No what we are talking about, or I am, was to disagree with you that the Beatle's original recordings will not be able to sound great in the modern digital era due to compression or whatever limitations were around in the 60's.
My premise is by going back to the original master tapes (obviously not the very early stuff) and using modern technology they will be able to create amazing sounds. Let us wait and see shall we?
Like I said earlier, I am NOT an audio engineer, and I am not aware of what specific techniques they may use to clean up the original analog recordings that have less dynamic range than what digital recording offers today. Do you, if so, I'm here to learn, or if you have some links, I can read up on their methods myself, TIA.
OK, so while I'm not an audio engineer, I am a coastal engineer, and in that capacity I am quite familiar with data analysis, FFT methods, white noise, and S/N ratios of wave and motion capture data sets. I've been doing this type of work, the nuts and bolts if you will, for about 20 years. I am also familiar with digital filtering techniques, mostly the sine butterworth, but in general FIR and IIR digital filtering methods. This has over the years involved a lot of FORTRAN coding.
Now, my basic question is this; How does one go about removing broadband white noise (i. e. tape hiss) which exists throughout the frequency range containing the the signal of interest (i. e. the music)? Or more simply how does one restore information, that by it's nature is already lost through the initial analog recording process? Just curious, like I said I'm currently looking at some vexing MoCap data sets with low S/N ratios and I am looking for new techniques to remove the noise floor, TIA.
Anything on CD is technically compressed, but compared to albums that come out today, the dynamic range of songs from the Beatles albums are far more diverse. Just listen to the soft songs compared to the loud songs on The White Album (ie Back in the USSR compared to Dear Prudence).
Most mainstream pop and rock albums today just go after one continious level to not challenge and confuse the listeners and assault the listener to get instant notice. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
The only other benefit of vinyl in that thread, by rayljr-ga, is that records can theoretically hold information above 22,500 hertz, whereas CDs clamp them here. While these frequencies, individually, are inaudible to humans, recent research seems to imply that we can hear the effect they have with other, lower frequencies when played simultaneously.
Would these be super- and sub-harmonics (I take it that these would be sub-harmonics?)? These are quite well known to occur in wave records, particularly narrow banded spectra, just curious.
Would these be super- and sub-harmonics (I take it that these would be sub-harmonics?)? These are quite well known to occur in wave records, particularly narrow banded spectra, just curious.
I assume so.
I haven't seen the research first hand, so it may be audiophile nonsense. ("Yes, I can hear that magical, impossible to hear frequency.")
But audiophiles tend to bring it up a lot, and it makes sense, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here
... But audiophiles tend to bring it up a lot, and it makes sense, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here
Hey, I always hated spinach and got laughed at, now scientists admit to the 'Super Taster' phenomenon, those who can taste compounds others can't. Maybe super hearers exist too. 8)
I certainly seem to be able to hear bum notes on American Idol the judges can't!
Whatever, I for one look forwards to hearing what, hopefully, is coming soon to iTunes.
Like I said earlier, I am NOT an audio engineer, and I am not aware of what specific techniques they may use to clean up the original analog recordings that have less dynamic range than what digital recording offers today. Do you, if so, I'm here to learn, or if you have some links, I can read up on their methods myself, TIA.
OK, so while I'm not an audio engineer, I am a coastal engineer, and in that capacity I am quite familiar with data analysis, FFT methods, white noise, and S/N ratios of wave and motion capture data sets. I've been doing this type of work, the nuts and bolts if you will, for about 20 years. I am also familiar with digital filtering techniques, mostly the sine butterworth, but in general FIR and IIR digital filtering methods. This has over the years involved a lot of FORTRAN coding.
Now, my basic question is this; How does one go about removing broadband white noise (i. e. tape hiss) which exists throughout the frequency range containing the the signal of interest (i. e. the music)? Or more simply how does one restore information, that by it's nature is already lost through the initial analog recording process? Just curious, like I said I'm currently looking at some vexing MoCap data sets with low S/N ratios and I am looking for new techniques to remove the noise floor, TIA.
Since tapes can only hold up to 80 dB of dynamic range, audio traditionally has been PRE-compressed before ever being placed to tape. So actually, it's not a matter of having quiet signals lost on the tape (which would sound terrible), or dealing with noise, it's just a matter of "uncompressing" the data. (Of course, this isn't always possible.)
That said, I have never heard of this being done.
The thing is, we actually LIKE a certain degree of compression. It adds a really nice layer of warmth to the sound. While uncompressed audio appeals to some audiophiles, and is ideal for certain types of music (specifically orchestral and opera), it wouldn't sound good, at all, for pop.
Keep in mind that with music, perfect reproduction isn't always desirable. The Beatles have a very distinct sound, that is influenced by the microphones, recording equipment, and processing used. This includes compression. Without this, the Beatles really wouldn't be the Beatles.
Hey, I always hated spinach and got laughed at, now scientists admit to the 'Super Taster' phenomenon, those who can taste compounds others can't. Maybe super hearers exist too. 8)
I certainly seem to be able to hear bum notes on American Idol the judges can't!
Whatever, I for one look forwards to hearing what, hopefully, is coming soon to iTunes.
Back on topic, I think Apple+Apple would be perfect for Valentine's Day. I can just imagine the ad now: the two Apple logos dancing, swooping, swirling around each other on the screen against a featureless, white background while "All you need is love..." plays in the background.
Does Apple Corps have anything other than the Beatles catalog? If Apple comes to an agreement with them I was wondering if there was anything besides the Beatles that could be added. Not to imply that the Beatles wouldn't be enough
Somebody refresh my memory: I thought the Beatles catalogue had been sold several times, going at least through Michael Jackson? Was that something other than the reproduction rights of the original recordings themselves?
People seem to get this mixed up, and it is a bit confusing. A record or CD actually has two sets of rights assigned to it, mechanical and publishing. A mechanical license covers the actual duplication of the original recordings (pirated CDs on sale for example), and the use of the original recordings in other media (as a jingle for example). This excludes the rights to covers of the original song, see below.
The publishing rights trace back to the days of sheet music, and still include that. But most publishing revenue is derived from the publishing groups such as ASCAP, BMI, and others. These groups collect fees from radio stations, restaurants, stores, etc. There are also other forms of publishing revenue, including the royalties of any cover versions (think Beatles now). So even though most people's first inclination is to think the mechanical royalties would be more valuable, publishing is actually where the big money is. (Ask John Fogerty)
Now what Michael Jackson bought, or more precisely out-bid Paul on, were the publishing rights. The original Beatles owned the masters and mechanicals rights, but if memory serves, did not own all the publishing. In fact I believe this led to the end if the Paul/Michael friendship, thankfully saving the world from any further live performances of 'Ebony and Ivory'. Not long after the sale, Nike came out with a commercial featuring the original Beatle's recording of 'Revolution.' The Beatles quickly sued, and won because Michael didn't have those rights.
I hope this explains it all a bit, and since its been awhile since music business class, i ask for people to offer corrections. this whole thing is confusing, and that is why so many musicians have gotten screwed by it.
I hate to break it to you, but any music that was released on record is incredibly, incredibly compressed.
I'm not talking about LPs
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat
Furthermore, any pop music is also incredibly compressed. The only music that's sometimes not compressed is orchestral music and sometimes opera.
The problem is (and I can give you tons of examples) that rereleases today often are very compressed when compared to the original release and the rerelease sounds like sh*t.
Comments
No what we are talking about, or I am, was to disagree with you that the Beatle's original recordings will not be able to sound great in the modern digital era due to compression or whatever limitations were around in the 60's.
My premise is by going back to the original master tapes (obviously not the very early stuff) and using modern technology they will be able to create amazing sounds. Let us wait and see shall we?
Like I said earlier, I am NOT an audio engineer, and I am not aware of what specific techniques they may use to clean up the original analog recordings that have less dynamic range than what digital recording offers today. Do you, if so, I'm here to learn, or if you have some links, I can read up on their methods myself, TIA.
OK, so while I'm not an audio engineer, I am a coastal engineer, and in that capacity I am quite familiar with data analysis, FFT methods, white noise, and S/N ratios of wave and motion capture data sets. I've been doing this type of work, the nuts and bolts if you will, for about 20 years. I am also familiar with digital filtering techniques, mostly the sine butterworth, but in general FIR and IIR digital filtering methods. This has over the years involved a lot of FORTRAN coding.
Now, my basic question is this; How does one go about removing broadband white noise (i. e. tape hiss) which exists throughout the frequency range containing the the signal of interest (i. e. the music)? Or more simply how does one restore information, that by it's nature is already lost through the initial analog recording process? Just curious, like I said I'm currently looking at some vexing MoCap data sets with low S/N ratios and I am looking for new techniques to remove the noise floor, TIA.
Most mainstream pop and rock albums today just go after one continious level to not challenge and confuse the listeners and assault the listener to get instant notice. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
The only other benefit of vinyl in that thread, by rayljr-ga, is that records can theoretically hold information above 22,500 hertz, whereas CDs clamp them here. While these frequencies, individually, are inaudible to humans, recent research seems to imply that we can hear the effect they have with other, lower frequencies when played simultaneously.
Would these be super- and sub-harmonics (I take it that these would be sub-harmonics?)? These are quite well known to occur in wave records, particularly narrow banded spectra, just curious.
Would these be super- and sub-harmonics (I take it that these would be sub-harmonics?)? These are quite well known to occur in wave records, particularly narrow banded spectra, just curious.
I assume so.
I haven't seen the research first hand, so it may be audiophile nonsense. ("Yes, I can hear that magical, impossible to hear frequency.")
But audiophiles tend to bring it up a lot, and it makes sense, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here
I assume so.
... But audiophiles tend to bring it up a lot, and it makes sense, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here
Hey, I always hated spinach and got laughed at, now scientists admit to the 'Super Taster' phenomenon, those who can taste compounds others can't. Maybe super hearers exist too. 8)
I certainly seem to be able to hear bum notes on American Idol the judges can't!
Whatever, I for one look forwards to hearing what, hopefully, is coming soon to iTunes.
Like I said earlier, I am NOT an audio engineer, and I am not aware of what specific techniques they may use to clean up the original analog recordings that have less dynamic range than what digital recording offers today. Do you, if so, I'm here to learn, or if you have some links, I can read up on their methods myself, TIA.
OK, so while I'm not an audio engineer, I am a coastal engineer, and in that capacity I am quite familiar with data analysis, FFT methods, white noise, and S/N ratios of wave and motion capture data sets. I've been doing this type of work, the nuts and bolts if you will, for about 20 years. I am also familiar with digital filtering techniques, mostly the sine butterworth, but in general FIR and IIR digital filtering methods. This has over the years involved a lot of FORTRAN coding.
Now, my basic question is this; How does one go about removing broadband white noise (i. e. tape hiss) which exists throughout the frequency range containing the the signal of interest (i. e. the music)? Or more simply how does one restore information, that by it's nature is already lost through the initial analog recording process? Just curious, like I said I'm currently looking at some vexing MoCap data sets with low S/N ratios and I am looking for new techniques to remove the noise floor, TIA.
Since tapes can only hold up to 80 dB of dynamic range, audio traditionally has been PRE-compressed before ever being placed to tape. So actually, it's not a matter of having quiet signals lost on the tape (which would sound terrible), or dealing with noise, it's just a matter of "uncompressing" the data. (Of course, this isn't always possible.)
That said, I have never heard of this being done.
The thing is, we actually LIKE a certain degree of compression. It adds a really nice layer of warmth to the sound. While uncompressed audio appeals to some audiophiles, and is ideal for certain types of music (specifically orchestral and opera), it wouldn't sound good, at all, for pop.
Keep in mind that with music, perfect reproduction isn't always desirable. The Beatles have a very distinct sound, that is influenced by the microphones, recording equipment, and processing used. This includes compression. Without this, the Beatles really wouldn't be the Beatles.
Hey, I always hated spinach and got laughed at, now scientists admit to the 'Super Taster' phenomenon, those who can taste compounds others can't. Maybe super hearers exist too. 8)
I certainly seem to be able to hear bum notes on American Idol the judges can't!
Whatever, I for one look forwards to hearing what, hopefully, is coming soon to iTunes.
Haha, I'm a super taster too, but I like spinach
I've avoided it lately though...
Haha, I'm a super taster too, but I like spinach
You know, trying to type and watch TV is a bad idea ... I love spinach too, I meant Brussels sprouts ... sorry.
Does Apple Corps have anything other than the Beatles catalog? If Apple comes to an agreement with them I was wondering if there was anything besides the Beatles that could be added. Not to imply that the Beatles wouldn't be enough
Badfinger was on Apple Corps.
Somebody refresh my memory: I thought the Beatles catalogue had been sold several times, going at least through Michael Jackson? Was that something other than the reproduction rights of the original recordings themselves?
People seem to get this mixed up, and it is a bit confusing. A record or CD actually has two sets of rights assigned to it, mechanical and publishing. A mechanical license covers the actual duplication of the original recordings (pirated CDs on sale for example), and the use of the original recordings in other media (as a jingle for example). This excludes the rights to covers of the original song, see below.
The publishing rights trace back to the days of sheet music, and still include that. But most publishing revenue is derived from the publishing groups such as ASCAP, BMI, and others. These groups collect fees from radio stations, restaurants, stores, etc. There are also other forms of publishing revenue, including the royalties of any cover versions (think Beatles now). So even though most people's first inclination is to think the mechanical royalties would be more valuable, publishing is actually where the big money is. (Ask John Fogerty)
Now what Michael Jackson bought, or more precisely out-bid Paul on, were the publishing rights. The original Beatles owned the masters and mechanicals rights, but if memory serves, did not own all the publishing. In fact I believe this led to the end if the Paul/Michael friendship, thankfully saving the world from any further live performances of 'Ebony and Ivory'. Not long after the sale, Nike came out with a commercial featuring the original Beatle's recording of 'Revolution.' The Beatles quickly sued, and won because Michael didn't have those rights.
I hope this explains it all a bit, and since its been awhile since music business class, i ask for people to offer corrections. this whole thing is confusing, and that is why so many musicians have gotten screwed by it.
I hate to break it to you, but any music that was released on record is incredibly, incredibly compressed.
I'm not talking about LPs
Furthermore, any pop music is also incredibly compressed. The only music that's sometimes not compressed is orchestral music and sometimes opera.
The problem is (and I can give you tons of examples) that rereleases today often are very compressed when compared to the original release and the rerelease sounds like sh*t.