or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

vinyl rip vs cd - Page 9

post #121 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

I just took this test under not so ideal conditions and i can definitely hear 19khz. This is with people talking, TV on, and doors being shut throughout the house. Coincidentally, 16khz is painful for me, I had to immediately stop listening. I may be able to hear higher than 19KHZ, i will do so tonight when it's quiet as a mouse.

 

EDIT Here's the link

 

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.phphttp://www.head-fi.org/t/555156/sinegen-download-something-that-actually-works

You can establish the exact frequency at which you are so sensitive by downloading SineGen :

http://www.head-fi.org/t/555156/sinegen-download-something-that-actually-works

 

I use it for checking loudspeakers and headphones and was able to pinpoint a very high Q resonance of a speaker that would be perfectly OK at 174 Hz, go berserk at 179 Hz and return to normal at 183 Hz. Any sweep, even the lowest speed ones, would at best indicate there is a trouble, but not give you the exact frequency unless the result is measured with mic/measuring setup and presented on a graph with suitable resolution. 

 

The instrument with which this high Q resonance was most audibly annoying was harp - it was totally ruined by it. On most other music there was only ocasionally "something wrong" - but it created listening fatigue fairly quickly.

post #122 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppy666 View Post
 

 

In a later post I put the artist and album. That graph is from the song "Fade To Black" from the album Ride the Lightning by Metallica.

 

You can download the vinyl flac here: http://kickass.to/metallica-7-albums-vinyl-collection-1983-1997-24-192-flac-t7238737.html (you could pick any song off that album and get similar plot spectrums).

 

I ripped the other song from my CD, but I think you can download the same version here (needs checking) http://kickass.to/metallica-ride-the-lightning-flac-tntvillage-t3406701.html

 

But I don't expect you'll bother to look and listen yourself :wink_face:

 

It can't be surface noise, because the rip sounds very very crisp & clean. The fundamentals of the "noise" would be very loud and make the song unlistenable.

Like I said, the graph reflects exactly what I'm hearing through my studio monitors. And headphones. And hifi system.

Wow.  You are really posting a link for the illegal download of copyrighted material?

 

unbelievable

 

post #123 of 334

I get a ton of static and hissing on just about every vinyl rip. Issue of source and amp or computer noise?

 

Running my Grados sr 325i with my Asus essence stx soundcard.

post #124 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppy666 View Post
 

 

In a later post I put the artist and album. That graph is from the song "Fade To Black" from the album Ride the Lightning by Metallica.

 

You can download the vinyl flac here: http://kickass.to/metallica-7-albums-vinyl-collection-1983-1997-24-192-flac-t7238737.html (you could pick any song off that album and get similar plot spectrums).

 

I ripped the other song from my CD, but I think you can download the same version here (needs checking) http://kickass.to/metallica-ride-the-lightning-flac-tntvillage-t3406701.html

 

But I don't expect you'll bother to look and listen yourself :wink_face:

 

It can't be surface noise, because the rip sounds very very crisp & clean. The fundamentals of the "noise" would be very loud and make the song unlistenable.

Like I said, the graph reflects exactly what I'm hearing through my studio monitors. And headphones. And hifi system.

I was about to post something to back you up.

 

BUT - with vynil or CD rips one always bumps into the copyright problems. No matter how much one insists the purpose of re-recording either LP or CD is for scientific reasons regarding sound quality only, it still is breach of copyright. I face the same problem when trying to post samples of sound that my turntable(s) are capable of. I will have to check what lenght, if any, of audio is legally allowed without breaching copyrights.

 

To those who say 44.1/16 is enough - go to the concert hall, non amplified acoustic music, set up SIMPLE mike set up, make your ABCDEFG....X test if you think you have to , of the following:

 

1. Direct microphone feed

2. trough to the number of digital resolutions at hand ( DSD128, DSD64, PCM 192/24, 176.4/24, 96/24, 88.2/24, 48/24, 44.1/24, 48/16, 44.1/16, MP3s )

 

and hear for yourself, with the musicians in front of you, to what every "proof" that 44.1/16 is enough boils down to.

 

Trying to prove audibility of anything when starting with a recording of any kind for which you have not been there at the recording session is at least one, in reality many steps removed from the real thing and may well involve enough degradation before 44.1/16 can make yet more damage that can be 

reliably heard in an ABX.

 

To my knowledge, all such test did start with a recording of one kind or another, not live music. 


Edited by analogsurviver - 11/9/13 at 2:11am
post #125 of 334

Of course live music can sound better than a recording, that's not really the issue.  Most of the time we're listening to recording.  So, I'm having trouble understanding your point.  There are going to be recording-issues no matter 16/44.1 or 24/192, or analogue.  But given that we have to listen to recordings most of the time, the issue is how they sound relative to each other.  Are you suggesting that one format sounds more live than others?

post #126 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by acs236 View Post
 

Of course live music can sound better than a recording, that's not really the issue.  Most of the time we're listening to recording.  So, I'm having trouble understanding your point.  There are going to be recording-issues no matter 16/44.1 or 24/192, or analogue.  But given that we have to listen to recordings most of the time, the issue is how they sound relative to each other.  Are you suggesting that one format sounds more live than others?

Yes, that is precisely the point. One can ABCD...X ad nuseaum - the best is music heard with your own ears without any technical means, second best is live mike feed to some high quality headphones or IEMs, then come any recordings monitored through the same headphones/IEMs. Or speakers, if you can arrange them well on location of the recording.

 

Once anyone hears that, 44.1/16 is history best forgotten sooner than later. It sounds shrinked, flat, piercing in high notes and loses so much information that it sounds barely alive compared to brimming with life of higher resolutions of digital or analog. Any format that has extended frequency response will sound less sharp and etched as the 44.1/16 - much more like the real thing. The perspective of depth changes from almost mirror flatness of 44.1/16 to barely discernible loss of depth as compared to sound recorded with the highest resolution vs the real thing. And one does get warmth with higher resolutions - the most elusive quality of sound recording and playback.

 

Problem is if one takes any recording, particularly so low resolution and particularly BANDWIDTH as 44.1/16, and "inaugurate" it as the Absolutre Truth, one throws away so much information that any subsequent insertion of 44.1/16 links into the chain essentially chenges nothing - the damage has already been done before and no amount of after the fact mouse clicking can make it go away.

 

You usually only get one chance to capture the perfomance on the recording, particularly if it is live:

 

 

And this is the quality I would be getting in the end product if I did not use best available resolution in the first place. 44.1/16 lovers can accuse me of spendthrifting of storage etc etc - even MP3s generated from higher quality master will - what a surprise - sound better.

post #127 of 334

This thread has taught me that those who approach high-end audio as an art instead of as a science usually have little to no understanding or comprehension of the facts outside of their own rationalizations - this allows them to be as romantic as they wish while still appearing to have some kind of technical knowledge to the lesser informed.

 

There has yet to be an assertion challenging my understanding here that I have not been able to find a much better, logical, fact-based position to defeat it with (though to be fair, most of it has been utterly subjective, unscientific nonsense).

post #128 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post
 

This thread has taught me that those who approach high-end audio as an art instead of as a science usually have little to no understanding or comprehension of the facts outside of their own rationalizations - this allows them to be as romantic as they wish while still appearing to have some kind of technical knowledge to the lesser informed.

 

There has yet to be an assertion challenging my understanding here that I have not been able to find a much better, logical, fact-based position to defeat it with (though to be fair, most of it has been utterly subjective, unscientific nonsense).

If you have the means to conduct the test I described above for a panel of listeners, obtaining permission to do the same from the musicians in the first place, monitor it with AB....X, etc, etc - plese do so. I would love to do it myself - but finances are what they are and I am not willing nor able to conduct it based on this sole reason. You can have any statistical model you like, it is impossible to remain deaf to the advantages of higher resolution under such favourable conditions, with musicians also coming to hear what was captured on the recording - only minutes after it was made.

 

What I have to struggle with in real life - most concert organizers, conductors and musicians listen mostly on crappy PC speakers, in what else than MP3s. They rarely get to listen even to a decent CD. Only about 1% of performing musicians are audiophiles - and they usually are always saving up for better instrument, with audio equipment upgrade invisible in near future. My experience is that only people after mid 50s of age profesionally involved with music finally do acquire a decent audio system.

 

Ask yourself one thing - would we be still listening  to, re-releasing on new(er) formats, etc,  early stereo recordings, such as Mercury Living Presence, RCAs, Deccas etc - if they were recorded by anything/anybody - but the best available at the time ?

 

Can you say the same of early digital recordings ?

post #129 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppy666 View Post
 

It can't be surface noise, because the rip sounds very very crisp & clean.

 

Noise isn't just limited to impulse noises like pops and clicks. There is the noise floor too, which is much higher on vinyl than on CD. Put on a silent groove and turn the volume of your amp up full blast. Not so silent!

post #130 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post
 

This thread has taught me that those who approach high-end audio as an art instead of as a science usually have little to no understanding or comprehension of the facts outside of their own rationalizations - this allows them to be as romantic as they wish while still appearing to have some kind of technical knowledge to the lesser informed.

 

There has yet to be an assertion challenging my understanding here that I have not been able to find a much better, logical, fact-based position to defeat it with (though to be fair, most of it has been utterly subjective, unscientific nonsense).

Look, I both agree and disagree. However, your first statement is giving audio the ultimatum treatment. Audio was born as an art, only over time do we develop understandings thanks to science. If you think there is no 'art' left anymore and that we know everything there is to know, you clearly have your head in the sand. Challenging some aspects of music with a fact-based position is perfectly rational, but dismissing everything other than is irrational. Once upon a time the world was flat, breastmilk was poison to an infant, pluto was a planet etc. There are 'facts' all around waiting to be discovered, and others deemed as fact, but actually pure nonsense. It's only rational to accept both.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

If you have the means to conduct the test I described above for a panel of listeners, obtaining permission to do the same from the musicians in the first place, monitor it with AB....X, etc, etc - plese do so. I would love to do it myself - but finances are what they are and I am not willing nor able to conduct it based on this sole reason. You can have any statistical model you like, it is impossible to remain deaf to the advantages of higher resolution under such favourable conditions, with musicians also coming to hear what was captured on the recording - only minutes after it was made.

 

What I have to struggle with in real life - most concert organizers, conductors and musicians listen mostly on crappy PC speakers, in what else than MP3s. They rarely get to listen even to a decent CD. Only about 1% of performing musicians are audiophiles - and they usually are always saving up for better instrument, with audio equipment upgrade invisible in near future. My experience is that only people after mid 50s of age profesionally involved with music finally do acquire a decent audio system.

 

Ask yourself one thing - would we be still listening  to, re-releasing on new(er) formats, etc,  early stereo recordings, such as Mercury Living Presence, RCAs, Deccas etc - if they were recorded by anything/anybody - but the best available at the time ?

 

Can you say the same of early digital recordings ?

I can agree/disagree and is some parts i am undecided. One thing i do despise that you touch on is the loudness wars, it ruins so much inner detail that it's almost insulting to the artist if they actually knew just how much 'art' the mastering engineer is putting into it from his side...

post #131 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

Noise isn't just limited to impulse noises like pops and clicks. There is the noise floor too, which is much higher on vinyl than on CD. Put on a silent groove and turn the volume of your amp up full blast. Not so silent!

lol no doubt there!

post #132 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

Once anyone hears that, 44.1/16 is history best forgotten sooner than later. It sounds shrinked, flat, piercing in high notes and loses so much information that it sounds barely alive compared to brimming with life of higher resolutions of digital or analog. 

 

On one of my previous jobs, I had access to a recording studio with a full pro tools workstation. I did comparison tests between high bitrate audio and bouncedowns of the exact same tracks at redbook. This was on reference equipment. No audible difference. I also worked with 24 track analogue, and I remember the convoluted things we would have to do to avoid the buildup of the noise floor from bouncing tracks down to make room for more. Not pretty.

 

Sorry to let you down like that.

post #133 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Look, I both agree and disagree. However, your first statement is giving audio the ultimatum treatment. Audio was born as an art, only over time do we develop understandings thanks to science.

 

The creation of music is art. The faithful reproduction of sound is science. Two entirely different things. When it comes to choosing audio equipment, the creativity of the artist doesn't enter into it. That's what you think about when you go to choose the CD you're going to listen to.

post #134 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

The creation of music is art. The faithful reproduction of sound is science. Two entirely different things. When it comes to choosing audio equipment, the creativity of the artist doesn't enter into it. That's what you think about when you go to choose the CD you're going to listen to.

Very true. I just wanted to point out to him that it is irrational to take everything science tells us currently as infallible. Healthy? Yes. Irrational? You bet.

post #135 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Look, I both agree and disagree. However, your first statement is giving audio the ultimatum treatment. Audio was born as an art, only over time do we develop understandings thanks to science. If you think there is no 'art' left anymore and that we know everything there is to know, you clearly have your head in the sand. Challenging some aspects of music with a fact-based position is perfectly rational, but dismissing everything other than is irrational. Once upon a time the world was flat, breastmilk was poison to an infant, pluto was a planet etc. There are 'facts' all around waiting to be discovered, and others deemed as fact, but actually pure nonsense. It's only rational to accept both.

 

I can agree/disagree and is some parts i am undecided. One thing i do despise that you touch on is the loudness wars, it ruins so much inner detail that it's almost insulting to the artist if they actually knew just how much 'art' the mastering engineer is putting into it from his side...

I have not even touched the loudness wars yet ... yuck !

 

But sure did tell an otherwise good friend a couple of juicy ones over the phone for compressing the final CD issue of one of my recordings. It was done at the final decision of the artists - who were told by the, who else, radio people, that the recording does not sound "loud" enough . 

 

It was  who felt insulted for all the "blood & tears" that went into that recording of the master - only to be made from a mountain into a molehill.

 

It was one of my last direct to CD-R recordings prior switching to DSD. Here in yet more impoverished version, samples from the FOLK Etc's band's website  :

 

http://www.folketc.si/04Glasba.html

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd