Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality" - Page 13

post #181 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post



 

Vinyl is measurably worse than CD in most departments - noise, distortion , crosstalk, linearity,  speed stability, all verifiably worse - a good LP at best will have a dynamic range of maybe 70db,  a half speed master maybe a touch better but still under 13 bits and that only till you get towards the label when tracking issues become more serious.

 

As for the brick-wall filter - there is genuinely (and I have researched this extensively)  no credible evidence that frequencies above 20K have any material impact on perception of sound ( TERUO MURAOKA, YOSHlHlKO YAMADA, AND MASAMI YAMAZAKI  1978, and others) . One study (Oohashi) appeared to provide evidence but it turned out to be IMD from the drivers used (Ashihara) .

 

This is also an interesting explanation of the physics of LP playback

 

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html

 

 

 




...so you are saying that when you go to the music hall and listen a live classical music all the harmonics are axed  @20k exactly.  Maybe most of the people don't hear above 16k but that doesn't mean that music isn't there  and by applying that filter let's say a Stradivari is no longer, because it is missing it's harmonic signature...

 

...and to all of you who like to measure, how many of you have let's say a $3000 analog deck + $1500 cartridge and $3000 CD player  and  can play J.M. Jarre's  Oxygene on both sources just for fun of comparing?

 

...I do :)

 

 

post #182 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ Lab View Post


...so you are saying that when you go to the music hall and listen a live classical music all the harmonics are axed  @20k exactly.  Maybe most of the people don't hear above 16k but that doesn't mean that music isn't there  and by applying that filter let's say a Stradivari is no longer, because it is missing it's harmonic signature...

 

...and to all of you who like to measure, how many of you have let's say a $3000 analog deck + $1500 cartridge and $3000 CD player  and  can play J.M. Jarre's  Oxygene on both sources just for fun of comparing?

 

...I do :)


Throwing around dollar figures and anecdotal experience won't get you anywhere around here, you do realize that right?

 

post #183 of 437

Well this thread has received quite a bump after all. Thanks for all of the info guys, definitely food for thought blink.gif

 

I probably shouldn't have said "much" more resolution in my post. But there must be something going on, because while my outboard 44.1 ADC rip sounded a bit more refined, the rip I made with my Mac's 192 clearly sounded more dynamic. Yes I know it's very unscientific in many ways actually but I am only trying to please my own ears, and I would think that placebo would be working against my not liking the ADC that I not only purchased but added the "galvanically isolated" Supplier PSU to as much.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab View Post

I prefer the sound of vinyl over the sound of CD, generally speaking.  I have never had anyone listen to vinyl and CD on my stereo who did not think that the Vinyl sounded better.  Not a single person.

 

Now, I am not arguing that vinyl playback is technically superior to CD.  And I am not saying that every turntable sounds better than every CD player.  But *MY* vinyl front end sounds better than my CD front end, on my stereo, to me (and at least several dozen or so other people).

 

And for people who like to point to the "hassle of playing records", for every one of you there is probably one of me, who truly enjoys the process of playing a record.  For me it's not a hassle at all - it's actually a pleasure.

 

I listen to far more digital music than vinyl - since I listen a lot in places other than where my records and TT are.  But when I actually do have the choice - it's always vinyl.

 

I can appreciate this point of view as well smile.gif
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack black View Post

Is CDs were so inferior, why they took over then?

I had a vinyl collection at late 70's/early 80's and I hated the hiss and cracks from dust.

I always felt trebles sounded unnatural in CDs, but it was a lesser evil.


One of these issues can be largely solved with a decent wet-vacuum record cleaning system, guess which!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanaholic View Post

For "resolution" he's talking about quantization error in digital conversion.  He said that 16 bit isn't quite enough because the "steps" to approximate the voltage level isn't fine enough - which is a fair point, but for a 2V peak to peak wave 65536 "steps" equals approximately 0.00006V, that's a pretty small of difference but I would give you that *maybe* you can hear a difference, but then he said that 24-bit is good (of course, because now you have 16.77 *million* steps to approximate that 2V wave).  So I don't think he is claiming that CD cannot do vinyl resolution justice at all but rather he is stating the approximation that happens when you convert from analogue to digital, which in theory he is absolutely correct.   However that difference is so tiny it is really hard to convince people that you can hear the difference when the science is obviously against that.


I take it you are the only one that may have bothered to check out Mr. Robertson's video? I wonder how he would defend his position in this forum cool.gif

 


Edited by grokit - 7/30/11 at 5:40pm
post #184 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post


Dan Lavry claims that the optimal sample rate is 70kHz, hence his advice to go 88.2kHz: http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry_forum/viewtopic.php?p=49#p49

 

You can argue about a lot of bs being said on the internet, but IME Mr Lavry very much knows what he's talking about.

 

Rupprt Neve(who isn't a clown either biggrin.gif) has also always claimed that 44.1kHz isn't quite enough...still, getting back to the OP: I don't see how a professional music producer such as

 

if you actually read it, they state the reasons for it are on the audio production side. For music playback, 44.1kHz is fine and mastering and music production is a far bigger factor than dithering bandwidth etc... on sound quality. I respect Dan but y'know, actually read the thing.
 

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-sacd-vs-cd-part-5/dynamic-comparison-sacd-vs-cd-part-5-page-5

 

- Basically states in more scientific words what I have said above and Audioholics' education sections are darn good as well.

Same really for vinyl vs. CD

 

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-6

 

Enjoy on 96 kbps mp3 (360p) / 128 kbps AAC people (480p+)

 

 

Conclusion: the format is not the biggest factor, it is dynamic range of the track.

Vinyls typically have higher dynamic range in terms of the track, not because of the format.

Same applies for SACD etc...

see hi-rez audio file e-tailers releasing higher dynamic range files on 24/96 so they can charge more.

 


Edited by chinesekiwi - 7/30/11 at 7:18pm
post #185 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ Lab View Post






...so you are saying that when you go to the music hall and listen a live classical music all the harmonics are axed  @20k exactly.  Maybe most of the people don't hear above 16k but that doesn't mean that music isn't there  and by applying that filter let's say a Stradivari is no longer, because it is missing it's harmonic signature...

 

...and to all of you who like to measure, how many of you have let's say a $3000 analog deck + $1500 cartridge and $3000 CD player  and  can play J.M. Jarre's  Oxygene on both sources just for fun of comparing?

 

...I do :)

 

 


I use much more expensive gear but then again...Who cares how much the gear is?! That's still comparing apples to oranges because the mastering is different. The huge difference people hear in vinyl vs. CD is simply due to the differences in mastering. The CD does have a larger dynamic range than vinyl but this gets abused (brickwall mastering) and as a result we get crappy sounding CD's that sound inferior to the vinyl counterpart. While high priced gear might help some people attain better sound quality, all that gear is worthless if the mastering isn't done right.

 

I know one mastering engineer who used a master tape, a vinyl lacquer of the master tape and CD transfer of the master tape (all flat). When synchronized, most people in the room couldn't tell the difference between all three. He said he could hear a slight loss of ambiance on the CD but it was very slight. 

 

After many years of dealing with tapes, CD's, LP's, EP's, SACD's, DAD's, DVD's, DVD-A's and now, Blu-Spec, I have come to the conclusion that with adequate mastering, any format can sound great in the hands of a capable engineer. Just my 2 cents.

 

post #186 of 437

Yay for LFF, an actual mastering engineer, stating how it is. Only I stated it in less words :P

post #187 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post

Yay for LFF, an actual mastering engineer, stating how it is. Only I stated it in less words :P


Haha. I left the window open too long and didn't see your post....but yeah...it's all in the mastering...


Edited by LFF - 7/30/11 at 7:35pm
post #188 of 437

all the while I'm listening to some pretty brickwalled stuff (MGMT's Electric Feel)

 

Interestingly enough, different releases can have different masters.

 

On top, is the CD Single release of Evermore 'Light Surrounding You', below that is the album track of it

 

cdsvsalbum.png?t=1312079967

post #189 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post

all the while I'm listening to some pretty brickwalled stuff (MGMT's Electric Feel)

 

Interestingly enough, different releases can have different masters.

 

On top, is the CD Single release of Evermore 'Light Surrounding You', below that is the album track of it

 

cdsvsalbum.png?t=1312079967


Yes...it's very common and very frustrating! Just based on that you KNOW that the album can and does sound better (at least dynamically) and yet we still get a crappy brickwalled release.

 

Often times with my favorite music, the quest really turns on finding the right version/pressing to get the best sound.

 

post #190 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post




Throwing around dollar figures and anecdotal experience won't get you anywhere around here, you do realize that right?

 


All I am trying to say is that at least I compared the two things and I have some experience not just reading experience.

 

 

post #191 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ Lab View Post




All I am trying to say is that at least I compared the two things and I have some experience not just reading experience.

 

 


Simply based on the fact that you are throwing around dollar figures shows you really don't.

post #192 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post

After many years of dealing with tapes, CD's, LP's, EP's, SACD's, DAD's, DVD's, DVD-A's and now, Blu-Spec, I have come to the conclusion that with adequate mastering, any format can sound great in the hands of a capable engineer.

Absolutely. Recording technology was nailed in 1953 by RCA's Living Stereo recordings. Since then the only real improvements have been 1) eliminating generation loss and 2) convenience.

That said, most audiophiles would be shocked at how present an acoustic Caruso record played on a good wooden horn Victor phonograph sounds. From the very beginning good recordings have been made, even with the most primitive technologies.

Redbook is the most consistent medium for home listeners. Anyone who has captured LPs or R2R tapes to CD knows that the sound quality is virtually identical.
post #193 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ Lab View Post

...so you are saying that when you go to the music hall and listen a live classical music all the harmonics are axed  @20k exactly
Yes. Your ears do the axeing.
post #194 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post



Absolutely. Recording technology was nailed in 1953 by RCA's Living Stereo recordings. Since then the only real improvements have been 1) eliminating generation loss and 2) convenience.

That said, most audiophiles would be shocked at how present an acoustic Caruso record played on a good wooden horn Victor phonograph sounds. From the very beginning good recordings have been made, even with the most primitive technologies.

Redbook is the most consistent medium for home listeners. Anyone who has captured LPs or R2R tapes to CD knows that the sound quality is virtually identical.


Indeed. If only people went back to the methods used in 1953 by RCA!!!! That would be a godsend! Those Living Stereo recordings and to a point, Living Presence by Mercury, really are the cream of the crop. The most interesting thing to me about RCA's and Mercury's procedures were that they were all minimalist recording techniques and that the vast majority of microphones they used (all legendary now-a-days) rarely recorded anything above 18kHz.

 

post #195 of 437
After a few dozen times running the needle through the groove any delicate high frequency modulation would have started to be worn to mush anyway.

One of my biggest surprises was picking up a volume of the Franklin Mint 100 Greatest Recordings of All Time at ebay for five bucks. It had an immaculate pressing of Fiedler's Gaetie Parisiene from the Living Stereo series. I knew nothing about the record but the second I droppped the needle in the groove, I knew I was listening to one of the best sounding recordings I had ever heard. I was surprised to read in the liner notes that it was one of RCA's first stereo recordings.

I promptly captured it and burned it to CD. It sounded exactly like the record of course.
Edited by bigshot - 7/30/11 at 8:05pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality"