[UltMusicSnob]

   
 
Vinyl is just inherently noisy, it was especially annoying to me back in the 80s trying to listen to quiet passages in classical music, all the imperfections were easily apparent, with headphones it was positively painful. But some recordings are not out on CD and once the music gets to a certain level the noise is drowned out. I still remember my first encounter with CD in Charing Cross Records in 1984. I was in the demo studio and heard the opening bars of Mahler's 1st (Solti/CSO) played back on a Marantz CD63 and there was no noise whatsoever - it was a revelation.

Exactly. Instead of that needle-on-vinyl sound before the music starts, with my first exposure to CD there was **nothing**---then music. As you say, a revelation. I was actually spinning disks on public radio in Kentucky as they made their transition, both vinyl and our new CD's as they came in. I made it a major point during the fund drive periods, to build up our collection of music with this pristine (by comparison) format--no pops and clicks, it was a big deal.

 

[Don Hills]

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.

 
A difference may be measurable, but it may not be audible. However, the corollary is not true. If you can hear a real difference, it can be measured. Current technology is not required, it's been possible to do so for decades.

 

[proton007]

Measurable =!= Audible. Dogs can hear frequencies humans can't.
 
Audible == Measurable ??  Not always. What you 'hear' is your brain activity. You may see and hear things that don't exist.

 

[bigshot]

How do you apply those ideas to getting better sound out of your music, Proton?

 

[UltMusicSnob]

  Measurable =!= Audible. Dogs can hear frequencies humans can't.
 
Audible == Measurable ??  Not always. What you 'hear' is your brain activity. You may see and hear things that don't exist.

For different but related example, in a large orchestral texture, the melody may be played at unison by strings, flutes, oboes, clarinets. The conductor halts the rehearsal and says "2nd clarinet, you're not blending in at the 3rd bar, please match the tone of the 1st chair there."
 
The engineers cannot parse the 2nd clarinet's sound out of the mixdown signal (obviously they could if every part was separately miked). The conductor's brain can take the binaural signal arriving at his/her ears and distinguish every characteristic of every part. The engineer may be able to run stats and see a slightly different spectrum, different peaks, maybe a vanishingly small RMS amplitude difference--but they can neither measure nor point to the difference that the conductor hears, the one s/he cares about.
 
This happens at virtually every orchestra rehearsal (with a decent conductor) everywhere. It's not quite the same as "measuring"; probably this should be called "decoding the signal". Your brain can separate the components of the sound in ways that are not available via hardware or software.

 

[proton007]

How do you apply those ideas to getting better sound out of your music, Proton?

 
 
Well, I've kept my DAC + Amp as clean and neutral as I can (ODAC + O2), use some bit of calculation to match the impedance and power (as in don't get over/underpowered equipment) ,  and use the headphone for the variation in sound.
 
I don't justify buying expensive cables and equipment for a negligible real difference, something that might not even be noticeable, and always consider the possibility that whatever difference I'm hearing might just be placebo, or might be influenced by my mood at that time.
 
The job of the audio chain is to faithfully reproduce the 'signal' from digital to analog. An ideal chain should disappear from the overall system, seemingly linking the source and the transducer directly.

 

[proton007]

  For different but related example, in a large orchestral texture, the melody may be played at unison by strings, flutes, oboes, clarinets. The conductor halts the rehearsal and says "2nd clarinet, you're not blending in at the 3rd bar, please match the tone of the 1st chair there."
 
The engineers cannot parse the 2nd clarinet's sound out of the mixdown signal (obviously they could if every part was separately miked). The conductor's brain can take the binaural signal arriving at his/her ears and distinguish every characteristic of every part. The engineer may be able to run stats and see a slightly different spectrum, different peaks, maybe a vanishingly small RMS amplitude difference--but they can neither measure nor point to the difference that the conductor hears, the one s/he cares about.
 
This happens at virtually every orchestra rehearsal (with a decent conductor) everywhere. It's not quite the same as "measuring"; probably this should be called "decoding the signal". Your brain can separate the components of the sound in ways that are not available via hardware or software.

 
 
I'm pretty sure its possible to analyze all the different notes being played. Signal analysis is pretty sophisticated nowadays.
Or by 'blending' if you mean 'musically pleasing' then its a different concept altogether.

 

[Makiah S]

Just when I thought I found the sane and rational Head-Fi sub-forum. 

lol agreed. I also support the claim that 24bit is n improvenent over 16. But sound wise they offer the same sonic quality

nice view as well proton. Ive always thought of custom cables as a.visual bonus. Monprice rca sounds just as nice as Monster what evers

 

[marone]

If you can hear a real difference, it can be measured. Current technology is not required, it's been possible to do so for decades.

So not true. The human senses pick up things that cannot be yet measured.

Explain the intuition of being watched, stared at or hunted?

Impossible by science - there is no way you could tell someone is looking at you from behind, or that an animal is tracking you.

Vinyl is just inherently noisy, it was especially annoying to me back in the 80s trying to listen to quiet passages in classical music, all the imperfections were easily apparent, with headphones it was positively painful.

Exactly. Instead of that needle-on-vinyl sound before the music starts, with my first exposure to CD there was **nothing**---then music. As you say, a revelation.

.

Both of you lack the ability to hear past the clicks and surface noise, to the more life-like mid-range and body of the instruments in the sound-field. I can ignore those artifacts and hear the more realistic and engaging audio from a FLAC rip of a vinyl source, or an AM radio. FLAC rips of vinyl sound better than the CD of same except in rare cases of a DSD or super FLAC direct master from the non-PCM master.

You cannot. That's preference, not better sound.

When you traded the LP for CD because there was 'nothing but music', you lost tonal accuracy, mid-range realism, clear highs, and many other aspects that are superior to vinyl and are - just now, 35 years later - being matched and bettered by the DSD format.

To you the artifacts of the needle, wow, flutter, rumble, inner groove compression, RIAA curve, and all the rest were more important than the fact that the mid-range was killed by 16-bit and a digital sheen was overlaid upon the music and the highs became grating.

It's similar to listening to state of the art SS recordings from the very early 1960's and comparing them to valve recordings 5 years prior. The SS has less distortion and a quieter background, all measurable of course, but the SS lacks the echo, reverb, decay and lifelike mid-range that the valve recordings have and had - all not measurable but audible.

This is very apparent on Streisand very early recordings where the SS dead air is apparent. Then compare to anything recorded in the late 1950's. Compare the SS recordings of the late 60's with the Living Presence or Mercury releases of 10 years prior.

There is little point in this discussion. You have science as your belief system, and I use my ears.

Neither of us will ever convince the other.

 

[stv014]

Originally Posted by UltMusicSnob /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
The engineers cannot parse the 2nd clarinet's sound out of the mixdown signal (obviously they could if every part was separately miked). The conductor's brain can take the binaural signal arriving at his/her ears and distinguish every characteristic of every part. The engineer may be able to run stats and see a slightly different spectrum, different peaks, maybe a vanishingly small RMS amplitude difference--but they can neither measure nor point to the difference that the conductor hears, the one s/he cares about.

 
Analyzing the music itself, and simply making sure it is reproduced accurately are two separate issues. The latter just needs accurate hardware, which is already available and has been for some time, while the former is more of a software (even artificial intelligence if you want to make it really advanced) issue; after all, humans can still separate the parts of music, recognize voices, etc. with 22 kHz 8-bit format digital signals, so it is not a question of "resolution".

 

[stv014]

There is little point in this discussion. You have science as your belief system, and I use my ears.

 
So, why not try using your ears (and only those, rather than your imagination) in some tests that have been suggested before ?

 

[xnor]

There is little point in this discussion. You have science as your belief system, and I use my ears.

Yeah, we're interested in reality and, at least I am, interested in minimizing faith. If you're interested in the imagined and maximizing ignorance then go ahead, no one is stopping you. But think about where you're posting.
 

 Neither of us will ever convince the other.

That may be very well true for you. It's called closed-mindedness.
 
By now it's pretty much clear you're just spouting things you believe to be true (some of which are blatantly wrong) and stir things up. We don't need that.
 
If you have a proper argument as to why 24 bits are better during playback please let us know. We're open-minded and very interested in sound arguments and evidence, ready to change our minds.

 

[jaddie]

So not true. The human senses pick up things that cannot be yet measured.

Explain the intuition of being watched, stared at or hunted?

Impossible by science - there is no way you could tell someone is looking at you from behind, or that an animal is tracking you.

What's described here are "feelings", not sensory input.  You're right, so far we can't measure feelings.  We can, however, measure the stimulus that becomes sensory input.
 
Quote:

When you traded the LP for CD because there was 'nothing but music', you lost tonal accuracy, mid-range realism, clear highs, and many other aspects that are superior to vinyl and are - just now, 35 years later - being matched and bettered by the DSD format.

To you the artifacts of the needle, wow, flutter, rumble, inner groove compression, RIAA curve, and all the rest were more important than the fact that the mid-range was killed by 16-bit and a digital sheen was overlaid upon the music and the highs became grating.
 

Please allow me to speak as someone who has had an opportunity most listeners will never have, that of comparing the direct un-recorded output of an analog mixing console to the exact signal passed through A/D and D/A.  We had the return of an early Sony digital recording system sent back to the console monitor selector switch, which permitted a direct A/B comparison to un-ditigized "live" vs digitally recorded and reproduced.  In sighted A/B tests, we would often think we could pick the digital version out, but in unsighted A/B tests, our best and youngest ears scored 50/50 (guessing).  In fact, the monitor selector often got left in the digital monitor position by accident, and nobody in the control room noticed until the looked at the switch.  However, if we played a vinyl record in the same room, in sync, and with accurate and verified RIAA eq, and compared it to the digital master, the difference was always clear and obvious.  On pristine vinyl with very low noise and no defects, we could hear higher distortion in the vinyl, though from a frequency response, stereo perspective, reverb, and dynamics viewpoint they sounded nearly identical.  None of that amazing vinyl sound everyone expects.  When you compare vinyl and digital, you aren't comparing the same recordings and mastering, you're comparing two entirely different signal chains.  No fair, and meaningless.
 
 

It's similar to listening to state of the art SS recordings from the very early 1960's and comparing them to valve recordings 5 years prior. The SS has less distortion and a quieter background, all measurable of course, but the SS lacks the echo, reverb, decay and lifelike mid-range that the valve recordings have and had - all not measurable but audible.

This is very apparent on Streisand very early recordings where the SS dead air is apparent. Then compare to anything recorded in the late 1950's. Compare the SS recordings of the late 60's with the Living Presence or Mercury releases of 10 years prior.

There is little point in this discussion. You have science as your belief system, and I use my ears.

Neither of us will ever convince the other.

 

Again, this is comparing apples and pork chops.  Two different recordings, 10 years apart, different studios, mics, acoustics, producers, and you conclude the older one is better because it didin't use a particular technology, which had the least impact of any of those things I just listed.
 
After working in the industry for 40+ years (audio engineering, broadcasting, recording, music production, etc.), looking for to see if analog anything is better than digital (since it's introduction) I'm sorry, I can't find it.  I find reasons why the results are different, but they are all, and I mean ALL related to decisions humans made along the line, not the technology itself.  I've made masters both ways simultaneously from the same console output.  Digital was always better, no question, completely transparent, an identical copy of the console output.
 
There are some really horrible analog/vinyl recordings too.  As one example, RCA "Living Presence" of Chicago Symphony/Reiner playing "Mysterious Mountain" by Alan Hovhaness.  I have the vinyl and the "remastered" cd.  Both are loaded with distortion and intermod.  The simply hit tape way to hard.  The record suffers from sub-standard vinyl, so it's full of defects (tried several copies, all are this way), and the CD has none of that.  Both have exactly the same soundstage.  The performance was spectacular, and RCA captured Reiner's string sound, but smashed the daylights out of high levels.  So much for analog.
 
You can find good and bad examples in all types of recordings. It's people, not technology.

 

[gjfs]

So not true. The human senses pick up things that cannot be yet measured.

That you don't know how to measure something does not make it unmeasurable.

 

[Makiah S]

  Please allow me to speak as someone who has had an opportunity most listeners will never have, that of comparing the direct un-recorded output of an analog mixing console to the exact signal passed through A/D and D/A.  We had the return of an early Sony digital recording system sent back to the console monitor selector switch, which permitted a direct A/B comparison to un-ditigized "live" vs digitally recorded and reproduced.  In sighted A/B tests, we would often think we could pick the digital version out, but in unsighted A/B tests, our best and youngest ears scored 50/50 (guessing).  In fact, the monitor selector often got left in the digital monitor position by accident, and nobody in the control room noticed until the looked at the switch.  However, if we played a vinyl record in the same room, in sync, and with accurate and verified RIAA eq, and compared it to the digital master, the difference was always clear and obvious.  On pristine vinyl with very low noise and no defects, we could hear higher distortion in the vinyl, though from a frequency response, stereo perspective, reverb, and dynamics viewpoint they sounded nearly identical.  None of that amazing vinyl sound everyone expects.  When you compare vinyl and digital, you aren't comparing the same recordings and mastering, you're comparing two entirely different signal chains.  No fair, and meaningless.
 
 
Again, this is comparing apples and pork chops.  Two different recordings, 10 years apart, different studios, mics, acoustics, producers, and you conclude the older one is better because it didin't use a particular technology, which had the least impact of any of those things I just listed.
 
After working in the industry for 40+ years (audio engineering, broadcasting, recording, music production, etc.), looking for to see if analog anything is better than digital (since it's introduction) I'm sorry, I can't find it.  I find reasons why the results are different, but they are all, and I mean ALL related to decisions humans made along the line, not the technology itself.  I've made masters both ways simultaneously from the same console output.  Digital was always better, no question, completely transparent, an identical copy of the console output.
 
There are some really horrible analog/vinyl recordings too.  As one example, RCA "Living Presence" of Chicago Symphony/Reiner playing "Mysterious Mountain" by Alan Hovhaness.  I have the vinyl and the "remastered" cd.  Both are loaded with distortion and intermod.  The simply hit tape way to hard.  The record suffers from sub-standard vinyl, so it's full of defects (tried several copies, all are this way), and the CD has none of that.  Both have exactly the same soundstage.  The performance was spectacular, and RCA captured Reiner's string sound, but smashed the daylights out of high levels.  So much for analog.
 
You can find good and bad examples in all types of recordings. It's people, not technology.

 
Nice read thank you for chimming in here! 
 
Like the last part as well