ultrabike
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Posts
- 913
- Likes
- 108
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.