing to the ears.

As even that early recording system was pretty transparent the reason it may not be pleasing has nothing at all to do with digital. One would look at mastering, mixing or other choices for why it may not please you. As plenty of recordings from then are quite pleasing the issue is not digital from those days. Using software to figure out why it might sound off or have other issues is a very good approach.
What's intriguing is that many analog vinyls from the 1960s-1980s have all the flaws we attribute to "early digital recordings" and at a very high standard that makes them painful to listen to. I have plenty of examples in my library at Decca, EMI, DGG...

On the contrary, I found - and not only me - that the very first CDs sounded much better on average than the corresponding LPs when it came to reissues (all early CBS-Sony), but that some recordings sounded very badly... quite simply because they were poorly recorded and poorly mixed... like some LPs, but at least the background noise of the pressing, the distortions on the fortissimos and those at the end of the side had finally disappeared!

PS. I had at my disposal the first Sony CD player, the first Philips as well as the first Denon which was the rebadge of a "vertical" model from another Japanese brand. All three sounded great... The Denon ended up at a radio technician... its vertical drawer no longer closed, also a small nail stuck in a small hole drilled to work on the chassis and the upper part of the drawer held it in place closed during reading... And roll my chicken, as they say in France...

PS2 in the first link given by Scytales, there is the EMI recording of Prévin which is indeed the first digital recording made by EMI. His analysis shows that he has objective numerical problems. However, this CD sounds admirably good... because the sound recording is particularly successful and the peaks of distortion fade compared to the quality... peaks of distortion that we also find on certain analog recordings (La Mer de Debussy, Symphony with organ by Saint-Saëns de Paray cher Mercure, 5th by Mahler by Soliti in Chicago at Decca for example...)
.
 
Last edited:
Ce qui est intriguant, c'est que de nombreux vinyles analogiques des années 1960-1980 présentent tous les défauts que nous attribuons aux « premiers enregistrements numériques » et à un niveau très élevé qui les rend pénibles à écouter. J'ai plein d'exemples dans ma bibliothèque chez Decca, EMI, DGG...

Au contraire, j'ai constaté - et pas seulement moi - que les tout premiers CD sonnaient bien mieux en moyenne que les LP correspondants lorsqu'il s'agissait de rééditions (tous les premiers CBS-Sony), mais que certains enregistrements sonnaient très mal... tout simplement parce qu'ils étaient mal enregistrés et mal mixés... comme certains LP, mais au moins le bruit de fond du pressage, les distorsions sur les fortissimos et celles de fin de face avaient enfin disparu !

PS. J'avais à ma disposition le premier lecteur CD Sony, le premier Philips ainsi que le premier Denon qui était le rebadge d'un modèle "vertical" d'une autre marque japonaise. Tous les trois sonnaient très bien... Le Denon a fini chez un technicien radio... son tiroir vertical ne fermait plus, aussi un petit clou coincé dans un petit trou percé pour travailler sur le châssis et la partie supérieure du tiroir le maintenait fermé pendant la lecture... Et roule mon poulet, comme on dit en France...

PS2 dans le premier lien donné par Scytales, il y a l'enregistrement EMI de Prévin qui est bien le premier enregistrement numérique réalisé par EMI. Son analyse montre qu'il a des problèmes numériques objectifs. Pourtant, ce CD sonne admirablement bien... car la prise de son est particulièrement réussie et les pics de distorsion s'estompent face à la qualité... pics de distorsion que l'on retrouve aussi sur certains enregistrements analogiques (La Mer de Debussy, Symphonie avec orgue de Saint-Saëns de Paray cher Mercure, 5ème de Mahler de Soliti à Chicago chez Decca par exemple...)<;..
.
Croissant?
 
