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

vinyl rip vs cd - Page 6

post #76 of 334

FFS kid how many times are you going to repeat the same thing. 

 

Ok. We get it. You think 44.1khz is inadequate for accurate sampling of audio and no amount of logical arguments is going to change that opinion.  Can we please move on?

 

OK I couldn't help it. I had to add this:


Edited by cswann1 - 11/7/13 at 3:42am
post #77 of 334

:etysmile:  Oh please God, forgive me for using an opinion forum to state my opinion, and reply to posts by others, namely bigshot and Tus-Chan. I may be stubborn on this subject, as is Tus-Chan.

 

But no one is forcing you to read this, cswann1, I imagine you're a big boy, free to make your own choices, yes?  So move on if you've got bored of reading my posts. Thanks for your attention so far though. ;-)

 

And feel free to comment on the subject matter rather than having a go at me or my opinion.

 

Great video btw, did you make it?

Thought not.

post #78 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by PraetorXyn View Post
 

I don't bother with Vinyl because:

1. A lot of things aren't available in Vinyl

2. With dBpoweramp, you get FAR better ripping support with CD's.

Your item 2 above. I need some help to understand about accurate rip and verification.

 

1. Ripped by dBp shows [[[Track 2:  Ripped LBA 9610 to 22540 (2:52) in 0:15. - Tequila.flac

     AccurateRip: Accurate (confidence 3)     [Pass 1]

     CRC32: F87DB5E3     AccurateRip CRC: 2384BF10     [DiscID: 025-003814b4-04000686-590f5319-2]

     AccurateRip Verified Confidence 3 [CRCv1 2384bf10], Using Pressing Offset +18]]]

 

2. Ripped by EAC shows [[[Track  2 Tequila .wav

     Peak level 84.0 %
     Extraction speed 10.8 X
     Copy CRC F87DB5E3
     Cannot be verified as accurate (confidence 3)  [1DA17DC8], AccurateRip returned [2384BF10]  (AR v2)

     Copy OK]]]

A. Does that mean dBp rip is more "Bit Perfect" or both are Bit perfect?

B. How is the Confidence verified. Even though the EAC final file is Flac, it shows as Wav. Why?

Thanks

post #79 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppy666 View Post
 

@bigshot My computer is 2 years old, why do you ask?

 

I ask because imagine if the computer you use was using digital audio hardware as old as that book. Sometimes 6 years is a very long time. Particularly with digital technology.

post #80 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ploppy666 View Post
 

When a band hears the vinyl, they don't have that same disappointment. Because the vinyl shows up all the detail in their work. Hardly anything is lost in the vinyl manufacturing. Because it's analog.

 

Do you know what goes into mastering for vinyl release? The masters are compressed because vinyl has a narrower dynamic range... too much volume and the needle pops out of the groove. The audio is run through the RIAA curve, which attenuates certain frequencies to make the groove size more manageable. The extremely high frequencies are filtered off because they are more subject to wear from playing and will turn to distorted mush if they are cut into the record. The inner grooves have MUCH less resolution and much higher distortion than the outer grooves, so songs at the ends of sides sound worse than those at the beginning.

 

Vinyl involves a lot of compromises that digital doesn't.

post #81 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtaylorbasil View Post
 

Your item 2 above. I need some help to understand about accurate rip and verification.

 

1. Ripped by dBp shows [[[Track 2:  Ripped LBA 9610 to 22540 (2:52) in 0:15. - Tequila.flac

     AccurateRip: Accurate (confidence 3)     [Pass 1]

     CRC32: F87DB5E3     AccurateRip CRC: 2384BF10     [DiscID: 025-003814b4-04000686-590f5319-2]

     AccurateRip Verified Confidence 3 [CRCv1 2384bf10], Using Pressing Offset +18]]]

 

2. Ripped by EAC shows [[[Track  2 Tequila .wav

     Peak level 84.0 %
     Extraction speed 10.8 X
     Copy CRC F87DB5E3
     Cannot be verified as accurate (confidence 3)  [1DA17DC8], AccurateRip returned [2384BF10]  (AR v2)

     Copy OK]]]

A. Does that mean dBp rip is more "Bit Perfect" or both are Bit perfect?

B. How is the Confidence verified. Even though the EAC final file is Flac, it shows as Wav. Why?

Thanks

The Accurate Rip database is maintained by the creator of dBpoweramp, but he makes it openly available to other programs.

EAC is harder to set up than dBpoweramp, so that could be why you're getting differing results. The reason item 2 lists the extension as wav is because EAC is adding the item to the log before it uses FLAC to encode the file.

 

I've performed the following actions and tests in regards to these rippers:

1. Find a CD with lots of gaps. In dBpoweramp, add the Gap column to the display.

2. Rip the CD with dBpoweramp.

3. Open foobar2000 and select the album you ripped. Use the foo_texttools component to copy the track titles.

4. Open EAC and go to Database > Get CD Information From > Clipboard. This will make the track titles match.

5. Press F4 to detect gaps. Press F3 to analyze gaps for silence.

6. Rip the disc with EAC.

7. Generate CUE sheet (Multiple WAV Files With Gaps (Noncompliant)) with EAC

 

If you use dBpoweramp Batch Converter to convert the rips to WAV (it will make copies, not delete the original), you can compare the WAV files one at a time in EAC or all at once in foobar2000 by creating a playlist, then add the dBpoweramp wav files first, and the EAC wav files second. The audio samples should be a perfect match.

 

I then used EAC to burn the CD from the cuesheet, and then ripped the burnt CD with dBpoweramp. I compared the WAV files once again, and they were a perfect match.

 

So all I use EAC for is the generation of CUE sheets.

 

My reasoning:

1. dBpoweramp will rip a CD in ~2 minutes, and EAC can take 15+ minutes to get the exact same result.

2. dBpoweramp has the best metadata support of any program I've worked with.

3. dBpoweramp lets you set the folder structure dynamically based on metadata. If you do this in EAC, the folder structure will be written in your CUE sheet where the track names are.

4. Both programs allow logging, and can automatically generate an m3u playlist. dBpoweramp does it with a DSP effect, and it lets you control thefile name based on metadata.

post #82 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

Do you know what goes into mastering for vinyl release? The masters are compressed because vinyl has a narrower dynamic range... too much volume and the needle pops out of the groove. The audio is run through the RIAA curve, which attenuates certain frequencies to make the groove size more manageable. The extremely high frequencies are filtered off because they are more subject to wear from playing and will turn to distorted mush if they are cut into the record. The inner grooves have MUCH less resolution and much higher distortion than the outer grooves, so songs at the ends of sides sound worse than those at the beginning.

 

Vinyl involves a lot of compromises that digital doesn't.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that vinyl masters are more compressed than CD masters? It's the other way round. Just look at the waveform in any audio editor, a vinyl rip vs a CD rip. I'm talking dynamic range and micro dynamics. Also, while you're at it, run them both through a frequency analyser, or a plot spectrum. CD rolls off at 20kHz, vinyl typically at 48kHz, sometimes 60kHz if the whole recording process was analog.

CD does have more potential for dynamic range, but with modern ultra compressed mixes/masters, it's never used anywhere near its full potential. The madness is that most masters are constantly within 3dB of peaking.

 

I agree about the compromises, this is why the best records are 12 inch but 45 rpm. It's also why the best turntables have parallel tracking...

post #83 of 334

Music being mastered for vinyl has to be compressed because vinyl has a higher noise floor. Typically, LPs have a dynamic range of no more than 45 dB or so. CDs have a dynamic range that is double that, and well recorded and mastered music takes advantage of its capabilities.

 

Any frequencies above about 17kHz on vinyl is almost certainly surface noise.

 

I'm a record collector. I have over 25,000 records dating back to around 1904. I love records. But records don't have better sound quality than CDs. An easy way to tell is to digitize the best LP you own and do a blind level matched A/B test comparing the redbook rip against the original LP. I did this with a Sheffield Lab direct to disk LP (Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2) and try as I might with excellent equipment, I couldn't hear any difference at all. I enjoy checking out my equipment like this to see what the truth is. Try it yourself. You'll see.

post #84 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Music being mastered for vinyl has to be compressed because vinyl has a higher noise floor. Typically, LPs have a dynamic range of no more than 45 dB or so. CDs have a dynamic range that is double that, and well recorded and mastered music takes advantage of its capabilities.

 

Any frequencies above about 17kHz on vinyl is almost certainly surface noise.

 

I'm a record collector. I have over 25,000 records dating back to around 1904. I love records. But records don't have better sound quality than CDs. An easy way to tell is to digitize the best LP you own and do a blind level matched A/B test comparing the redbook rip against the original LP. I did this with a Sheffield Lab direct to disk LP (Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2) and try as I might with excellent equipment, I couldn't hear any difference at all. I enjoy checking out my equipment like this to see what the truth is. Try it yourself. You'll see.

Wow.  Seriously?  That is an enormous collection.  Out of curiosity, how much of that collection have you digitally archived?

post #85 of 334

 

This is a little more than half of the record collection. Very little of it has been digitized. I'm still ripping CDs... that collection is just as big. Been ripping for six or seven years now. My iTunes library is about a year and a half's worth of music.

post #86 of 334

Vinyl rips for albums on CD that were poorly mastered.  Other than that not a big fan of clicks and pops and the work of using vinyl, getting up off the couch just to change album.

 

All about the comfort of using my phone as a remote for Foobar2000 with rips from CDs.

post #87 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Music being mastered for vinyl has to be compressed because vinyl has a higher noise floor. Typically, LPs have a dynamic range of no more than 45 dB or so. CDs have a dynamic range that is double that, and well recorded and mastered music takes advantage of its capabilities.

 

Any frequencies above about 17kHz on vinyl is almost certainly surface noise.

 

I'm a record collector. I have over 25,000 records dating back to around 1904. I love records. But records don't have better sound quality than CDs. An easy way to tell is to digitize the best LP you own and do a blind level matched A/B test comparing the redbook rip against the original LP. I did this with a Sheffield Lab direct to disk LP (Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2) and try as I might with excellent equipment, I couldn't hear any difference at all. I enjoy checking out my equipment like this to see what the truth is. Try it yourself. You'll see.

I have really hard time understanding you. On one hand, a man who has been in (classical) music most/all of his (pre)adult life, with a very well formed opinion on music, musicians, performances, etc - not far removed from my own - and on the other hand, the obvious inability to use analog to its fullest. You would not be claiming figures above, at least not for the best releases, both for analog software and hardware.

 

I certainly am aware of the limitations imposed by cutting a record master. Basically, bass has to be next to mono-ed, because vertical excursion containing out of phase information ( stereo ) must absolutely not exceed the thickness of the lacquer. In the high frequency range, there is limitation by the thermal characteristics of the cutting head. To aid this, latest/best record cutting heads are equipped with gas cooling, to get about 10-20 % improvement over normal air operation. It is anything but trivial matter - during some crazy cymbal work, peak of power can reach approx 500 W - per channel, meaning it takes about 1 kW to inscribe the signal correctly uncompressed into the master. Most mastering enginners will not be willing to risk their precious cutting head and would compress those peaks to the level they are comfortable with - sound quality be damned. At real time speed cutting, upper limit for analog records with essentially flat frequency response is approx 25 to 27 kHz,

depending on cutter head.

 

Half speed mastering, invented for the necessity of qudrophonic systems requiring carrier in the 45 kHz range, achieves at least double that. It is also not limited by thermal problems in the treble, requiring only one fourth of the power compared to real time cutting. 125 W/ch is not only within limits of any decent cutter head, it is loafing - and good mastering engineers certainly do take advantages of it. For example, half speed mastering can produce vynil record that will always outplay master tape played back in real time on the very same machine that recorded the tape.

 

On the replay side, to use analogy with cars, one can not expect all cars on the street will have the performance of at least some mid Ferrari

and all of the drivers would be able to compete in say some lower level leading ultimately to Formula 1. That means that commercially available records MUST bear above in mind - or else the quality of replay available to the majority of users would be actually worse. That means less bass, less treble, less level, more noise, more rumble - and arriving at about the figures you posted above.

 

It is true that resolution of analog record is not constant - it is best at the outer diameter at the start of the record, getting ever worse towards the label area. But with modern stylus shapes that have reached practical limits ( any sharper and it would tend to re-cut the groove ) and linear/parallel tracking arms it is possible to have high quality enough playback rigt to the label if required. 

 

There is a distinct difference in sound of a well analog recorded, mastered and played back vynil and its CD counterpart. If the original recording is digital, this still held true at the begining of the CD era. For example, Philips went to any degree to produce Dire Straits album Love Over Gold, which was one of the first digital recordings by a major rock group, both in analog record and CD, to the finest standard they possibly could. With a clear intention - to showcase and prove superiority of CD vs analog. It backfired - so badly, that Philips quietly and as fast as possible withdrew all remaining unsold copies of the first issue of the said LP from the shops - and replaced it with a version more likely to prove the point they were after. The analog gear at its peak simply run rings around first CD players - I heard Philips prototype at our electronics show in 1979 and after 5 minutes listen with the Audio Technica ATH 7 electret headphones driven by a Van Alstine 120B power amp I brought to give it a fairest shake possible , it was painfully clear it is light years from the quality of the analog. 

 

Try to get the said first issue of the LP - no wonder, it has stratospherical price today. 

 

On the other hand, if recording is digital 44.1/16, done well and CD player is recent(ish) with better filtering, etc - I see little point in vynil release of the same title. There is nothing on CD resolution recording decent analog could reveal and there are all the drawbacks of analog - giving you essentially worst of both worlds.

 

I am constantly trying to improve both analog and digital - to serve MUSIC. Whatever it takes. 44.1/16 - no, thank you. Experience from recording hall, not mouse clicking.

post #88 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Music being mastered for vinyl has to be compressed because vinyl has a higher noise floor. Typically, LPs have a dynamic range of no more than 45 dB or so. CDs have a dynamic range that is double that, and well recorded and mastered music takes advantage of its capabilities.

 

Any frequencies above about 17kHz on vinyl is almost certainly surface noise.

 

I'm a record collector. I have over 25,000 records dating back to around 1904. I love records. But records don't have better sound quality than CDs. An easy way to tell is to digitize the best LP you own and do a blind level matched A/B test comparing the redbook rip against the original LP. I did this with a Sheffield Lab direct to disk LP (Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2) and try as I might with excellent equipment, I couldn't hear any difference at all. I enjoy checking out my equipment like this to see what the truth is. Try it yourself. You'll see.

 

I regularly work with mastering engineers. You're right about dynamic range 'potential', but wrong about how it's actually used. As of approx mid 90's the loudness war meant that the dynamic range of CDs was utterly wasted. This affects mainly Pop records, but also Rock, Metal, and funnily enough, Jazz. Classical music tends to be ok. The loudness war is basically producers wanting their bands to be the loudest band on the radio. So each instrument is compressed itself (guitar, bass, vocal, each drum etc...) then there's a parallel compression added to the drum and bass mix to make that louder and more compressed, another parallel compression is usually added to the stereo mix, and then typically the mastering engineer will make it even louder. There are many techniques for getting a loud mix. That works on CDs but you cannot do that with vinyl. Vinyl has to have a much less compressed mastering done, and sometimes they will have to revisit the mix to reduce the compression going on there too.

 

I recommend you download Audacity, a free and easy to use sound editor, and load a vinyl rip of a song you know well, to compare the waveform with the CD version.

Anything pre mid 80's (when CD became common) will look (and sound) great in audacity (dynamic waveform, plenty of headroom so no peaks...) the original CDs from that period will look similar but sound very bad because of all the digital problems around at that time. If you have a remastered CD, it will sound better but typically will be remastered much louder than the original.

As of the mid 80's up to mid 90's you'll notice the waveforms getting louder and less dynamic.

Then from mid 90's it just gets stupid.

 

I'm not sure what sort of music you listen to, judging by your collection I guess a bit of everything? Try doing an A/B test with some trumpet music, it reveals what happens to digital music.

 

Going back to your post, what exactly are you comparing in your A/B test? I do a lot of A/B tests myself. Are you comparing a 44.1kHz redbook rip with the original vinyl?

 

I'm afraid you're very wrong about anything above 17kHz on vinyl being surface noise, it's simply not true. The recording and tracking ability of vinyl is well over 50kHz, possibly right up to 100kHz. Obviously not many hifi set-ups can go that high, but this is not the point. A set of speakers that have a rating of 50Hz to 20kHz (usually rated at +/- 3dB) will still go way higher than 20kHz... And a bit lower than 50Hz, hence the expression "roll off".

 

Like I said before, we may not be able to hear much above 50kHz, but we can still detect those frequencies, i.e, we can certainly tell when they're not there. This is one of the things I "hear" on A/B tests, the lack of ultra high frequencies on CD.

 

In the studio, on an analog mixing console, things wear out, and one of the first things to go is the high end in the preamp. It's noticeable as soon as frequencies around 50kHz are disappearing!

 

I recommend this link: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/162507-radiohead-rainbows-mastering-vinyl-vs-cd.html

 

Gearslutz is a great site, a lot of respected mix and master engineers post there.

post #89 of 334

Created with GIMP

 

Created with GIMP

 

Ok, so here are 2 plot spectrums from Audacity. The one that cuts off at around 22kHz is obviously the CD rip (top one). The other one is a vinyl rip. Same song, same album, same mix, and as far as I know, same master. The images speak for themselves, and I can assure you that what I'm seeing is what I'm hearing when I compare them in an A/B test.

 

Here are a few numbers from that plot spectrum:

 

@1kHz, CD is at -31dB, Vinyl is at -24dB

@3kHz, CD is at -29dB, Vinyl is at -24dB

@5kHz, CD is at -36dB, Vinyl is at -30dB

@10kHz, CD is at -46dB, Vinyl is at -41dB

@12kHz, CD is at -46dB, Vinyl is at -46dB

@15kHz, CD is at -53dB, Vinyl is at -49dB

@20kHz, CD is at -70dB, Vinyl is at -57dB

And then, while the CDs range is now cut off, the vinyl continues at around -70dB right up to 55kHz. This makes sense to me and confirms everything I know about vinyl. At -80dB there is even some 65kHz present.

 

This is not surface noise, or rumble, it's natural harmonics that exist in real life. This is what gives analog the "real sounding" sound.

Note that the CD is sampled at 44.1kHz, the vinyl rip at 192Khz.

 

I rest my case, and my ears.

post #90 of 334

Back in college (in the mid-90s), I was very skeptical of the claim that vinyl sounded better.  I was finally able to do some comparisons when I visited a friend in New York, who had a nice vinyl collection and CD versions of several of the LPs he had.  I was very surprised that I immediately though the LPs sounded better.  I listened to a few different albums, switched back and forth, and thought the vinyl sounded better for all of them.

 

I even ended up getting a turntable and LPs myself.

 

Well, a few years later, I did some more listening, and I have concluded that, to me, my initial thought that the vinyl sounded better was likely the result of an poor DAC and poorly mastered (loudness war) CDs.  When comparing well mastered CDs on decent digital equipment, I prefer them strongly to the LP counterparts, if for no other reason than the lack of surface noise, which I guess doesn't bother some people.

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