I'm so glad CD's came out in the early 80's. Because we were able to get a lot of good music put on a digital file before they decided to remaster old records to raise the volume and brick them. When I buy older music, I always have to buy the first release they did on CD. Because the later remastered versions usually always sound like crap and distorted.

In the case of one of the first direct to digital recordings Donald Fagen’s The Nightfly. Roger Nichols was quoted saying they made the decision to record the Nightfly on digital equipment. He said "We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine." The original resolution of the 3M recording was 24/50 and best you can get is 24/48. Comparing the 24/48 version to the 16/44 CD version is a good A/B test and cool way to test the resolving power of your system.

Back in the 70's, I used to buy "half-speed" mastered LPs. As I understood it, the pressing master was cut by turning it at half speed (33 1/3 divided by 2), with the master tape playback running at half speed. These were about twice the price of a normal LP, and they definitely had more detail.

A bit of trivia. The 0.1 KHz of the 44.1 KHz is only there because the 16 bit Digital audio frames at 44.1KHz fitted nicely on each scan of the recording heads on a Sony U-Matic video cassette which was at the time a convenient way of transporting the digital master to the CD mastering/pressing plant.

I think the thrust of the question was really more about older analog recordings transferred to high resolution digital vs Red Book, more than about upsampling earlier digital recordings. SACD and DVD-Audio came out in around 2000. In the early days of SACD, probably 95% of the releases were from older analog masters.

Sound has been the same for a long time, it all depends on the recording and care that goes into it.

0:44 - Paul, I believe the writer was talking about old 70s and 80s recordings reissued on SACD.

I actually bought quite a number of the very early Sony SACDs (mainly classical) and was amazed at just how good most of them sounded - and still do.

Jazz at the Pawnshop. An audiophile standard, recorded in 1976, by a professional recording engineer who dragged his equipment to a bar in Sweden to record a pretty decent jazz combo. The music is good, imaging is perfect, and the ambience is real with clinking glasses and quiet conversations in the background. The recording was made on analog tape. The vinyl record is a sonic delight. Naxos has re-released it in a 2x (128 bit) DSD format. The DSD makes the pure analog vinyl sound like there is a curtain between the listener and performers. If done properly, there is absolutely merit to upsampled releases, and DSD is the King of formats!

It's interesting to say, however, that the older analog recordings were very high resolution. As far back as the 50s, the recording equipment and techniques were astonishingly good. If you could get uncompressed copies of the masters, you'd think they were among the best modern recordings.

Trying to follow the thread of this answer is an exercise in futility... it's partly the fault of the question, which encompasses several topics that can easily sidetrack Paul - which is pretty easy to do. What the questioner really wants to know is whether a 192 kHz digital master taken from an analogue tape recording compared with a 44.1 digital master taken from the same analogue tape is better. There's an assumption that older tape recording techniques are inherently worse. Listen to a high res version of "Rumours" and tell me that that recording is worse than one done today. It sounds better than many recordings being done today on digital equipment.

Love these videos!

On the other hand, high resolution versions of analog masters? Wonderful.

i love this channel

Great explanation. I feel like I have spent half my life trying to explain digital audio to 'audiophiles'. Just one thing to add that once you have recorded in DSD it can be converted and compressed (so long as it is a lossless alogorithm) for storage or transmission but it should be converted back to DSD before conversion back to analog audio. It shoudl be said that the so called '1 bit' digital audio is just another way of encoding the analog signal: it is a system known as Pulse Density Modulation (used to be called 'pulse width' when I was a boy). CD used Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) which sends the bits to a DAC in chunks of 16 at a time. At the time CD came out the frequencies required for pulse density modulation were beyond the capability of the digital electronics (8 MHz was a very fast computer processor back then; now we use processors at 4 Ghz). The trick is you can convert PCM encoded audio to PDM (SACD 1 bit) before converting it to analog. The reason for doing this is to get the benefits of using the much simpler converter electronics. Since the analog signal is actually present in a PDM bit stream the converter is little more than a low pass filter with a very gentle roll off ! If anyone wants to understand how this works look up Fourier Analysis as it relates to square waves (It is actually how the human ear does it !). Last thing if you record to PCM you do loose some benefit compared to DSD recording but at modern sample rates for PCM the difference is negligible; far greater harm is done if you try to do any processing on the digital data ; it must be converted back to analog for processing then stored as DSD again to preserve the benefits. Sorry to rant a bit but I can't fit this on a T-Shirt (something to do with data density ?)

This reminds me of movies as well. Some film restorationists don't believe that there isn't much benefit to 4k or 8k scans of old 35mm films because the optics and film available at the time weren't so high quality. You'll see heavier film grain and optical flaws. However there are some benefits such as medium format such as 70mm or VistaVision, restoration work and archival work. Though some will argue that 35mm film has a resolution equivalent to 8k.

So is the DSD format our gateway to hearing original, uncompressed master tape quality? And is the original, uncompressed version embedded in a PCM? Because we aren't having to deal with a physical product anymore, it would just be about the limits of storage, which are relatively unlimited nowadays. It's almost like we finally have as close to a perfect way to record now. It's very exciting.

SACDs derived from an analog master tape have the capability to sound far better than CDs provided that there is not an intervening PCM digital step in between.

Paul, unless I have misunderstood you, I think the brickwall fltter is placed at the upper end of the audio band not above the sampling frequency; that is, for RBCD the filtering has to take place between 20kHz and 22.05kHz and that's why it has to be so steep..As far as early SACDs are concerned, I bought a number of those very early Sony's and as I had many of them already on either CD or LP I was always amazed at how good those SACDs sounded - better, in fact, that many more recent ones!.

Analogue has a higher resolution in time as well as in signal value.[1] It also has imperfections like noise that can "hide" sound and ambience, like on these old cassette-tapes that were recorded without noise reduction. I was surprised at how much detail was present below the noise level, after I applied a program that removed that noise.[2] If I can still get this program to work, I wonder what this can do to old studio tape recordings! [1] However, it likely also has more dynamic issues like non-linear distortion, compression, slew-rate, tape saturation, speed-issues[ like wow and flutter, and noise or hum. These are audible imperfections, but not always bad. They can sound so good that digital studio workstations have tools to mimic them: "tube sound" or "tape sound". We like it! [2] It is rather technical, but if you remove the noise in the time-domain in a sensible way, the resulting sound is much better than removing it in the frequency domain(which most programs do). And yes, I first had to digitize the recording, but the noise level of a tape recording is probably about 12 of the 24 bits, so there is something to gain.

Great question that I think about all the time

Paul I have a question !! are amp selector switch affect badely the sound ? impedance , etc.

Does the old analog recordings rely on bitrates like digital nowadays?

DSD is intriguing, but I listen to mostly rock. DSD recordings for sale online are jazz & classical. HDTracks has Beach Boys, B-52s at 24/192 , but there is no info on how these were mastered. I don't know if they are upsampled or legit remasters for hi res. It would be nice if there was a site that rates the audio quality for HD files.

Paul I have an Audio Lab 6000CDT Transfer and an Aune X8 Magic DAC. It sounds great

This didn't actually answer the question I was hoping he would answer - my question is that we know old recordings weren't done digitally - they were done analog and presumably when they reissues a "remastered" SACD version of the same music that was previously released on CD format, they are digging out the old analog recordings and remastering them with modern digital equipment. The question is, how much better should we assume that this is going to be than the 16/44.1 version from 30 years ago? How good were the analog recordings? How much better is the modern digital conversion gear? My guess is that the answer will be "it depends" but I'd still very interested in Paul's thoughts here.

Again, Paul does not answer the question and bangs on about DSD. The answer is that copying an old recording to another digital version cannot recover detail lost in the original recording. It may be a good copy but it cannot be better.

If you still have the original master from which records were pressed it will make a difference

What about by favorite album Brothers In Arms by the Dire Straits they recorded the album on PCM for CD, but in the 1980 what where they recording at 16 bit 20 bit 24bit what and if they recorded it at 16 bit or 20bit why use DSD?

If the original file recorded or copied in the studio is 24 bits and you change it to 16 for cd, and changes it back to 24 bits there is no loss. it just restructures what was there. "Let it be a signal, limited in band, and its time interval divided in equal parts, so that intervals are obtained such that, each subdivision comprises an interval with period {\ displaystyle T} T seconds, where {\ displaystyle T} T is less than {\ displaystyle f_ {m} / 2} {\ displaystyle f_ {m} / 2}, and if an instant sample is taken arbitrarily from each sub-interval, then the knowledge of the instant amplitude of each sample plus the knowledge of the moments when the sample of each subinterval is taken contains all the information of the original signal. " The first 24-bit recorders began to be used in the late 1980s, I think. We have many albums that we can be improved to listen to in streamers.

But most (if not all) CD DACs supersample to, say, 8X 44KHz and have done since the 90's. Then the harsh filtering isn't necessary.

What about DVD-A v SACD?

Older recordings and high resolution ANALOG IS ANALOG DIGITAL IS DIGITAL Good Music is Good Music Just Enjoy the Music !!!

I think the point to be taken here is that even DSD - whether on SACD or otherwise - is only as good as what you put on it.

Hi Paul, Nice that one of my countrymen has posed a question. You must visit Sri Lanka. Have Colombo in your bucket list. Far far safer security wise besides the pandemic risk. Love your videos, regrettably I dont own any PS Audio products as yet. Maybe Maybe later.

IMHO commercial music was recorded and engineered back then better by people who really had some great talent. The classic gear that was used is all copied today by software plugins and cheap knockoff outboard gear that doesn’t sound the same. Also, 2 inch tape sounds glorious. You can hear the layering on so many tunes and how incredible some of those albums were. The techniques, talent and especially budget is long gone.

Recently i decided to build my first non powered speaker system and watched alot of videos.And still do at this moment.for speakers im in 300 euro max range.I look at specs and things like that(and they dont tell the whole story).And so far one brand im considering is Wharfedale specificaly Diamond 11.1 speakers.Found them on sale for 229euros suposedly usualy costing 350.I live in europe.So Any answers will be greatly apriciated.

What country does Paul not want to visit?

If the Nyquist theorem specifies that you need a 2f sampling frequency then why does my 50MHz oscilloscope sample at 1GSps?

It's like Boston's first album. Recorded on some of the best analog stuff out in the 70's. Sounds great on CD also. SACD not so much. If I ever wanted a SACD to shine it was that album but was a huge disapointment.

You only obtain two and a bit points on a sound wave cycle when you sample a 20kHz sound wave using 44kHz sampling rate. reproducing a sound frequency at 20kHz using 2 and bit data points is next to useless. The bass or lower frequencies are sampled very well at 44kHz sampling rare. Example: a 44 Hz sound frequency will produced 1000 data points when sampled at 44kHz. So the reproduction of the original frequency will be very accurate and near original. You may need at least 4 data points to reproduce a reasonable sample of the sound. You will also need to assume a sound wave shape like a sine wave or saw tooth wave etc in order to use these 4 data points. 4 data points at a sampling rate of 44hHz implies that the frequency is about 11kHz

Nyquist Criteria... can’t wait for the Zuill Bailey recording to release.

Paul, please make a video talking about the differences between DSD64 and 128 (or even 256). I'm perfectly happy with DSD64 from SACD's, but I was wondering if there's an audible difference in DSD128. Many thanks for your amazing content!

Paul never answered the question , which is yes high resolution files from the 70 and 80's can sound better than red bool CD's especially if they remastered it from the original multitrack tape which had a higher dynamic range than vinyl records could handle . Some recordings even had frequencies above what CD's are capable of and above human hearing but research shows we can somehow perceive them anyway and some high resolution files of music from back then preserves them.

Hello again.

Paul seems to be dazzled by the high DSD sample rates. PCM and dSD cannot be compared in this way, they are completely different digital formats. Bigger is not always better. PCM can deliver perfect waveforms without errors or stair steps. DSD DOES produce stair steps in the output waveform. This is why DSD must use much higher sample rates to the point where these errors become inaudible.

"aliasing", not anti. Anti is the attempt to lessen the aliasing.

surely its almost impossible to capture the feel and emotion of actually being in front of a live band and any attempt will always be a reproduction governed by the equipment used and therefore will always fall short as surely no system yet can reproduce a marshall stack at full tilt, a 10 piece drum kit played with venom, a bass players rig at full chug all while a vocalist gives it his all ? sure you can capture the electronic signals but not the moment and feel it will always be a reproduction of the original and lose something along the way

Elac photobomb🙂

Analog is always better.Always.Period.

Many old recordings can and do sound good. What ruins good recordings is engineers who Brickwall old recordings. Many so-called remasters are ruined by the Loudness Wars. There are good transfers. I find Sony Legacy recordings well mastered.

Good explanation Pop

I don't think the "steep filter" argument is actually relevant. Even the 1st CD player (Philips Cd100) had 4 times over sampling so that a more "relaxed" analog filter could be used. Nowadays I don't think *any* DAC has a steep analog filter.

Ahh, upsampling - probably the reason why the 200 USD universal disc player designed after 2012 ended up sounding like a 5,000 USD Wadia CD player from 1995 just by upgrading the analog output stage of the 21st Century era UDP. 🤔

Damn dirty bit bucketing. 🤨

@3:15 Regarding up-sampling: "There's no more information there. That's a total farce. There's nothing more there" That is not true. To be blunt: That is flat out wrong. When you up-sample, you are having a computer calculate the difference between sample #1 and sample #2, and it creates sample #1.5. The created samples are contrived. But they are real. Like having two frames from a movie of a person walking, and having a computer generate an in-between frame that would have been there if the movie was recorded with the extra frame. It is not perfect. It uses math to estimate where every pixel would be, and many will be wrong. But it will be somewhat accurate. A similar mathematical formula is used to create extra audio frames, in-between existing frames, based on comparing frame #1 to frame #2. And this goes on for every frame (or every sample) in the digital audio file. Of course it will not be as good or as accurate as it would have been if recorded at the higher sampling rate to begin with. But it does a fairly good job, depending on the software used to generate the extra samples (and if done on the fly by the CD player, then the engineering of the player's hardware is a factor, too, in terms of processing power). So up-sampling does create real samples. It is based on the adjacent samples, and not on the original analog input. But the extra sample are real. In fact, Paul speaks about the steep filter needed for 44 kHz (he should have said 44.1 kHz), which up-sampling alleviates. Why? Because up-sampling creates more samples, and therefore the filter will be less steep. So the fact that the filter is less steep is evidence that there are more samples. I suspect that Paul is calling "no more information there", based on the extra samples not being created from the original analog sound source.

We have an appropriate term in the UK - "You can't polish a turd".

I know that Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd was remixed and remastered for their SACD release. I have it and it is really fantastic. You can watch the KZfaq video they did at the time of the release and they explain what they did for the SACD toward the end. It is worth while IMHO.

I'm learning SO much from watching PS Audio on KZfaq. Thank you so much for sharing your 'immense' knowledge.

All of the recording from the 70s and early 80s were recorded to tape, NOT CDs. The quality of professional studio master tape recordings from this era is much, much higher resolution than CDs. And higher than most digital recordings done today. Paul either missed the question... Or is promoting his own DSD DAC and recordings as better than CDs... which they are!

The key here is to understand the term (never used of course...) of HI DEFINITION TRANSFER. Older recording i.e analogue tape masters are NOT high resolution because they were not recorded in hi resolution - in the vast majority of cases what are being marketed are hi definition transfers. Nothing wrong with that as it captures everything from the original recording but they are not high resolution. SACD came out in 1999 - I can remember that easily and I'm not even remotely an audiophile or hi-fi expert! DSD cannot be compared with PCM as it uses a different process so banging on and on and on about DSD64 being amazing as it is 64 times CD 44.1 'sample rate' is a totally pointless exercise. Yes, I consider DSD a superior format for audio capture but nothing wrong with 44.1 16 bit PCM if done correctly. Upsampling PCM or remodulating DSD to high bit rates can benefit playback as it allows more gentle filters to be used on playback - you are creating a better signal for the DAC to work with before conversion to analogue.

Paul is making old tech great again...SACD was great but the world has moved on to high definition streaming.

Once I tried saying DSD was cool in a synthesizer group on Facebook, and got totally slammed by a bunch of old farts giving me full dissertations as to why 44.1 16 bit is the end all for digital.

It's with transferring analog recordings in hi-res for the same reason it's worth transferring 35mm film to 4k. There is information there and it can be a more faithful final rendering.

It is a complete waste of time any file above 48kHz for two general listening you're not gaining anything there's nothing to gain just wasted space! So what's the point bitrate that's a different matter

64 times is not a lot....don't be silly