Please don't take me wrong, I wasn't trying to question you either.
The point I'm trying to make IS that digital audio since it's birth and for over a decade or more (maybe 20 years from the very early Denon/NHK very first digital recordings?) , digital audio started from some premises, and It complied with them: high dinamic range, very high Signal to Noise ratio and imperceptible wow and flutter.
But other issues arised as can still be heard on early digital recordings from the late 70's and the 80's. In a nutshell, early digital recordings didn't sound natural and for most of people, pleasing to the ears.
I remember when I was a kid/teenager, many Classical Music recordings, Herbert Von Karajan was one of the most famous orchestral conductors, that embraced New digital recording. I'm sure many, if not most of his recordings of the 80's recorded and mixed with Sony digital equipment are outstanding performing-wise. But from a technical/hearing pleasing point of view they're both obsolete and unpleaant from a listening point of view.
Can anything be done to those fourty something digital recordings to sound better? I honestly don't know. I',m not a pro, just a sound enthusiast/aficionado. Maybe AI may do something with those recordings to make them sound more life-like. I've checked what AI can do for video and film shot movies released to 4K with HDR, and the material I've seen looks promising, and this is just the beginning.
Quite possibly so, given that digital recordings, even the early ones didn't have the tape noise, wow and flutter, bass woodles and treble crushing of the analogue recordings people were familiar with. Take those away, and they would sound a lot cleaner, something people weren't used to, and in this case, different meant worse as unfamiliar.

I have two sets of Karajan's Beethoven symphonies. His 1963 analogue set, and the 1982/3 digital set. The second is clearly better technically, but the earlier one has, for me, the better performance, so yes, if I'd bought the later set after owning the first, I would find the set disappointing.

S.
 
Well, searching in Qobuz looking for Prévin Debussy to see if there were several editions... I found several offered at the same time for streaming... including one in MQA... so that Qobuz replied to me a few months ago that there were none among them and that I had reported two or three suspicious ones to them, but now it's clear...
The two PBs of streaming are the false or absent metadata, the absence of a PDF booklet which should be given systematically and the total mess among certain publishers who put new versions online, remastered or not, which are next to the old ones without the music lover can know at a glance which version he is listening to...

So, I listen to this record again, because memory is obviously a very bad advisor... So, I would say that I heard silkier timbres from the strings and somewhat stiff fortissimos, but besides that analog records are worse , this 1979 recording (first made by EMI) is an absolute marvel in terms of respecting the spatial geometry of a symphony orchestra in width and depth and even slightly in height: the reason is that they used very few microphones as they explain in the cover which Qobuz unfortunately does not provide!
 
Last edited:
It may be my personal taste/preferente but I don't quite like the sound of early digital recordings .
I can name a few from different genres, early digital recordings that I own both the original CDs and then their remastered counterparts.
Star Trek The Motion Picture and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, these two original soundtrack albums were recorded and mixed to Sony digital and Sound unnatural and artificial both the original CDs and the remastered versions released by La La Land Records. I wonder if the original 1st gen digital multitrack tapes were used for a remix would get these recordings to sound better.
More examples, Phil Collins' No Jacket Required (It has an ADD SPARS code but I read somewhere that It was mostly tracked to digital, again, with Sony digital equipment) and But Seriously. The original CDs sound bright and artificial, the Steve Hoffman's remastered sound easier to the ears, but still sound artificial.
Madonna 's Like A Virgin, I own the original CD and the 192/24 HiRes download, which is obviously an upsample, both versions sound very similar, typical Sony digital equipment sound, not bright at all, but dull and artificial.
I listened at a friend's Dire Straits original CD and the stereo layer of the SACD. Each version sound different, the SACD sounds, again, easier to the ears. Maybe It was the way the SACD was mastered, or that DSD uses to soften the sound. But both versions can't deny the album 's full digital (Sony digital equipment again) origin, the original CD and the SACD sound artificial and it's drums and bass guitar sound thin.
Many analogue recordings have been REMIXED to High Res digital, but I don't know of any digitally tracked album that was remixed (multichannel remixes not included) to stereo to improve its sound. You may know of some digitally tracked albums that were remixed to stereo.
 
This is all very subjective. I've not noticed any problem with some of the recordings mentioned.

There's production choices and then there's the 'digital signature.' Suspect the latter is non-existent.

I don't own the classical/soundtrack ones mentioned though so can't comment.
 
Suspect the latter is non-existent.
Exactly - none of this discussion of formats or timeframe has anything to do with the question in the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom