| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Didital Things » About digital files and definition of “masters”. (5 posts, 1 page)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The UnipheyeMusic and Studio Master Reference.....  DSD converted to PCM really has poor objective performa...  Didital Things  Forum     5  37268  02-19-2009
  »  New  Chesky Records went "raw files"...  Chesky Records went "raw files"....  Didital Things  Forum     0  14268  04-16-2009
  »  New  A CD off tune? The Big CD Conspiracy theory?..  Low cost re-issues...  Didital Things  Forum     9  66428  08-25-2009
  »  New  The High Resolution PCM files business, where?..  Really bad...  Didital Things  Forum     31  163043  09-29-2009
  »  New  A need for Resolution /Sampling Assessment Test..  Well, we kind of 'have' a file Virginity Assessment Tes...  Didital Things  Forum     1  19051  10-06-2009
  »  New  About the DAW playback software...  Best hardware with best software...  Didital Things  Forum     11  77126  03-22-2008
  »  New  Bravo Brahms, Bravo Wand, Bravo Sony!!!..  What Was That Number You Wanted, Again?...  Didital Things  Forum     3  29534  03-21-2011
04-09-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 7149
Reply to: 7149
About digital files and definition of “masters”.

A few days ago I was expressing my dissatisfaction with the BS-mania that industry spread about the digital masters.

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=7147

 Romy the Cat wrote:
I generally feel that the fairy-tale about the “digital masters” that industry tells to us, the consumers, annoys me. Recently the hysteria about the “masters” made industry very much loose sense of any trustfulness and lucidness… I am not prosing that HRx will be bad, they might be fine - I just do not like they stress the “RR masters” story as any more or less understanding person listening the assurances of the “digital masters” has his BS-meter maxed out.

There are a lot of gullible people who bite BS about the “digital masters”. Not that the “digital masters” are bad thing, in fact they might be very good thing, but audio people shell clearly undusted what we deal with as in many cased we deal only with industry deception or with industry comfortably-numb ignorance.

Forget about all demonology you heard that apply to analog tape masters. The quality of analog copies of master tapes degrades by according to very different rules. Why it is so is behind the scope of this thread and I am not going there. In digital world there is an original file that was created by analog-to-digital converter – that is something that I call the “Raw File”. Sure in pro-audio word people records sometimes on 24 or 48 channels have 48 Raw File, mix them up, master it and so on. It makes the definition of Original Raw File confided, beside everything else. What is however VERY critical in this subject to understand is that the ONLY original Raw File (in the way how it went out of AD converter) is worthy to be considered as … worthy. Let see what we (the consumers) get out of that Raw File.

Any editing (or as they call it “mastering”) of the Raw Files done nowadays in digital domain. Any activation of DSP post-processing, changing volume of the file, even for .001dB, severely ruins the file’s quality. I am not even mention the compressors, expanders and zillion of other toys. Here is the key – any resaving of the Raw Files is very bad. Interesting that most of the pro editing software when you click button “Save” begin to re-render the file with DSP engine – means terminally damage the file.

Changing of sampling rates and bit-resolution of files is also very devastating. Even if you do time 2 down/up sampling from 88K to 44K for instance then you lose a LOT in that file what you save it. The Reference Recoding claim that they release their “masters” at 88kHz and 172kHz Great, however what format were the Raw Files? If they were in 172kHz then the 88kHz is downsampled copy and vise versa. They people who claim that they sell the RR copies of the analog master tapes claim that RR recorded in analog. If so then RR’s 172kHz and 88kHz are just digitalization of the master tapes. There is nothing wrong with it but it but it is not the Original Raw Files.

Format conversion. Here is another subject. The Morons love to screams about the SACD’s copies of the master tapes but they burn their SACD files from the PCM duplicates of the master tapes. With all bogusness of SACD that fact that they use, in many instances PCM as source, make me to laugh. Furthermore, since people become more and more familiar with the foolishness of SACD-sham, there is more and more movement among the designers with senses do not process the SACD at all. They just internally convert SACD into high resolution PCM and D/A regular PCM signal. As I said, any conversion is a subject of compromising of the Original Raw Files.

Then, the consumer packaging. This is very big subject where over 50% of Original Raw Files quality goes to toilet. No one will sell to you the Raw Files but they package it into CD or DVD-A or the SACD or what’ve it is. The problem is that what you begin to renders your Raw File into the media disk you kill it all. Record a Raw 16/44 file and you will see that it is HUGLY better compare to when what you put the very same recording into CD format. The same goes with DVD-A. Any recordings in 24/94 are very much better if you do not render it into DVD-A disk.

Anyhow, the faintest thing of all is that what I spoke with a number of full-time recording engineers and the told me that they do not even recognize the Original Raw Files as a concept – they just do not keep the Raw Files as they feel that coping then do not harm. It is true - coping is not resaving and it is has practically no damage but there is a thing….

I love to look at older photographs. Not the photographs but the daguerreotypes.  With the daguerreotypes the event is memorized on silver coating and then processed by different vapors and the image itself is not the duplicate of event but the direct reflection of the happenings in front of camera. All daguerreotypes are original and not of them possible to duplicate with daguerreotype process.  The daguerreotypes had own “catching quality” that does not exist in photography…. I think leaving aside all technical justifications I can presume that a Raw File is a direct daguerreotypes or the burn of the sonic event that was in real time created by A/D converter. That is THE ONLY Master that I recognize, everything else is secondary.  Listed Live concert braincase or watch live video - it has that feeling of “momentness” in it. The Raw Master Files or Tapes have it as well. The duplicated might be better or worth but they loose of that “something”. Unfortunately in case of digital “resaved” copies they lose a LOT.

Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
04-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
ArmAlex
Iran
Posts 99
Joined on 02-15-2009

Post #: 2
Post ID: 10338
Reply to: 7149
Master files
fiogf49gjkf0d
I downloaded a few of those "master files" with great expectations, but what I heard was almost crap. Ordinary 44.1 files are generally much better.

Armen
01-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 3
Post ID: 15514
Reply to: 7149
Another case to point: Sweden eClassical
fiogf49gjkf0d

The Swedish eClassical site offer over 350 24 bit recording and change for download bite:

http://www.eclassical.com/                      

The site sells many recordings and promise them in 24 bit 2x format but I have remembered those recordings in CD years back. So, let presume that the companies offer to eClassical this original recording files. I do not know if it is the case for all recordings. I would rather believe that the eClassical ripped CD and upsize them to 24 bit.  Did anybody buy anything from them?

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-11-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 4
Post ID: 16437
Reply to: 7149
It is what I has been saying for years.
fiogf49gjkf0d
http://www.itrax.com/Community/showthread.php?61-HiFi-News-Investigates-the-Truth-Behind-HD-Downloads&s=105ea9c8721d272a374d5bd88dc1d6ec

Rgs, the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-24-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
wjam


The French Alps
Posts 7
Joined on 01-04-2011

Post #: 5
Post ID: 16856
Reply to: 16437
HD or not HD
fiogf49gjkf0d
So at what point are the sellers going to be obliged to tell us if it's as per original or upsampled?  Or just a lie printed to squeeze out more cash?...

I am building a linux server right now and will be attaching it to a DAC in a week or so that will play whatever goes in, at whatever rate it goes in at, up top 192 24 bit.  If it sounds like shite I'll just keep buying LPs...  Time will tel.l  But to start I only take the free stuff.

ciao

WJAM
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The UnipheyeMusic and Studio Master Reference.....  DSD converted to PCM really has poor objective performa...  Didital Things  Forum     5  37268  02-19-2009
  »  New  Chesky Records went "raw files"...  Chesky Records went "raw files"....  Didital Things  Forum     0  14268  04-16-2009
  »  New  A CD off tune? The Big CD Conspiracy theory?..  Low cost re-issues...  Didital Things  Forum     9  66428  08-25-2009
  »  New  The High Resolution PCM files business, where?..  Really bad...  Didital Things  Forum     31  163043  09-29-2009
  »  New  A need for Resolution /Sampling Assessment Test..  Well, we kind of 'have' a file Virginity Assessment Tes...  Didital Things  Forum     1  19051  10-06-2009
  »  New  About the DAW playback software...  Best hardware with best software...  Didital Things  Forum     11  77126  03-22-2008
  »  New  Bravo Brahms, Bravo Wand, Bravo Sony!!!..  What Was That Number You Wanted, Again?...  Didital Things  Forum     3  29534  03-21-2011
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts