• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Why do they remaster 80's digital recordings in 192/24?

Herbert

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
514
Likes
426
Maybe this thread can be ended with a rather simple answer: How high can Instruments go?
Is there any instrument in any music culture on earth that produces a frequency spectrum up to 20.000hz?
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
1,643
Likes
2,610
Location
bay area, ca
Maybe this thread can be ended with a rather simple answer: How high can Instruments go?
Is there any instrument in any music culture on earth that produces a frequency spectrum up to 20.000hz?
A dog whistle? I think they crack 30kHz...

But based on dogs' reactions, they'd describe the treble as "harsh" :-D
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,458
Likes
6,926
Maybe this thread can be ended with a rather simple answer: How high can Instruments go?
Is there any instrument in any music culture on earth that produces a frequency spectrum up to 20.000hz?

Yes, several, as far as I know. But the question, rather, is how high can human hearing go? The existence of a 30kHz harmonic of a musical note produced by a given instrument is irrelevant to human hearing and therefore irrelevant to hi-fi sound reproduction.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
19,496
Likes
34,973
@eboy
If you want what I think is a sensible method of mastering using compression without ruining the results read and think about the following articles.

Bob Katz K-system.

Another variation on the same ideas:

If you have questions after looking this over, ask them.
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,144
Likes
1,807
@eboy
If you want what I think is a sensible method of mastering using compression without ruining the results read and think about the following articles.

Bob Katz K-system.

Another variation on the same ideas:

If you have questions after looking this over, ask them.
My installation is set up in line with Bob Katz' system and it's effective.
 

Robert C

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2017
Messages
91
Likes
91
Location
London, UK
It depends what format the master is on in the archive. If it's on an analogue format, it will be digitised at 96 or 192 kHz. That sample rate will then be preserved through the remastering workflow. If the archive holds a digital master, then the data will be migrated from tape (e.g. Sony 1630) to PC over AES preserving the original recording rates. Sometimes you get the latter happening, but the remastering engineer uses an outboard analogue workflow and recaptures the audio in high resolution.

Lots of possibilities. Clearly the Lionel Richie example in the OP has digital in the recording chain. Could be that the original engineers mixed down to 1/2" analogue intentionally for the sound, or for convenience. Or perhaps the original master was digital (2-track DASH or 1630) but an analogue production copy was made and that is what has been used here. Impossible to say without seeing tape box provenance.
 

Herbert

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
514
Likes
426
A dog whistle? I think they crack 30kHz...

But based on dogs' reactions, they'd describe the treble as "harsh" :-D
Awaited this Joke already Does anyone has Gyöti Legitis‘ „Atmospheres“ at hand? Do not find my copy right now,
frequency range range should be broad as this video shows:
 

Herbert

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
514
Likes
426
To answer the question, the recording of "Atmospheres" on the Soundtrack of "2001" - dead after 17kHz,
probably due to the analog recording equipment of 1966:
Atmospheres.jpg
 

Herbert

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
514
Likes
426
The example above leads to another question - how good is analog studio equipment.
25kHz seems to be the upper limit of pro analog multitrack gear before digital became standard
But there is probably nothing going on above 20kHz anyway:

This study claims the opposite, using Gamelan music
but has a flaw - they needed to use a custom built speaker
system for playback as no HiFi speaker was able to reproduce the ultrasonics anyway.
There is no other study supporting the findings
and in my collection of 600 CDs there is one Gamelan recording...
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,144
Likes
1,807
Whilst a properly aligned professional studio tape recorder at 15ips should be able to record and reproduce sound above 20kHz, it's tricky to have any confidence in the recording because studio monitor speakers would be unlikely to be reliable above 20k and sound engineers would not be able to hear and correct such high frequencies.

There is an interesting innovation which uses the high frequency bias that is retained on the tapes to improve remasters. It's the Plangent Process. I believe a remaster based on this should sound better than previous masters https://www.plangentprocesses.com/
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,225
Likes
3,740

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,144
Likes
1,807

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,225
Likes
3,740
It's probably worth reading the AES paper to understand the science behind this. A lot of "new improved mastering processes" are bunk or questionable, but this process does solve a generally accepted and well known problem with mastering (and using a tape made on machine A on machine B).

That is interesting, looks like they use it as a way of timekeeping when coming from analog because tapes aren't perfect. So its benefits are not in the frequency domain, but the time domain.
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,144
Likes
1,807
That is interesting, looks like they use it as a way of timekeeping when coming from analog because tapes aren't perfect. So its benefits are not in the frequency domain, but the time domain
Exactly. In my day I did a lot of work on studio-quality professional 2", 1/2" and 1/4" tape machines. We could get the wow and flutter into a good tolerance but not eliminate it. The worst case would be a tape on machine A, played back on machine B where both were at opposite tolerances. There are measurable downsides to getting this wrong. The AES paper allows the wow and flutter of Machine A to be detected and corrected for. I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't want to to do this!
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,144
Likes
1,807
Comfortably Numb 192kHz at 24bit. Everything above 46kHz is noise, but frequencies below that pulse in time with the music. I've no idea what it sounds like, of course ;)

Comfortably Numb 192.jpg
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,144
Likes
1,807
Comfortably Numb 192kHz at 24bit. Everything above 46kHz is noise, but frequencies below that pulse in time with the music. I've no idea what it sounds like, of course ;)
Weirdly, the second Comfortably Numb guitar solo seems to be recorded differently. There's also something very odd involving mirroring/imaging around a 34kHz pivot! This below in the lump from 27kHz to 34kHz and then 34kHz to 41kHz.

Again, I've no idea what this sounds like, but I suspect it's wrong (unlike the ultrasonic sounds on the 1st half). So whilst a system up to 50kHz may be valid for the 1st half, I suspect rolling off before 27kHz would be best for the 2nd half! :oops:
Comfortably Numb 192a.jpg
 

Herbert

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
514
Likes
426
I wonder if the signal between 27 and 41kHz is acoustics picked up by the mic
or processing artifacts from the studio gear and plugins...?
 

lxg208

New Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2023
Messages
1
Likes
0
Wrong. They don't remix. They take the original master and compress it some more. Thats about it. Theres only one guy I know off who remixes.

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/steven-wilson-remixing-classic-albums

He takes the multitracks and reproduces the mix. This is very complicated. Heres a part of the article.

This is a slow, painstakingly intense part of the process. "I start listening to 10, 15 seconds at a time, and it'll be 'Oh yeah, the guitar's muted for those first four bars of the second verse, so I need to do that in my session.' Then I'll listen to the next 10 seconds, and 'Ah, OK, there's a phaser been added to the hi-hat there.' And so on through each song."

Completely different than a remaster. Remasters are often a sham and can be made by adding a bit of EQ. There often worse sounding than the original, IMHO not far from snake oil.
Remixes can sound better. Listen to some of Steve's.
I complete agree, the so called HD version is worse than the CD version. They compressrf it make it sounds loader and perceived as better. It is not as outrageous as others, but it's definitely not better.
 

thulle

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
98
Likes
130
Maybe this thread can be ended with a rather simple answer: How high can Instruments go?
Is there any instrument in any music culture on earth that produces a frequency spectrum up to 20.000hz?

Many, crash cymbals being the most famous for high frequency energy I think.

2023-02-12-232930_642x629_scrot.png



Might be the reason why they're among the instruments that get distorted the most by lossy compression algorithms. And maybe part of why they sound so tame in recordings in general compared to live.
 
Top Bottom