Mastering recordings on CDs

[829]

Aura Engine 30M Taps.
Without a fast graphics card, it takes a very long time. I need to buy a fast graphics card for music and a large-capacity drive.

[...]

That's gonna be EXPENSIVE these days!

But why don't you downsample all back to the original rate (or straight to 44.1 kHz / 16-bit w. dither) after AuraEngine's job is done? You won't be losing anything that's audible but will be preserving a lot of disk space.

 

[Erogen]

That's gonna be EXPENSIVE these days!

But why don't you downsample all back to the original rate (or straight to 44.1 kHz / 16-bit w. dither) after AuraEngine's job is done? You won't be losing anything that's audible but will be preserving a lot of disk space.

Resampling again, I don't think, is a good idea.
I won't be storing music at 24-bit/352.8 kHz resolution.
A fast graphics card will suffice here.

 

[Auditory Cortex]

I found the most complete and objective information an this topic over the years on Archimago's Musings.

As per why Vinyl rips often have a higher DR:

• https://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/08/musings-increasing-dynamic-range-of.html

What has been removed from tracks irreversibly by excessive DR compression cannot be restored from these same sources. But there are a few ways to make highly DR compressed tracks sound subjectively better (= a lot less fatiguing), like (he's even using Red Hot Chili Peppers as example):

• https://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/05/demo-software-de-clipping-of.html
• https://archimago.blogspot.com/2026/08/auraengine-perfectionist-off-line-mega.html
• https://archimago.blogspot.com/2023/11/musings-multichannel-mixes-are-more.html

So basically de-clipping (as shown by others in this thread), upsampling (AuraEngine - Windows only; *extra step see here) and using multichannel mixes (where available) are some of the options we have, in cases where no good remastering got released from intact source (like in this example).

And don't focus on "HiRes" content incl. SACD - it really doesn't make things better!

I am aware of the issue when analyzing the DR in Vinyl formats. It dependens of the quality of the rip/recording and how the tool deals with those imperfections that can falsely increase a DR value.
However, despite that issue, it is still true that for most cases the Dynamic Range is higher, and you don't need an analyzer to know that, you can just listen to the recording and compare it with the digital version, you will also notice how obvious the increase in dynamic range is.

But to make objective comparisons and for being more scientifically accurate, we need something that can give us numbers. Probably that's only somewhat possible with high quality rips of the vinyl versions, but there will be always some margin of error/subjectivity. The only way we could make a 100% scientific comparison is by having the original mastering files of both versions. Hopefully some engineers can give us such values/readings of their vinyl masterings.

Oh and indeed SACD don't fix that. It only increases the dynamic range between the audio signal and the noise floor, but the music itself is the same and has the same CD mastering, so no real point at getting those.

 

[Mart68]

Oh and indeed SACD don't fix that. It only increases the dynamic range between the audio signal and the noise floor, but the music itself is the same and has the same CD mastering, so no real point at getting those.

Almost always a differerent master on SACD, sometimes better, sometimes worse (in DR).

Vinyl as a format has limited DR (12 bits tops) with audible noise and distortion.

 

[Tell]

This was a great video explaining and showing why the dynamic range numbers on vinyl doesn't match reality.

Now I do remember that MasVis should be a better program to investigate the true DR of something (the allpassed crest factor graph in particular), but for some reason it won't start on my machine right now.

 

[danadam]

The only way we could make a 100% scientific comparison is by having the original mastering files of both versions. Hopefully some engineers can give us such values/readings of their vinyl masterings.

Isn't that exactly what Ian Shepherd did?

Why you can't measure vinyl with the TT Meter - Production Advice

And let's get this straight - sometimes vinyl is deliberately mastered with better dynamics than CD and other digital formats.

productionadvice.co.uk

 

[829]

Resampling again, I don't think, is a good idea.
[...]

Why not?

The quick analysis in ocenaudio does not show any audible deterioration. I'm sure XiVero's MusicScope would confirm the outcome.

Almost always a differerent master on SACD, sometimes better, sometimes worse (in DR).

[...]

LIST: Suspected 44 or 48kHz PCM upsampled SACDs.​

 

[MatrixS2000]

Isn't that exactly what Ian Shepherd did?

Why you can't measure vinyl with the TT Meter - Production Advice

And let's get this straight - sometimes vinyl is deliberately mastered with better dynamics than CD and other digital formats.

productionadvice.co.uk

No, he used a clipped example and smeared all vinyl with that brush although he does say that sometimes vinyl is deliberately mastered with better dynamics when he should have said something like good practice for vinyl mastering is to use a more dynamic file. Also true is that TT meter is not a good tool to measure dynamics regardless of whether it is vinyl or digital.

 

[Cbdb2]

When did this even start?

In the 50s. Radio sold records, louder songs sounded "better" and sold more. DJs were even bribed to turn certain songs up. Didnt take long for this to creep in to record production so the DJ didnt need to turn it up it was already louder. The difference back than and into the early eighties was that the radio (AM) played singles not the LP version of the song, The radio versions (the 45s) were usually shorter and could be mixed/mastered differently. In the late seventies FM got popular for pop music and mostly played the album version, so the loudness wars started to creep into LPs. THAN music videos destroyed pop music, eh I mean sold records and people listened to them from there TVs!! With dynamic ranges of 10 to 20 db lots of compression was needed and again louder sold more records. By 2000 DSP took over compression/limiting and was much "better" at it so producers over used it and still are.

 

[Cbdb2]

Thank god the vinyl mastering exists, and that's only because they can't push the levels so hard in this format due to the technical limitations of the Vinyl medium.

??? The limitations of vinyl have nothing to do with the level of compression that can be applied. Its the other way around, CD has more dynamic range if you want to use it.

 

[MatrixS2000]

??? The limitations of vinyl have nothing to do with the level of compression that can be applied. Its the other way around, CD has more dynamic range if you want to use it.

I think he is conflating loudness with dynamic range. Pushing average loudness through heavy compression and limiting usually reduces DR, but loudness and DR aren’t the same thing. Vinyl’s physical limitations may restrict cutting level, but they don’t inherently prevent compression. If the vinyl version has greater DR, that’s usually because it was given a less compressed master.