or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Special Forums › Head-Fi Bloggers › Currawong › The Best of Head-Fi
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Best of Head-Fi - Page 4

post #46 of 52
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Jason Stoddard View Post

I think that every review, impression, or de facto "this product sounds better than that" statement would be made immeasurably better if it was required to have these three disclaimers:


1. This is only my opinion.

2. I am biased, like everyone else.

3. I have not heard everything in the world.


I am personally amused by DACs that cost like cars. There's no problem comparing them to Yggy, but personally I'd rather travel to some spectacular locations in the world, learn something completely new, take a breather and not worry about money for a while, or, hell, spend the money on a car.


But...this is only my opinion, I am biased like everyone else, and I have not heard everything in the world.

post #47 of 52
Thread Starter 

A good comment about replying to negativity: 


Originally Posted by potkettleblack View Post
Originally Posted by Audeze View Post


The frequency response graph is from a Neuman KU100 head measured at ERP (Ear reference point). There are several ways to measure headphones and other measurements system use DRP (drum reference point) or EEP. These graphs will look different. For an ERP measurement, the LCD4 is pretty much close to ideal. It should have a slow roll-off. Tyll from Innerfidelity has explanation on how to interpret these graphs. There is nothing wrong with these measurements.

I often browse videos on youtube and see the channel owners reply to comments made by viewers. More often than not it is in response to the negative comments and rarely the positive ones. Sometimes even innocuous questions get ignored completely, because the channel owner is too fixated on proving somebody wrong, or lashing out because they have said something negative.


I've followed this thread (and other Audeze threads) for a while now, and 9/10 times this is the type of response I see. Rare posts that are often made simply to prove somebody wrong - very few have contained reassurance or positivity. 


I had an issue with an LCD 3 recently, and instead of help I got a response from (I assume yourself) that sounded more like an argument than guidance.


Just a quick private message would have made the world of difference.


If you are happy to jump on comments from users that have no intention of purchasing Audeze products - it might be wise to channel the same amount of attention to those that care about the company and have genuine concerns and queries. Because (to me, at least) you are being perceived as somebody that has the social skills of a hornet.





post #48 of 52
Thread Starter 

On vinyl mastering: 


Originally Posted by neilvg View Post

WARNING OFF TOPIC THREAD HIJACK please ignore if uninterested:

I deal with mastering and mix engineers everyday. It's true that modern music is definitely more compressed, but you cannot compare compression, especially when its part of the mixing process and production itself, with sound quality. An over compressed master will indeed change the quality of the mix, but in many cases, mixes coming into mastering these days are already heavily compressed. This gives the engineers and production crew more of an artistic choice as to how the music hits and is presented.

Now for that bit on vinyl below: (a summary) : vinyl needs to be taken down in overall VU and treble energy needs to be brought down, mostly so the record can play stably. This actually results in less compression on the master, and a sound that comes closer to the original MIX. However, it is wrong to say that vinyl ACTUALLY has more dynamic range. They are just mastered that way since they need it to play with most modern styli. CD and Digital in general can get away with a lot more compression. This is why the numbers on those measurement sites look the way they do.
Originally Posted by x RELIC x View Post

The 'guy behind the counter' is a nut bar and doesn't know s***. Vinyl is almost always better for dynamic range. I agree, a lot of modern mixes are terrible and it's getting worse. Adele, Bowie, many remasters, it's sad.

So if your thinking sound quality is opposite of compression - you'll think the new Bowie sounds bad. Because it is very compressed. But I actually think it sounds Amazing. It's very modern, but has great vibrancy and impact - which is what any good mix needs for starters. It's not meant to sound live, its meant to be an artistic statement in the studio.

I submit the following: (not my words) - but from below, it's not a simple straight ahead story when it comes to vinyl being better.
Myth: Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD

Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.

There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. A bass note which is panned hard to the left or right will cause the needle on an LP record to jump out of the groove, an early example of this is the song Crazy by Seal which had to be remastered for vinyl with the bass repositioned in the centre stage. Another notable example is The White Stripes' Icky Thump. However, there are also instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is likely that the master will be no different than the one used on CD. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. The reason for different masters is that producers possibly view digital media (like CD) and analog media (like Vinyl) to be different in nature, so they might produce a different master for each medium. Some even believe that Vinyl will automatically yield a superior sound, despite the well known technical limitations and disadvantages compared to the CD.
The technical details behind this myth are as follows. The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker's voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.

A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.

Additionally, during playback, the turntable's stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300 µm-wide groove at 300 Hz, and yet only 50 µm at 20 kHz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.

The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master. That's exactly what vinyl mastering houses do, using multiband limiters that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.

Effect of vinyl mastering on dynamic range

A related myth is that when vinyl has a higher dynamic range than CD, it means the audio was sourced from a different, more dynamic master, and that the difference in dynamics will be audible.

It is true that recordings on vinyl sometimes have a spikier waveform and a measurably higher dynamic range than their counterparts on CD, at least when the dynamic range is reported by crude "DR meter" tools that compare peak and RMS levels. The higher "DR value" could indeed be a result of entirely different master recordings being provided to the mastering engineers for each format, or different choices made by the engineers, as happens every time old music is remastered for a new release.
But even when the same source master is used, the audio is normally further processed when mastering for the target format (be it CD or vinyl), and this often results in vinyl having a spikier waveform and higher DR measurement. There are two types of processing during vinyl mastering that can increase the DR measurements and waveform spikiness, thus reducing the RMS and increasing the basic DR measurement by perhaps several dB:

The audio is subjected to low-pass or all-pass filtering, which can result in broad peaks becoming slanted ramps.
The amount and stereo separation of deep bass content is reduced for vinyl, to keep the stylus from being thrown out of the groove.
It is quite possible that these changes are entirely inaudible, despite their effect on the waveform shape and DR measurement.
The dynamic range of the waveform is also affected by the vinyl playback system; different systems provide different frequency responses. Factors include cartridge, tonearm, preamp, and even the connecting cables. A vinyl rip with weak bass may well have a higher reported DR value than a rip of the same vinyl on equipment with a stronger bass response.
post #49 of 52

.... and here, I thought vinyl was something to make cheap tablecloths and shower curtains out of...........       :wink_face:   Live and learn....    :L3000:

post #50 of 52
I think I should clarify my initial vinyl comment as I believe I've grossly generalized and I was not clear with my intention. Btw, the context of my quoted reply was an employee screaming at a customer, which I took issue with.

Now, what I meant to say is that the very nature of the vinyl medium does not allow for clamped music which is more often found in CD than vinyl. On these mixes that are over driven and clamped from the studio (because they can with digital) a different level output needs to be done specifically for the vinyl pressing or else the stylus will skip out of the groove. In this case a vinyl version will be better dynamically than a clamped CD version of a particular mix. The dynamic range of the formats themselves is not in question, just that the tendency to create mixes too hot and that clip on CD will sound better on the vinyl version. With the headroom in the studio mix the tracks often don't need new masters, just to reduce the intensity in the mix for the vinyl press.

On a side note I am increasingly frustrated with studios creating 'hot' mixes to sound better with mediocre gear with less and less regard for audio fidelity. Just because 'you can' doesn't mean 'you should'. In the end I agree with the great info from @neilvg
Edited by x RELIC x - 2/8/16 at 11:37pm
post #51 of 52

Progress is not necessarily progress......     :blink:

post #52 of 52

It's a pity there isn't more action in this thread - it'd be a nice way of catching-up on some good content.


I'll add anything worthwhile, as and when it happens to cross my path :beerchug:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Currawong
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Special Forums › Head-Fi Bloggers › Currawong › The Best of Head-Fi