bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
They usually go back to the original master, not the LP era submaster. No compromises in the original session tapes.
They usually go back to the original master, not the LP era submaster. No compromises in the original session tapes.
Mastering for delivery on vinyl meant taking into account all sorts of physical conditions of the record material that just don't apply any more. The spacing of the grooves is not constant, for example--this is why you can see the bands of material when you hold up a record and let light bounce off its surface--some are dense, the quiet passages; some are further apart, the louder passages. A treatment called the RIAA equalization curve was used (in part) to limit the required size of grooves, allowing more playing time per side on LP's.
A CD does not care how loud the material is. It holds a Redbook CD's worth of data, period. CD's also have some track flexibility here, but the main point is that the amplitude of the signal does not affect playing time on a CD.
So, can you actually hear any benefits of the larger (48dB) dynamic range offered by 24bit? Unfortunately, no you can't. The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD.
I know that some people are going to say this is all rubbish, and that “I can easily hear the difference between a 16bit commercial recording and a 24bit Hi-Rez version”. Unfortunately, you can't, it's not that you don't have the equipment or the ears, it is not humanly possible in theory or in practice under any conditions!!
2 = The concept of the perfect measurement or of recreating a waveform perfectly may seem like marketing hype. However, in this case it is not. It is in fact the fundamental tenet of the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem on which the very existence and invention of digital audio is based. From WIKI: “In essence the theorem shows that an analog signal that has been sampled can be perfectly reconstructed from the samples”. I know there will be some who will disagree with this idea, unfortunately, disagreement is NOT an option. This theorem hasn't been invented to explain how digital audio works, it's the other way around. Digital Audio was invented from the theorem, if you don't believe the theorem then you can't believe in digital audio either!!
Heck, they said it about 16 bit in 1978 and how I cannot hear the difference between the $20 gear on my desk with different chipsets and how I cannot hear DSD as better than whatever.
Not much point in arguing with an objectivist whose belief system is that all that is measurable can be heard and all that you hear can be measured with current technology. Same types made the same arguments 10, 20, 50 years ago.
Heck, they said it about 16 bit in 1978 and how I cannot hear the difference between the $20 gear on my desk with different chipsets and how I cannot hear DSD as better than whatever.
I see no point in engaging people like gregorio. He has his bias, which he puts forth as not being biased.
Vinyl rips converted to FLAC definitely sound better, more natural mid-range, than the ripped CD of same. I actually prefer ripped vinyl over the CD. Only versions that sound as good are very high bit master to FLAC or DSD not PCM for CD but the higher desk bitrate mixdown before any other consolidation is made.
Then you get to a point where the vinyl is bettered.
Not much point in arguing with an objectivist whose belief system is that all that is measurable can be heard
That is not the objectivist position which would posit that you can measure stuff that cannot be heard
and all that you hear can be measured with current technology. Same types made the same arguments 10, 20, 50 years ago.
[size=x-small]Our knowledge of psychophysics is incrementally improving but some objective thresholds of hearing are pretty well [/size]defined[size=x-small] such as the Fletcher-Munson curves and the thresholds for detecting particular types of artifact/distortion - if you choose not to believe in them that is your choice they are entirely disinterested[/size]
Heck, they said it about 16 bit in 1978 and how I cannot hear the difference between the $20 gear on my desk with different chipsets and how I cannot hear DSD as better than whatever.
Can you point to peer-reviewed papers that substantively contradict that opinion, I can point to papers from bodies like JVC back in the late 70s that were able to define the requirements for audio transparency. Regarding DSD vs PCM you need to read Blech and Yang who empirically tested subjects ability to tell them apart, using trained expert listeners including Tonnmeiser students they found that over 97% of subjects could not tell them apart
I see no point in engaging people like gregorio. He has his bias, which he puts forth as not being biased.
Everyone has bias including you and me, however if you state facts that are facts and not just opinions then these are facts even if you are particularly attached to them, opinions without empirical backing are just opinions
Do people have far better vinyl than I've gotten in my purchases? I *still* play all my vinyl records, and I enjoy them, but I would never say they were better than digital, just on the surface noise and pops and clicks alone. The best pressings I own are by Deutsche Gramophon, and they're excellent. For years I religiously cleaned vinyl surfaces before playing. With the best that I could do, with the equipment I could afford (mid-fi Technics direct-drive and Audio-Technica cartridge with an *expensive* hyperelliptical stylus, I still got nowhere near the noise floor of digital.
Perhaps there's some level of pressing quality and playback quality that makes a vinyl rip worth it, but I never once heard that level in years of meticulous LP purchasing and playing.
Do people have far better vinyl than I've gotten in my purchases? I *still* play all my vinyl records, and I enjoy them, but I would never say they were better than digital, just on the surface noise and pops and clicks alone.
Thesholds of audibility aren't that fuzzy. Establshed thresholds can get you in the ballpark, and a simple DBT can nail it down nicely for your own particular ears.