Improvements in Digital to Analog Converters and Modulators

[bmoura]

Unlike digitizing an analog master tape, there's nothing really to be gained from the SACD format on this one given that it's just a CD-quality digital master.

It depends on the converters and conversion software that Kevin Gray is using. The quality of newer DSD (and PCM) converters and conversion software today is much better than what was used in the past.
Which helps to explain why remastered albums can sound so much better than the original releases - regardless of whether the original source was Analog or PCM.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The album was recorded on a 32 track digital PCM digital multitrack and then mixed down to 16 bit/44.1 kHz PCM - it's this stereo mixdown that Kevin Gray remastered from. I'm sure this will sound good from a remastering standpoint, but unlike digitizing an analog master tape, there's nothing really to be gained from the SACD format on this one given that it's just a CD-quality digital master.

Happy to be proven wrong though, and I love some of the songs on this album (especially You Can't Get What You Want (Till You Know What You Want),strong Steely Dan vibes on that one) and hopefully IR will tackle some of the other Joe Jackson albums that were mixed to analog tape, especially Night and Day.

I agree with Brian, Dave.

For your perusal:

Exhibit A: Cowboy Junkies-The Trinity Session-Hybrid Stereo SACD|Acoustic Sounds

Exhibit B: Nils Lofgren-Acoustic Live-Hybrid Stereo SACD|Acoustic Sounds

IMO, on my system, both sound significantly better than their RBCD counterparts!

 

[sjcorne]

IMO, on my system, both sound significantly better than their RBCD counterparts!

The improvement in sound you’re hearing might have more to do with EQ choices made by the (re)mastering engineer than the output format.

 

[bmoura]

The improvement in sound you’re hearing might have more to do with EQ choices made by the (re)mastering engineer than the output format.

And the improved converters and conversion software.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The improvement in sound you’re hearing might have more to do with EQ choices made by the (re)mastering engineer than the output format.

Jonathan, I would surmise it has more to do with the fact that the CD format imposed a brick wall filter above 22 Hertz on ALL RBCD players and those 32 track 3M digital recorders have so such limitations. The RBCD of the Trinty Sessions always sounded fine ..... but the SACD brings it to a whole new level and as Brian says, QUAD DSD technology does offer sonic improvements for the Analogue to digital transfers.

 

[bmoura]

Jonathan, I would surmise it has more to do with the fact that the CD format imposed a brick wall filter above 22 Hertz on ALL RBCD players and those 32 track 3M digital recorders have so such limitations. The RBCD of the Trinty Sessions always sounded fine ..... but the SACD brings it to a whole new level and as Brian says, QUAD DSD technology does offer sonic improvements for the Analogue to digital transfers.

Actually there are two different things at work here:
1. The availability of higher DSD bit rates (like DSD 256fs or Quad DSD) which is used by MoFi and others in their remastering process.
2. The improved quality of DSD converters and conversion software at all DSD bit rates (DSD 64, 128, 256, 512).

The advances in both areas over the past 20+ years of DSD have both contributed to better sounding releases on SACD and DSD Download.

 

[sjcorne]

I would surmise it has more to do with the fact that the CD format imposed a brick wall filter above 22 Hertz on ALL RBCD players and those 32 track 3M digital recorders have so such limitations.

Is there even anything above 22k on this album? (I assume that's what you meant in your post? 22 Hz would be deep bass and if everything above that was cut off, you wouldn't hear the music at all). I thought sampling at 44.1 meant that the high end cuts off around 20k.

I guess I'm still missing something here - how could 'high-resolution' digital audio created from a lossy digital source sound better than the original lossy digital audio? Wouldn't that be like saying ripping a regular CD to 96/24 FLAC files sounds better than the original CD?

As I stated above - Kevin Gray's remaster may be considered an improvement over the original CD mastering, but that has nothing to do with the audio resolution is or what format it's being released on. I'm not trying to be combative (and I'm sure I'll regret getting involved in this discussion), just looking to understand...

 

[bmoura]

Actually the audio resolution and format does play into it.

At the end of the day, we'll have to wait for the release of the SACD to see if Kevin Gray's use of today's audio mastering tools results in a better sounding remastered release.

Stay tuned...

 

[humprof]

Is there even anything above 22k on this album? (I assume that's what you meant in your post? 22 Hz would be deep bass and if everything above that was cut off, you wouldn't hear the music at all). I thought sampling at 44.1 meant that the high end cuts off around 20k.

I guess I'm still missing something here - how could 'high-resolution' digital audio created from a lossy digital source sound better than the original lossy digital audio? Wouldn't that be like saying ripping a regular CD to 96/24 FLAC files sounds better than the original CD?

As I stated above - Kevin Gray's remaster may be considered an improvement over the original CD mastering, but that has nothing to do with the audio resolution is or what format it's being released on. I'm not trying to be combative (and I'm sure I'll regret getting involved in this discussion), just looking to understand...

I'm not getting this either. (And I've really got no stake in this, except that I really like Joe Jackson.) If Kevin Gray had had access to the original master tapes for Body and Soul, as he apparently did for the other Intervention JJ releases (vinyl-only, sadly) then there would definitely be opportunities for improved sound on the SACD. But he didn't. He's working from the 16/44.1 stereo master, right?--so I don't get how that could possibly be improved simply by being "converted," no matter how much better the converters and conversion software and elevated bit rates. Sure, he could tweak the EQ and do some other mastering tricks, but how could the mere act of passing it through super-duper converters improve the resolution (or anything else) of the original signal?

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'm not getting this either. (And I've really got no stake in this, except that I really like Joe Jackson.) If Kevin Gray had had access to the original master tapes for Body and Soul, as he apparently did for the other Intervention JJ releases (vinyl-only, sadly) then there would definitely be opportunities for improved sound on the SACD. But he didn't. He's working from the 16/44.1 stereo master, right?--so I don't get how that could possibly be improved simply by being "converted," no matter how much better the converters and conversion software and elevated bit rates. Sure, he could tweak the EQ and do some other mastering tricks, but how could the mere act of passing it through super-duper converters improve the resolution (or anything else) of the original signal?

Lest me forget, humprof, Donald Fagen's NIGHTFLY and Dire Straits Brothers In Arms were both DDD PCM 16/44.1 recordings but, IMO, are two of the better Sounding DVD~A/SACD multi channel albums on the market.

And have you ever heard the DDD 16/44.1 RBCD of Ry Cooder's BOP TIL YOU DROP ..... EXCELLENT

I really don't think Intervention Records nor Kevin Gray would tackle this project if they didn't believe they could improve on the original 16/44.1 recording.

Acoustic Sounds/Analogue Productions has definitely improved on the original DDD PCM 44.1 masters of both Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions and Nils Lofgren LIVE....as opposed to their RBCD counterparts.

I am certainly a believer, and this on high quality separate components.

And those who have read my posts over the years on QQ know fully well I'm NOT an advocate of LOSSY CODECS!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Is there even anything above 22k on this album? (I assume that's what you meant in your post? 22 Hz would be deep bass and if everything above that was cut off, you wouldn't hear the music at all). I thought sampling at 44.1 meant that the high end cuts off around 20k.

I guess I'm still missing something here - how could 'high-resolution' digital audio created from a lossy digital source sound better than the original lossy digital audio? Wouldn't that be like saying ripping a regular CD to 96/24 FLAC files sounds better than the original CD?

As I stated above - Kevin Gray's remaster may be considered an improvement over the original CD mastering, but that has nothing to do with the audio resolution is or what format it's being released on. I'm not trying to be combative (and I'm sure I'll regret getting involved in this discussion), just looking to understand...

I'd bet it's a Ralphie typo for 22Khz, but still, I'm not sure even anything above 14-16Khz on an RBCD would have much non-offensive audibility for me

 

[4-earredwonder]

Me too. There was some discussion about this title recently on another thread. (I don't want to stir up the dust again, but the disagreement never really got resolved, as people seemed to be talking at cross-purposes.)

The Joe Jackson title Body and Soul was an early PCM 16/44.1 Digital Recording and the question arose ... how could it sound better 'upgraded' to SACD.
Well, with careful remastering and the advances in DSD QUAD 256 transfers... it most certainly CAN!

 

[humprof]

If it winds up sounding better than the CD, Ralph, then I won't bust my head over what's responsible for the improvement, whether it's mastering choices, PCM-to-DSD conversion tools, or magic pixie dust!

 

[4-earredwonder]

If it winds up sounding better than the CD, Ralph, then I won't bust my head over what's responsible for the improvement, whether it's mastering choices, PCM-to-DSD conversion tools, or magic pixie dust!

I kept alluding to the fact that Analogue Productions DID tackle two early PCM 16/44.1 recordings and actually did make them sound better as Stereo SACDs and did state that RBCDs are brickwall filtered which is NOT inherent on the actual PCM masters ...... and my ears were NOT fooling me.

 

[fredblue]

how do you improve upon what isn't there in the first place?

with a digital master, if the originals limited to that resolution, then isn't that it and you're merely up-rez'ing for the sake of it in some pissing contest numbers game?

i'm very happy to eat my hat/words/shorts if the science backs up the beautiful blue sky thinking and there turns out to be something measurable as well as (anecdotally) audible

 

[fredblue]

I kept alluding to the fact that Analogue Productions DID tackle two early PCM 16/44.1 recordings and actually did make them sound better as Stereo SACDs and did state that RBCDs are brickwall filtered which is NOT inherent on the actual PCM masters ...... and my ears were NOT fooling me.

which discs were these please Ralph?
i'd like to check them out if poss. thanks!

 

[4-earredwonder]

which discs were these please Ralph?
i'd like to check them out if poss. thanks!

Cowboy Junkies' TRINITY SESSIONS and Nils Lofgren LIVE.....both stupendous SACD remasters from PCM 16/44.1 sources. Both available from Acoustic Sounds.

 

[sjcorne]

I kept alluding to the fact that Analogue Productions DID tackle two early PCM 16/44.1 recordings and actually did make them sound better as Stereo SACDs

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion that they sound better, but the faulty logic is attributing the (perceived) uptick in sound quality to AP's use of the SACD format for their remasters. The improvement in fidelity could just as easily be the result of new EQ choices made by the mastering engineer, which would be perceptible to listeners regardless of what optical format or codec the audio is packaged in.

 

[fredblue]

Cowboy Junkies' TRINITY SESSIONS and Nils Lofgren LIVE.....both stupendous SACD remasters from PCM 16/44.1 sources. Both available from Acoustic Sounds.

if you were to take those remastered SACDs and "downgrade" them to CD, i suspect you'd lose nothing audible in the process, the fabulous remastered sound would more than likely remain intact.

 

[fredblue]

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion that they sound better, but the faulty logic is attributing the (perceived) uptick in sound quality to AP's use of the SACD format for their remasters. The improvement in fidelity could just as easily be the result of new EQ choices made by the mastering engineer, which would be perceptible to listeners regardless of what optical format or codec the audio is packaged in.

there you go!