[ultrabike]

Quote:

 
 
How about well done vinyl rips?  Have you actually heard any?  How about music actually coming off a turntable?  Have you ever heard that?  I'm actually asking here, those aren't rhetorical questions.  And please don't take it wrong, it's not at all uncommon to discuss these things with people who have never heard analog, or good vinyl rips...

 
LOL! yes, I have heard music coming off a turntable. I was born in the 70s. In my early years all we really had was LPs or magnetic tape (well, at least readily commercially available).

I own roughly 160 Vinyl records and have been collecting records for almost four (holy **** time flies...) years now. I own probably close to fifty CD's with some duplicates between my two collections. I also own a handful of albums from HDtracks. I rip all my music in FLAC and I'm itching to purchase a D.A.C. so I can more accurately determine the difference between 96Hz/24Bit and 44.1/16Bit. As for the Vinyl verse digital debate, I think both are better at certain things than the other. Vinyl is far better at reproducing higher frequencies and on average features better dynamic range, even when compared to albums on CD that were mastered correctly. However digital is better for listening to subtle details in your music. I own Dark Side of the Moon on Vinyl (1973 SMAS Pressing) and the 1994 Remaster on CD. I can notice far more small details that are almost, if not inaudible on the Vinyl just given the nature of how a Vinyl works, and its age. Yet the dynamic range on the Vinyl is far better and the music sounds less constrained. The real reason why I prefer Vinyl to digital is because Vinyl is human, it ages, it has numerous flaws, it demands care and attention. Vinyl boasts a more gritty and raw feeling than digital does, it just features its own unique atmosphere compared to a CD or other digital format.

 
I think in general Vinyl releases are better mastered and have better dynamic range as a result. BTW what do you think of this LP collection 

:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/532065/classical/60#post_8505745
 
I tend to agree with his assessment regarding LPs vs CDs here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/213139/on-the-superiority-of-vinyl/375#post_2647888

 

 
My ears can certainly tell the difference between many 320 kbps mp3/ogg/aac rips and 24/96 vinyl rips (not just the pops and crackles 

).  If you playback said rips using reasonable equipment or headphones, the difference can be noticeable.  
 
Keep in mind some headphones/speakers are very revealing, some aren't.  Using low-fi gear you may never be able to tell the difference between lossy or lossless rips.  Have a listen to low bitrate rip then afterwards the high bitrate vinyl rip of the same track on a pair of HD650's and the difference between the low bitrate and high bitrate becomes much more apparent.    
 
How any album is mastered can have a large effect on quality however.  I have heard remastered albums sound much worse than the original.  The least amount of steps between master recording and released material is ideal.  When music companies 'reissue' classics, they often end up ruining an artists music.
 
Referencing one blog by sound engineers and audience professionals won't affect my ears and opinion in the slightest.  There are many forums, and blogs, where great debates break out over the issue.  
 
I do have a few friends who can't seem to distinguish any differences, and though the differences may be small and variable based on the quality of the source/rip itself, I have many more friends that will notice a difference right away.
 
To my ears, 24/96 vinyl rips sound better that 320 kbps rips hands down, even if they sound the same to some.  
 
In the end though, listen to any format/quality you want to.  I'll always prefer vinyl/vinyl rips and lossless flac over iTunes downloads or sub 320 kbps rips.  I consider 320 kbps to be the lowest bitrate worth using.  
 
Playing a 24/96 vinyl rip of Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon right now that no lossy rip can match.  You don't have to be a sound engineer to tell the difference either. 
 
Cheers,
TBB
 

 
The HD650 are certainly very good headphones. They are not the most revealing though. Try an SR-009 + BHSE or Cavalli LL (much lower levels of distortion.)
 
I do agree that remastering and re-releases can be much worse than the original. Also, not all 320 kbps rips are the same, it depends on the compression scheme and options.
 

 
Check out the video below, it gives a basic example of a remastered release compared to the original release.  I have had similar experiences with some remastered albums, and that is why I also generally avoid them.  Again, I don't base my experience and enjoyment on audio measuring equipment results, I let my ears be the judge.
 

 

 
 
That would be an example of a poorly remastered CD. Not all remasters are done this way nor do all of them destroy dynamic range.
 

 
Throughout the history of our hi-fi hobby, there has always been this school of thought that if there is a difference, we must be able to find a measurement that shows us why.  In many cases we have failed to discover why.  
 
To be sure, we have made some progress.  Before the discovery of jitter's effects, there were those who insisted that they could hear differences between CD players.  There were others, (your spiritual brethren, no doubt) who poo pooed their assertions.  Then jitter was discovered.
 
I can remember Julian Hirsch insisting that there was no audible difference between two amps who measured the same in his tests.  Do you really believe that?
 
I fully expect that we will continue to make progress, but as of right now, not everything that makes a difference can be measured, no matter how vehemently you insist otherwise.
 

 
There are differences that are very easy to detect (dynamic range compression, excessive lossy data compression, pops, cracks, background noise, op-amp roll off, op-amp distortion, and so on. Some levels of jitter could be detectable, others not so. 

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
Only ascertained by my ears.  To me that counts more than any measurements performed and quoted.  I let my ears be my guide.  No disrespect to Ivor Tiefenbrun.
 
Check out the video below, it gives a basic example of a remastered release compared to the original release.  I have had similar experiences with some remastered albums, and that is why I also generally avoid them.  Again, I don't base my experience and enjoyment on audio measuring equipment results, I let my ears be the judge.
 
 
 
Peace,
TBB

 
 
But it is not just your ears you are also influenced by what you know. This is not a dig at you personally just a matter of Human Psychology. You know that A sounds better than B so lo and behold it does. You know when you change some component so you know that the sound changes. The sighted test is intellectually bankrupt. It is very difficult to not hear a difference even when nothing has actually changed.
 
Here and elsewhere you can read about DBTs they keep us honest perhaps against our will. And in fact DBT turns out to be far more sensitive than sighted listening dog and pony shows.

 

[Theblackbeard]

To anyone who can't hear the quality difference between a vinyl playing and a cd playing, I really do feel sad for you.  If you have never properly heard vinyl, on a decent setup, you should make it a point to do so sometime.     
 
The sound vinyl produces has a warmth to it that cd's simply don't have in my experience.   Sound waves aren't only picked up by our ears, but also by our bodies.  When I listen to vinyl through speakers the effect on me is different than that of listening to a cd of the same music through the same speakers.  How do you measure that?  Am I to believe that this isn't true because I can't measure it?  I believe it, I hear it, I feel it.  I speak from my own experience only.
 
Now, I have to be clear, I'm not saying all 320 kbps rips suck.  Neither am I saying that cd's suck.  I have heard great sounding remastered albums on cd before.  Though I have come across more badly remastered cd's than good ones throughout the years.  
 
Keep on loving the music,
TBB

 

[Happy Camper]

I prefer whichever version is mastered properly.

The format and encoding won't mean jacksh*t if it's improperly mastered.

All things being equal, I'd take a 24/96 file over vinyl anyday of the week.

QFT!

Then the question begs, does a 24/96 rip of vinyl sound better than the commercial release if both were made from the same master? The mids weight seems to be meatier on vinyl but today's digital decoders are there IMO. This is the best that both have to offer as a setup. As you come down from that pinnacle, I feel digital holds better performance.

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

To anyone who can't hear the quality difference between a vinyl playing and a cd playing, I really do feel sad for you.  If you have never properly heard vinyl, on a decent setup, you should make it a point to do so sometime.     
 
The sound vinyl produces has a warmth to it that cd's simply don't have in my experience.   Sound waves aren't only picked up by our ears, but also by our bodies.  When I listen to vinyl through speakers the effect on me is different than that of listening to a cd of the same music through the same speakers.  How do you measure that?  Am I to believe that this isn't true because I can't measure it?  I believe it, I hear it, I feel it.  I speak from my own experience only.
 
I respect everyone else's opinion of course.  I enjoy these discussions.  

 
Keep on loving the music,
TBB 

 
Well, you can measure that with an SPL meter, or a microphone hooked to an audio interface, and into a computer with audio characterization software. Frequencies south of 20 Hz are felt. CDs can reproduce < 20 Hz. Is really up to your rig to keep up with it (specially speakers.) "Punch" is usually located in the 100 Hz range, one can place emphasis there with an EQ if one desires more of it.

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

QFT! Then the question begs, does a 24/96 rip of vinyl sound better than the commercial release if both were made from the same master?

I think so, but you could PM LFF to work on one for you so you can be the judge 

.

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

 
You keep using that word, logic.  I don't think it means what you think it means...
 

 
Yes: but what you think doesn't matter. The reality is that in blind tests no one can tell the difference 320 and wav. Yes, you think you are an exception - just the way that most people think that they have better hearing than average, are better drivers than average, are more intelligent than average. If this makes you feel better, great. Just don't expect anyone else to take you seriously until you pass an abx test.

 

[Theblackbeard]

Quote:

 
 
But it is not just your ears you are also influenced by what you know. This is not a dig at you personally just a matter of Human Psychology. You know that A sounds better than B so lo and behold it does. You know when you change some component so you know that the sound changes. The sighted test is intellectually bankrupt. It is very difficult to not hear a difference even when nothing has actually changed.
 
Here and elsewhere you can read about DBTs they keep us honest perhaps against our will. And in fact DBT turns out to be far more sensitive than sighted listening dog and pony shows.

 
I am well aware reality is second only to perception.  My perceptions are what they are.  I will not be offended by anything anyone says here.  Tsall good nick_charles.
 
Please don't mistake me telling you my experience and opinions as trying to be insulting to your own, ok guys.  I am but a lowly music lover.  I waste no time setting up and performing my own measurements, and likely never will.  For me its about listening to music and enjoying the journey it takes me on 

  
 

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

 
Yes: but what you think doesn't matter. The reality is that in blind tests no one can tell the difference 320 and wav. Yes, you think you are an exception - just the way that most people think that they have better hearing than average, are better drivers than average, are more intelligent than average. If this makes you feel better, great. Just don't expect anyone else to take you seriously until you pass an abx test.

 
You think that no one can pass the test.  Is that because everyone has taken the test?  No.
 
Do you even know how many people have taken the test?  No.
 
Have you taken the test, or just read about it?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
Throughout the history of our hi-fi hobby, there has always been this school of thought that if there is a difference, we must be able to find a measurement that shows us why.  In many cases we have failed to discover why.  
 
To be sure, we have made some progress.  Before the discovery of jitter's effects, there were those who insisted that they could hear differences between CD players.  There were others, (your spiritual brethren, no doubt) who poo pooed their assertions.  Then jitter was discovered.
 
I can remember Julian Hirsch insisting that there was no audible difference between two amps who measured the same in his tests.  Do you really believe that?
 
I fully expect that we will continue to make progress, but as of right now, not everything that makes a difference can be measured, no matter how vehemently you insist otherwise.

 
You need to read Masters and Clark's article "Do All Amplifiers sound the Same". Very interesting read and very illuminating about the difference between sighted and DB listening tests. The sighted tests showed massive perceived differences between amps. The very same listeners denied of the visual cues and knowledge of which was which performed very much worse - basically toss of a coin when identifying which of two amps they were listening to.
 
CD players can sound different when compared in a casual way as the output levels of any two CD players are seldom exactly the same, I had two I could easily tell apart (Blind) as one was 0.7db louder than the other, level matched it was a different matter.
 
Some CD players are frankly bad in very measurable terms (often very expensive ones like the appalling Zanden combo) through incompetent design or intent (i.e Wadia insistence on 3db roll-off and so on) . That said any CD player that competently manages what CD players were designed to do (Flat FR, Low noise , low distortion, good channel matching) will in a level matched blind test be indistinguishable from any other that performs to the same standard. Once you can achieve an FR of +/- 0.5db (20 - 20k), an SNR of 96db and noise below 0.005% the difference between a multi $K and a $350 Marantz. will not be apparent.
 
As for not measurable characteristics of audio you'd be surprised as to how many that seem to you not measurable (when not pure illusions) may be trivially measured. Crosstalk, channel delay, group delay, noise, channel imbalance, FR deviations. All measurable and all contribute to sound (when they are excessively poor)  but not jitter !
 
Jitter is a non-runner. Nobody anywhere has ever in any kind of proper test ever been able to detect the presence or absence of jitter in the magnitude found in (all but grotesquely awful) digital components. Try and find one example from any kind of rigorously conducted test and I guarantee you will fail. I've been a member of the AES and read 100s of their journal articles not one gives any empirical evidence (based on actual listening, not models) to support the issue of jitter as an ongoing problem.

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

To anyone who can't hear the quality difference between a vinyl playing and a cd playing, I really do feel sad for you. 

 
Now you are making me feel guilty! Because I just look at people like you and remember all the blind tests that you have failed and think about the thousands of dollars you have each wasted fooling yourselves and think "First world problems!" and laugh. Quite hard.
 
 

The sound vinyl produces has a warmth to it that cd's simply don't have in my experience.  

 
But your experience is meaningless: when people who make claims like yours are tested they are always easily fooled by a quick tweaking of EQ.
 

Sound waves aren't only picked up by our ears, but also by our bodies.  

 
Not when you are listening through headphones, no. Perhaps you should think about this some more?
 
More: why should the body prefer vinyl sound waves to CD ones? This isn't even a complete bad argument; it's just a fragment of nonsense. And that's before you consider the silliness of the relative bandwidth of vinyl and CD: a good CD  will always be closer to the master and the original performance than good vinyl - vinyl simply lacks the information storage capacity of CD (yes, I know that you probably think that "analog" = "infinite".. in reality, no.)
 

When I listen to vinyl through speakers the effect on me is different than that of listening to a cd of the same music through the same speakers.  How do you measure that?  Am I to believe that this isn't true because I can't measure it?

 
You are to believe that you are very susceptible to the placebo effect. Just like:
 
 

 
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/
 
 group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles" recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
 

 
All of these people thought they could "hear" changes in cable: none of them could. 

 

[Theblackbeard]

I will always be left to wonder how amazing a listen using the Sennheiser Orpheus headphones might be with my vinyl rips...ohhh lord please let me win the lottery lol.
 
Sick...just sick!
 
 

 

[Theblackbeard]

Quote:

 
Now you are making me feel guilty! Because I just look at people like you and remember all the blind tests that you have failed and think about the thousands of dollars you have each wasted fooling yourselves and think "First world problems!" and laugh. Quite hard.
 
 
 
But your experience is meaningless: when people who make claims like yours are tested they are always easily fooled by a quick tweaking of EQ.
 
 
Not when you are listening through headphones, no. Perhaps you should think about this some more?
 
More: why should the body prefer vinyl sound waves to CD ones? This isn't even a complete bad argument; it's just a fragment of nonsense. And that's before you consider the silliness of the relative bandwidth of vinyl and CD: a good CD  will always be closer to the master and the original performance than good vinyl - vinyl simply lacks the information storage capacity of CD (yes, I know that you probably think that "analog" = "infinite".. in reality, no.)
 
 
You are to believe that you are very susceptible to the placebo effect. Just like:
 
 
 
All of these people thought they could "hear" changes in cable: none of them could. 

 
I love fragments of nonsense.  Got a problem with that?  Trying to disprove my experience and perception is a waste of time.  As for the cable notion, coat hangers do work nicely 

.
 
Also, there certainly is a diminishing return on investment as you climb the ladder of costly audio equipment.  I will never spend all that much on audio equipment.  A few choice headphones and some decent speakers sure, but what I like the most is shopping for vintage equipment in old thrift stores.  Amazing what can be found discarded sometimes.  
 
La music c'est mon amour,
TBB

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

I will always be left to wonder how amazing a listen using the Sennheiser Orpheus headphones might be with my vinyl rips...ohhh lord please let me win the lottery lol.
 
Sick...just sick!
 
 

 
It would probably be great. The transducers in your system are probably doing more to hurt sound quality than the mediocre source you are using - getting transducers right is very, very hard. CD players and DAPs can be damn near sonically perfect at $30, but speakers for a moderate sized room will still be much less than perfect at $15,000.
 
Otoh, if you'd dump the MOR for some Miles Davis, Fatboy Slim or The Clash, that would make a bigger difference still...
 

 

[scuttle]

Originally Posted by Theblackbeard /img/forum/go_quote.gif

 Trying to disprove my experience and perception is a waste of time.  

 
If you mean that it wouldn't stop you from "preferring" vinyl, this is probably so. But if you mean that a blind test wouldn't leave you unable to tell the difference between vinyl and CD, no. At least not if we added some noise to the output from the CD...
 
And, yes, an unbiased person would find this highly informative!
 
And I do not say these things to make you feel bad, but because this forum is meant to be a source of objective fact. And as much as you guys may dislike it, there is no objective evidence for the superiority of vinyl, plenty of evidence for its inferiority - and even more evidence for the ability of people to bs themselves into Expensive Fetish Item A sounds better than Cheap Thang B when in fact they both sound the same and those same people cannot tell them apart when they have to so by sound alone.