The point of my previous post is that Decca could have transferred the originals in the first place (40+ years ago), and please don't let them b/s you otherwise! The fact that they have finally done so is hardly "a major step forward". To me, it reeks of cynicism and is typical of the industry playing on general misconceptions which, btw, they have largely created!
But, you might say, surely with 24/192 we can do it better today? Well no, actually, 16/44 used at its full capability will do the job nicely, since it will comfortably accommodate the frequency and dynamic ranges of magnetic recording tape. So will 24/192, but at a great waste of (digital) space, without sounding any better, along with some undesirable side effects of the unnecessarily high sampling rate. Explanations? Well, there are plenty around, particularly on YouTube by frustrated souls trying to demystify sampling theory and the myths around it. Perhaps the best is Christopher Montgomery, developer of the FLAC format, who has YouTube segments and a paper published in 2012 entitled "24/192 Music Downloads ... and why they make no sense". This paper was originally online only at xiph.org, and is no longer there, but I've saved it as a pdf and can provide it to Len for anybody who's interested.
By now I realise I've probably excited the audiophile fringe, who will always swear "but I can tell the difference", despite the clear evidence of independent research showing that they can't. For a final word on digital recording and reproduction, however, I'll refer to Geoff (I guess that's his name) who recently contributed to a YouTube discussion on 16-vs-24 bit. I'm quoting Geoff because he says exactly what I would say, perhaps even better:
"Many audiophiles conflate bits and sample rates used in the recording process with the bits and sample rates in the playback files. This is a mistake. High sample rates and more bits are used in the recording process to enable editing but are pointless for playback. If you actually had a 24 bit recording with a true 144dB dynamic range and the equipment able to handle it (which is impossible) and your quiet listening room had a 30dB background then a peak sound above background would be 174dB which would be lethal. No, I am not exaggerating, this sound level kills. Even a true 16 bit 96dB recording would be unplayable as the quiet passages would be inaudible or the loud passages screamingly loud. Most modern recordings can be delivered with 10 or 12 bits. A full symphony orchestra giving it all it's got () peaks at about 104 dB SPL. Let's give the orchestra 105 dB, and 105 dB - 30 dB = only 75 dB real dynamic range. Most recordings are compressed dynamically to a sensible range so the listener is not constantly having to twiddle the volume control. Higher sample rates on playback produces ultrasonic noise and does not improve audio in the audible range.
The quality of a recording is determined by the studio at the time of recording and production. A well recorded and skilfully engineered 16/44.1 CD can deliver audio quality that exceeds the limits of human hearing. Higher bit depth and higher sample rates are used in the recording process for editing purposes but are pointless for playback. 16 bits gives a huge dynamic range. You will never hear noise in a silent passage of a 16 bit recording unless it is tape hiss from a copy of an old analog recording. 24 bit playback does absolutely nothing to sound quality other than further reducing the noise floor which is already inaudible with 16 bits. Higher sample rates produce frequencies above 20KHz, which is not only above human hearing, but captures unwanted noise that can produce nasties in the audible range. These ultrasonic frequencies can get into a tweeter and cause problems. Higher sample rates on playback cannot improve quality in the audible range. Any effects from the brick wall filter were resolved 20 years ago by improved DAC technology such as over sampling. A modern $100 DAC can give superb audio. So called hi-res releases are marketing hype to sell the same music again. Loudspeakers and room acoustics have far more effect on sound quality."
(The emphasis on the penultimate sentence is mine.)
PS: Message to Terence - it seems Pandora's Box is now open!
*I use "remastering" in the sense that some listeners seem to imagine a kind of magic has to happen in the passage of an analogue source into the digital domain. However, if the source is of good quality such as an original mastertape, a simple transfer via an analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) will do the job. This need not be complicated or expensive - to transfer my tapes (which, btw, are of the same era as Decca's), I use an ADC which I can fit in my pocket and costs about the same as a large pizza.
Speaking specifically about the Britten War Requiem, I have both the 24/96 release from 2013 and the 24/192 version of the 2023 reissue. I never purchased the original CD release (late-80's?) as I was told that the tape hiss was quite intrusive. The 2013 release all but eliminated the tape noise and I found the sound quality to be very good, nevertheless I did find the performance to be somewhat lacking in emotion. The 2023 remaster in comparison has opened up the sound and is a vast improvement. I believe that the method used to reduce the tape noise of the 2013 release also dulled some of the high frequencies, robbing the recording of some of the sparkle/life. The 2023 has restored those high frequencies, particularly in the brass, and you can now hear that the performance is fantastic with all the emotion that you would expect. The 2013 release is an enjoyable listen but the 2023 is on a whole different level.
Technology moves on and things can be improved. Unfortunately I cannot say anything about the CD release of the 2023 War Requiem, however if it was created from the same 24/192 master it should sound very close to the higher resolution version. Personally, I prefer downloads and I see no reason not to buy what is essentially the "master" of a recording, why bother with format conversions? For CD, the 24/192 master must be down-converted to 16/44.1.
Yes, not all remasters result in significant sound changes but each new release must be evaluated for its own sake and some clearly represent a major step forward in sound quality.
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb