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 13

post #181 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

Turn on your TV set. Does that sound horribly dull to you? How about your car stereo?

 

I provided you with some articles to read and digest. I'd suggest you do that before you start trying to criticize what I'm saying.

 

 

I went to the "high sample rates make your music sound worse" and did the tests. No problems with my set-up at all.

 

To be quite frank, I've wasted more than enough time arguing about this. If you don't accept that running a low pass filter at 5kHz will make music sound dull, then I have nothing more to say to you. You're being misleading and dishonest.

 

For your information I have had my own home studio for over 10 years, we record at 96kHz, and were among the first people to do so, back when most were doing it at 48kHz.

 

I have made 3 albums with my band in 2 different studios, one of which records at 192kHz, and has no trouble whatsoever doing so. All mixing is done with analog outboards. The other recorded at 48kHz and we regretted going there for that reason.

For your information, I have the 24 bit mixes, and they also sound much better than the CD. I feel sorry for anyone who spends their money on the CD because there is better quality available.

 

Besides that I have dealt with a number of mastering engineers, some good, some not so good, the best being Bob Katz. He understands the art, the science, and the music. He swears by higher sample rates. If anyone knows, he does. He dedicates his life to making digital audio sound better. Who are you to disagree with him? An audiophile?

 

This is my last post on here, so feel free to post more misleading statistics as to why CD is great. You know it's not.


Edited by ploppy666 - 11/10/13 at 1:53pm
post #182 of 334

I understand digital will never be 'perfect', but what about DSD. You can theoretically have infinite sampling rate, it just isn't possible though. Isn't there audible/mastering benefits to be had with the less processing steps compared to PCM, and the fact you can have such a high sampling rate to closely mimic analog? I know for the consumer atleast, DSD is very bit-efficient to the point that it takes less download time vs. high-rez PCM.

post #183 of 334

Is it even possible for you to make an argument and have it not be a personal attack? Frankly, I'm glad you're leaving, because I've had enough of your terrible attitude. :rolleyes: 

post #184 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

I'm a record collector. I'm also a recording supervisor and know a lot about how digital audio works.

 

I have a certain little habit I picked up along the way... I listen to people who know more about a subject than I do, and I ask questions. Then I go away and test to see if I can verify what they tell me.

 

I have a very good Thorens turntable and a moving coil Ortofon cartridge. I also have a pristine copy of Sheffield Labs' direct to disk LP "Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2". If you know about audiophile records, I'm sure you've heard about it. It's often called the best sounding LP ever made.

 

I was interested in digitizing my records, but I wanted to make sure the equipment I bought would be transparent. No loss in audio quality. I asked friends and decided on an outboard digitizing box that they recommended. The first thing I did when I got it set up was to digitize a side of the Lincoln Mayorga record. I listened to it and it sounded good, but good wasn't good enough. I wanted perfect. So I hooked up a preamp, put the original LP into one input and the output from my Mac into the aux input, balanced the volume levels and did direct A/B comparisons.

 

I listened carefully using my best headphones and my speaker rig. I tried my hardest to discern a difference. I couldn't. They both sounded fantastic. They both sounded identical. If my digital copy of the LP can contain all of the sound contained on the best LP ever made, it can contain all of the sound on any LP. Simple logic.

 

I haven't just done this with LPs. I've compared redbook to SACD and to high bitrate audio coming out of a professional pro tools work station. I've compared iPods to standalone CD players. Every piece of equipment I buy gets a line level matched listening test before I start using it.

 

There is a point in audio where it becomes transparent. Human hearing has finite thresholds. Maybe bats can hear more, but why do we care about that for our home stereo? LPs sound pretty darn good if the mastering and pressing is good. CDs can sound a bit better than that. But beyond that, it is transparent.

 

KNOWING from doing the legwork removes all of the doubt about things like, "maybe I'm losing some quality" or "perhaps I need a little more just in case". It frees me to focus on the things that REALLY matter because I'm not wasting my time on things that don't matter any more.

 

I'll share with you what I've learned...

 

All high fidelity formats can sound good. Whether they do or not depends primarily on the engineering of the music, not the format itself. If an LP sounds better, it's because the mastering engineer was more careful, not because of some magical property involved with grooves in plastic. In fact, the mechanical aspect of LP records is its main Achilles Heel. The quality of manufacture of the record itself makes a huge difference. Poor quality vinyl, badly engineered cutting, record wear can all take a toll. And the capabilities of vinyl are limited because of its mechanical nature... narrower frequency response, narrower dynamic range, higher distortion. But that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means CDs are a little bit better.

 

LPs can sound good or bad. CDs can sound good or bad. SACDs can sound good or bad. But if the engineering is identical, digital audio will always sound the best. And adding more numbers to redbook is pointless because it enters the realm where human ears can't hear the difference any more.

 

But don't take my word for it. DO WHAT I DID. Carefully test for yourself under controlled conditions. I would recommend that everyone do TESTING to determine for themselves where true audio quality lies. Don't take anyone's word. Learn to control the variables in your test and learn for yourself. That's how you become more experienced in the hobby.

I actually like your answer. It certainly does sound sincere to me. And I believe you that you have tried your best.

 

Equalizing levels is of course good - and I do try to match them as well as humanly possible. Still - getting no audible difference between direct to disc analog record and CD recording of it sounds like Mission Impossible to me. At least on good equipment.

 

Houston - you've got trouble. And as far as your vynil vs CD is concerned, it hears on the name of Thorens. Those people never understood what turntable in fact is. ONE SINGLE WORD . They failed at it as fail they could - from the smallest model right up to the Reference. If they did grasp what it is all about in turntables, they would still be around - in uninterupted fashion, they would not have seen their products replaced by the likes of Rega. Linn Sondek LP 12 is nothing else than PRECISELY made and continually updated/modified Thorens TD 125 made with better materials and tighter tolerances. And backed with perhaps the most cunning marketing campaign audio has ever seen. Still, that Linn Sondek barrel does hold water on its own, even when not helped by marketing machine - Thorens leaks on all sides. These characters were arrogant enough to completely ignore the measurements showing total inadequacy of the suspension system on one of their later models. And it was precisely the reason why that Thorens sounded way wrong, with any kind of music, atop of all the other usual Thorens gremlins. The end of that story did not take long to play out - I hear the name lives on, but it is a different company producing different design of turntable. 

 

And although I could comment on Disgraced Collages Vol.2 by Linkedin May@rga on Crapfield, I will not do that - because I do respect Lincoln Mayorga and team at Sheffield. So should you respect the name of Duško Gojković, although in English writing; last time I checked, Serbia, where Mr. Goykovich was born, somehow does not have much to do with Lithuania.

 

My personal vote for the best record ever made would go to Ken Kreisel for two of his direct to disk recordings - either For Duke or Flamenco Fever on Miller & Kreisel label.

post #185 of 334

It doesn't matter what seems likely or probable or what even makes sense to you. All that matters is what the scientific data and experiments show.

 

Judgement is far too unreliable, biased, and inconsistent to rely on alone - this is the first thing that someone who wants to be a scientist in any respect needs to learn, and it is why we have the scientific method. Our minds are fallible in almost every way; regardless of who you are, you are manipulated and mislead by your biases and your emotions on every level of reasoning.

 

Also, you've given me yet another reason why I tend to avoid analog back-ends as a whole - there's even more voodoo and FUD when it comes to turntables than there is when it comes to DACs and cables.


Edited by Tus-Chan - 11/10/13 at 3:06pm
post #186 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
 

 

If this makes such a difference how come hardcore vinyl pundits like Uncle Ivor are incapable of detecting the presence of a simple A/D/A loop which nobbles this performance back down to red book limits and yet apparently captures all the analog goodness clicks and pops included ?

 

Unless you are playing square waves this improved rise time is simply irrelevant and is irrelevant anyway as we hear any square wave above  10K square wave as a 10k sine wav as all the harmonics (which start at 30k) are inaudible.

 

A while back I seriously posted a question on RAO about the better rise time of LP, I could not find anyone who could empirically show that this was in any way audible i.e the rate of signal change that both CD and LP are capable of are superior to our ability to detect them. So while LP can render these changes better we cannot hear to difference otherwise the LP/LP and A/D/A comparisons would be a slam dunk for LP.

 

In fact we know that our ears are far less sensitive to short-duration transients

 

In fact the shortest sound we can perceive at all is about 22 microseconds, what do we hear this as, not music certainly we hear it as a pop or click, but put two together and you will only hear one, i.e you cannot resolve two adjacent 22 microsecond pulses, this is due to the our hearing which integrates sound events to about 50 milliseconds so you can hear a 5hz square wave as a set of separate impulses (clicks) but even a 50hz square wave is perceived as continuous, so however impressive your cart may be is entirely moot.

I find your posts very interesting. 

 

It may be here humans can have significantly different sensitivities to adjacent pulses - the ones that can resolve pulses with less time interval between them preferring analog/hi-rez, the ones who can not can get away with CD redbook. I would really like to see if anyone has conducted a test regarding this matter on reasonably numerous sample of subjects.

 

Such fervent polarizing pro et contra, at least on my part, is based solely on what I hear with either vynil or CD.

 

FYI - the reproduction from this cartridge was the best I ever heard. Electronics were supporting VERY high frequencies, the slowest link in the chain were Magneplanar speakers with ribbon tweeters good at least to 40 kHz.

 

It was the only system I ever heard to allow for the sensation of the tympani being struck during the composition live on stage from say slightly more back in the hall from the first rows, about middle of the parter, to be reproduced correctly. Sound in solids travels faster than in gaseous media ( air) , creating slightly different time of arrival of the sound you feel coming through the floor and couple of micro?/miliseconds later through air and ears. It was the first - and unfortunately last - time that I heard/felt this sensation from a recording. Recording was/is analog :

http://www.discogs.com/Jean-SibeliusSir-Colin-DavisBoston-Symphony-Orchestra-FinlandiaSwan-Of-Tuonela-Valse-Triste/release/1541768 

Replace the cartridge for the normal 10 microsecond rise time one - the effect is blurred and lost.

 

The above hints at the fact that by I do not know what mechanism I was able to discern pulses not 22 miliseconds, but 7 microseconds apart. 

post #187 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppy666 View Post
 

To be quite frank, I've wasted more than enough time arguing about this.

 

I agree with you on this point. I think we all feel that you've wasted more than enough time arguing!

post #188 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

Still - getting no audible difference between direct to disc analog record and CD recording of it sounds like Mission Impossible to me. At least on good equipment.

Houston - you've got trouble. And as far as your vynil vs CD is concerned, it hears on the name of Thorens.

 

Honestly, if a Thorens turntable isn't good enough to detect the difference, then the difference must be pretty doggone small. Have you ever done this comparison test? Have you ever done a line level matched comparison between a good Thorens turntable and yours? You do a lot of strutting about and copy pasting sales literature for turntables. You do a great job of claiming superhuman powers of perception too... but I haven't seen any evidence of you doing your homework the way I have.

 

Try it and get back to me. I'd be interested in hearing about your sincere attempt.


Edited by bigshot - 11/10/13 at 5:29pm
post #189 of 334
I have no idea what's going on right now, but it sounds interesting, hahaha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

From personal experience, I can't tell the difference between a 24/192 file and a downsampled 16/44 music file.
post #190 of 334

That basically means you are a human being mice blue. Congratulations!

post #191 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppy666 View Post

 


This is massively misleading to people outside of the music business. If we can't hear frequencies above 20kHz, why bother sampling at 44.1kHz? Why not sample at 20kHz?
Answer: Because it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. Sony and Phillips decided to make CDs at 44.1kHz because only then would 22.05kHz make the cut. Just.

Why do top studios record audio at 192kHz today, if we can only hear up to 20kHz? Again, because it's not that simple.

The reason that the redbook standard extends up above 20kHz was because back then, filtering out the noise generated above the audible range required a rolloff that wasn't a precise "brick wall". They allowed a little extra so the rolloff wouldn't extend into the audible range. Today, oversampling DACs have improved upon this, and redbook sound is boosted to a rate where a more accurate brick wall filter can be applied, then output as normal redbook. They didn't include frequencies above 20kHz in the redbook standard because they wanted people to actually hear them. It was a technical compromise.

Studios require a little bit more latitude for mixing. But most don't record at 192 because it causes all kinds of problems with the analogue elements of their systems. Here is a more detailed explanation if you are interested.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Quote:
Assuming your system is actually capable of full 96kHz playback [6], the above files should be completely silent with no audible noises, tones, whistles, clicks, or other sounds. If you hear anything, your system has a nonlinearity causing audible intermodulation of the ultrasonics. Be careful when increasing volume; running into digital or analog clipping, even soft clipping, will suddenly cause loud intermodulation tones.
That happened to me...and then the next song on the playlist was super loud and I nearly had a heart attack. XD

Anyway, that was an educational and enlightening article. Thanks for sharing!

And now that gives me some more motivation to read through my digital signal processing textbook.
post #192 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

Honestly, if a Thorens turntable isn't good enough to detect the difference, then the difference must be pretty doggone small. Have you ever done this comparison test? Have you ever done a line level matched comparison between a good Thorens turntable and yours? You do a lot of strutting about and copy pasting sales literature for turntables. You do a great job of claiming superhuman powers of perception too... but I haven't seen any evidence of you doing your homework the way I have.

 

Try it and get back to me. I'd be interested in hearing about your sincere attempt.

I will have to borrow one good unmodified Thorens turntable - in the last two decades or so, they all vanished from my friend's or acquaintance's systems. So that might take a while. Then I can make a DSD recording of both, matched for level @ 1kHz within less than 0.1 dB, using the same type of MC cartridge with removable stylus and THE SAME STYLUS on both turntables. Both trough the same phono section. Using the same LPs, alternating with disc 1 recorded first on Thorens, then mine, disc 2 recorded first on mine, then Thorens, etc. Fair enough ?

 

I know the outcome in advance, but will try my best to record it. 

 

The difference might be small - but what comes out of a really good TT in the end makes it worthwile. CD is just not fast enough to record any meaningful difference between the two. I remember trying to record differences of modified and unmodified amplifiers to CD - resulting recording was below quality of either and certainly did have more trouble/artifacts all by itself to allow for preserving any meaningful differences beetwen the two amps on the recording.

 

Historically, the first turntable that achieved decent performance was Oracle from Canada. It was dogged by speed instability problems throughout its career, and always succumbed to wish for more bling that does it good sonically. But when its speed stability works as it should, it runs rings around any Thorens, with the possible exception of the two big ones ( Reference and its re-incarnation ) which I have not heard in a too long time.

 

It is because of the fundamental understanding ( in the case of Oracle ) or non-understanding ( in the case of the vast majority prior to Oracle ) what is the purpose of a turntable : it should not play the record, its true mission, if it wants to extract as much undistorted signal as possible, is to play 

THE GROOVE.

And as little of anything else as humanly possible, because anything else is an enemy.

post #193 of 334
There are things that make big differences in sound quality, and things that make insignificant differences. Doing controlled testing helps you to figure out which is which. Just guessing is not often correct.
post #194 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

There are things that make big differences in sound quality, and things that make insignificant differences. Doing controlled testing helps you to figure out which is which. Just guessing is not often correct.

If it is possible to clearly hear the information on one device and some undefined mush on another, that is not guessing - even if it is not matched for level. 

 

I am unfortunately all too much familiar with mechanical limitations of the analog record. What I am trying for the rest of 20 or so years is to make them less pronounced in order to extract more music, particularly at low levels where most turntables mask recorded information with mechanical noise(s). Natural decay of instruments and their echoes off the walls of recording venue are the first to suffer, for example.

 

You wouldn't particularly like this otherwise great recording on a turntable that is mechanically noisy in operation :

 

http://www.discogs.com/Various-Percussion-Profiles/release/1226852

post #195 of 334
Mechanical noise in turntables is miniscule compared to the noise floor of the records themselves. Unless of course if the turntable is improperly grounded.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd