[analogsurviver]

  This is a must watch

haha

 

[MacacoDoSom]

 
...that's how I'm feeling...

 

[Eee Pee]

 

[lamode]

  I would ask then, out of pure curiosity, if a very expensive vinyl can reproduce as good, better, or worse than the same price digital.

 
 
Quote:

  I will put it this way; up to say 1K, or even 2K price, stick with digital - it does have better performance/cost ratio. It is impossible to have inexpensive QUALITY analog.
 
Above that, things go dicey. I depends on MANY factors - but in the end, even the best digital today can not match a really good direct to disk recording played by a really good turntable. Both can cost WELL north of six figures ...
 
The only exception MIGHT be native HiRez recordings - either PCM or, preferably, DSD.  If done well, they may well sound better than even the best vinyl. 

 
George, please don't listen to our resident troll. At least 99% of LPs recorded in the last 30 years were digitally mixed and mastered so the LP with all its faults has no chance to reproduce the digital master as well as simply transferring the bits from the digital master in the studio straight to your DAC at home. Even with earlier analogue masters, there is no comparison, technically speaking.
 
I think digital beats vinyl at all price points, but that's not to say vinyl sounds bad. The noise and distortion can add a warmth and personality which some people like, but it's not as close to the studio sound.

 

[lamode]

  No, it can not.
 
The frequency response of the vinyl over 100 kHz has been achieved - and both in playback and recording.

 
...which explains why bats really enjoy certain esoteric Japanese vinyl pressings.
 

 

[lamode]

  I would ask then, out of pure curiosity, if a very expensive vinyl can reproduce as good, better, or worse than the same price digital.
 
I am curious if my equipment was the bad thing with the record, or it was the vinyl disc itself..
 
As i understand it, electromagnetic interference can affect vinyl playback pretty easy, and can degrade vinyl discs pretty fast.
 
As a matter of question, what life has a vinyl disc? i mean, i know that the electromagnetic data stored on it is not eternal, but after how much time, the degradation begins to occur?

 
Here's a good guide to some of the vinyl myths: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29

 

[analogsurviver]

   
George, please don't listen to our resident troll. At least 99% of LPs recorded in the last 30 years were digitally mixed and mastered so the LP with all its faults has no chance to reproduce the digital master as well as simply transferring the bits from the digital master in the studio straight to your DAC at home. Even with earlier analogue masters, there is no comparison, technically speaking.
 
I think digital beats vinyl at all price points, but that's not to say vinyl sounds bad. The noise and distortion can add a warmth and personality which some people like, but it's not as close to the studio sound.

True that 99% of LPs recorded in the last 30 years were digitally mixed and mastered.
 
At one point, they all started sounding "the same". No prizes for guessing what was happening at the time.
 
That is why any of the better cartridges will usually wave a flag saying : ( similar to computer asking numerous times : Are you sure you want to format the disk ?)
 
"Are you really sure you want to wear my precious stylus for this digital crap ?"
 
Yet there are still nowadays analog recordings being made - including direct to disk. But you have to be careful - mastering lathes that really do keep the capability to work with analog source and have not been modified for digital master tape are scarce. 
 
There are numerous sources for good old pre digital era LPs - one of the good signs can be seen from afar - their sleeves do not sport an EAN code - it has not been yet invented when there were records made all analog way ! Re-releases may well have an EAN code - and what you do NOT WANT - sign reading digitally remastered.
This would get you the worse of both worlds.
 
If a recording is natively digital, I usually prefer it as a CD.
 
So - why on earth do you think original first press releases of recordings now 60 or so years old still sell for silly money ? Rarity alone - when there are numerous re-re-re-re-releases in digital this digital that ? 
 
Or it may be because of the sound ?

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Here's a good guide to some of the vinyl myths: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29

Oh dear...  -  I have commented on that link before.
 
It is riddled with false - and at best - poorly understood capabilities of vinyl. There are good and accurate accounts - and there are total under appreciations.

 

[lamode]

  So - why on earth do you think original first press releases of recordings now 60 or so years old still sell for silly money ? Rarity alone - when there are numerous re-re-re-re-releases in digital this digital that ? 
 
Or it may be because of the sound ?

 
Certainly the collectability/rarity and NOT the sound quality.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
...which explains why bats really enjoy certain esoteric Japanese vinyl pressings.
 

Um - multitude...
 
Japan vinyl pressings are primarily superiour to anything else because of - you have guessed it - Japanese vinyl. Particularly that developed for the CD-4. No longer in production for decades, unfortunately. Quite a few US audiophile labels pressed their vinyl in Japan because of that - Reference Recordings and Mobile Fidelity included.
 
With esoteric American , sometimes even European music.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Certainly the collectability/rarity and NOT the sound quality.

Ever heard a first press Solti/Wagner on Decca? Second press ? Third ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
First CD ?
 
Second CD ?
 
Final CD ?
 
I did cover that before, if interested, dig out in the old posts.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

   
Well, only if it changes the bits, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps if you are performing a sample rate conversion in software better than the DAC is capable of natively, then it may sound a little better.

Of course in qualitative hardware used enought qualitative algorithms. And there difference will not very big. As usual in hi-fi/hi-end.
 
Here impossible guarantee sound improving due improving ability depend on many factors.
 
Also additional sound improving we can get with moving digital filtration stage from DAC to audio conversion software.
 
If PCM DAC allow directly put digital stream to analog filter, this mode will like multibit DSD with PCM's sample rate.
 
However not all DACs allow turn off internal processing (resampling + filtering).
 
There we can try find "best sounded" DAC's audio resolution (bit depth+sample rate).

 

[Toom]

After the results of the last 24 hours, we need double blind voting here in the UK.

 

[Dobrescu George]

  Edit:  if this hasn't bee asked before.....
 
●   since you already have it, how much does the HQplayer you're promoting cost?
 
●   after you get your degree, will the software you're working on be free to the audiophile community, or are you going to try to charge for it like the HQplayer?

I am not exactly promotin HQplayer, it is not my product, and it is not free. You can test it to see that it manages to change the SQ to something nice!
 
My software is going to be free for everyone who wants to use it. Taking money for software is kind of now working out, because, i usually use freeware software, i think that most people want to do this too, no?
 
 
 

   
...which explains why bats really enjoy certain esoteric Japanese vinyl pressings.
 

 

When i was designing my works, i also considered this to be true. There are high resolution files that have ultrasonic noise on them, and i considered that using a low pass filter could result in a better sound, than letting the ultrasonics go to the DAC.
 
Maybe i am wrong. 
 
I would want a further discussion on the matter, does ultrasonic affect what can be heared?
 
I think that even if they contained high order harmonics, the microphone would had recorded these harmonics, so i do not have to reproduce ultrasonics, to get the best sq possible.

 

[OddE]

 
I should go and check the EXACT aliquotes/frequencies from muted trumpet, etc - with harmonics at say 80 kHz and 83 kHz. It gives intermodulation product of (F2 - F1), which is 3 kHz - which IS audible to any human being. And it is MISSING in CD Redbook. Period.
 
This IS naturally occurring IMD - in sound heard live. It is NOT an intermodulation artefact occurring in the equipment.
 
Now please do not say 3 kHz or so ( or any given real natural intermodulations from ultrasonics falling well within the 20Hz-20 kHz range ) - is inaudible ...

 
-If it is occurring naturally in the venue, the product will be captured by the microphones and reproduced faithfully by whatever recording medium has a larger bandwidth than 3kHz; no need to record the ultrasonic content and hope the full recording->playback chain passes them through and reproduces them at the far end.
 
The 3 kHz tone would be the result of superposition, by the way - not IMD. (Again, splitting hairs is a favourite pastime of mine.)