[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Yes...it's very common and very frustrating! Just based on that you KNOW that the album can and does sound better (at least dynamically) and yet we still get a crappy brickwalled release.
 
Often times with my favorite music, the quest really turns on finding the right version/pressing to get the best sound.
 

 
Haha, wait til I bring out the Grammy Nominee album version vs. the album version of some songs
Grammy Nominee albums are great really.
 
 

 

[bigshot]

I was speaking to an old time radio engineer once about 1970s Burwen noise reduction units once. The Transient Noise Eliminator was and still is the best analogue way for dealing with light LP surface noise, but this engineer told me that the Dynamic Noise Reduction unit was extremely controversial among radio engineers at the time because it was possible to turn up the degree of processing so high it severely deteriorated the signal. This was unheard of at the time. Engineers couldn't conceive of equipment capable of making sound worse. Imagine if those engineers could peer into their digital future! Now there are a million different ways of screwing up sound!

 

[LFF]

Quote:

I was speaking to an old time radio engineer once about 1970s Burwen noise reduction units once. The Transient Noise Eliminator was and still is the best analogue way for dealing with light LP surface noise, but this engineer told me that the Dynamic Noise Reduction unit was extremely controversial among radio engineers at the time because it was possible to turn up the degree of processing so high it severely deteriorated the signal. This was unheard of at the time. Engineers couldn't conceive of equipment capable of making sound worse. Imagine if those engineers could peer into their digital future! Now there are a million different ways of screwing up sound!

Yeah...those old timers really knew what they were doing. My audio hero on the entire audio side is Alan Blumlein followed by Roy DuNann. People like them really knew what they were doing. Like you said...today there is a million ways to screw up sound on the production end and a million plus ways to screw it up on the reproduction end. It's a sad state of affairs.
 

 

[LFF]

Quote:

 
Haha, wait til I bring out the Grammy Nominee album version vs. the album version of some songs
Grammy Nominee albums are great really.
 
 

That's a little known secret...
 
I usually get my singles from those albums. Sometimes the difference isn't huge but they are indeed better.
 

 

[bigshot]

Have you ever heard the Duke Ellington unintentional stereo recording? I spoke to the transfer engineer who discovered it. Interesting person, and a great piano player too!

 

[MZ Lab]

Quote:

I use much more expensive gear but then again...Who cares how much the gear is?! That's still comparing apples to oranges because the mastering is different. The huge difference people hear in vinyl vs. CD is simply due to the differences in mastering. The CD does have a larger dynamic range than vinyl but this gets abused (brickwall mastering) and as a result we get crappy sounding CD's that sound inferior to the vinyl counterpart. While high priced gear might help some people attain better sound quality, all that gear is worthless if the mastering isn't done right.
 
I know one mastering engineer who used a master tape, a vinyl lacquer of the master tape and CD transfer of the master tape (all flat). When synchronized, most people in the room couldn't tell the difference between all three. He said he could hear a slight loss of ambiance on the CD but it was very slight. 
 
After many years of dealing with tapes, CD's, LP's, EP's, SACD's, DAD's, DVD's, DVD-A's and now, Blu-Spec, I have come to the conclusion that with adequate mastering, any format can sound great in the hands of a capable engineer. Just my 2 cents.
 

I like your post and I've seen your website but tell me truly how much vinyl mastering have you done?
I see that your interest is in restoration and transfer.  Simply it will be against your business to say that the CD is lesser than a Vinyl record.
 
There is also a company called Sheffield Lab. They released some direct to disc records with fenomenal quality. In many cases they used a single point MS mic.
Later they reissued some of it on CD but the owner - Doug Sax (also an owner of The Mastering Lab) was never happy with the quality of the CD's. 
To tell you the truth I rather listen to him...
I can agree that hi res files 24/88.2 and up are pretty good but the CD .... come on.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

I like your post and I've seen your website but tell me truly how much vinyl mastering have you done?
I see that your interest is in restoration and transfer.  Simply it will be against your business to say that the CD is lesser than a Vinyl record.
 
There is also a company called Sheffield Lab. They released some direct to disc records with fenomenal quality. In many cases they used a single point MS mic.
Later they reissued some of it on CD but the owner - Doug Sax (also an owner of The Mastering Lab) was never happy with the quality of the CD's. 
To tell you the truth I rather listen to him...
I can agree that hi res files 24/88.2 and up are pretty good but the CD .... come on.

 
No, no "come on" about it.  Put up some actual evidence, not anecdotes or opinions - material evidence that's properly cited..

 

[LFF]

 
Quote:

Have you ever heard the Duke Ellington unintentional stereo recording? I spoke to the transfer engineer who discovered it. Interesting person, and a great piano player too!

Yes, I had that CD actually but lost it somehow. All I have now are the crap MP3's I made from it. Should have backed it up to FLAC.
 
 


Quote:

I like your post and I've seen your website but tell me truly how much vinyl mastering have you done?
I see that your interest is in restoration and transfer.  Simply it will be against your business to say that the CD is lesser than a Vinyl record.
 
There is also a company called Sheffield Lab. They released some direct to disc records with fenomenal quality. In many cases they used a single point MS mic.
Later they reissued some of it on CD but the owner - Doug Sax (also an owner of The Mastering Lab) was never happy with the quality of the CD's. 
To tell you the truth I rather listen to him...
I can agree that hi res files 24/88.2 and up are pretty good but the CD .... come on.

 
First of all...I have no need to provide any accountability to you but since you asked, I have done several and I am sure that how ever many I have done, it is definitely more than you. My specialization is in restoration and preservation but I do all types of mastering, be it for vinyl release, CD singles, demo, movie soundtracks, etc.
 
I am very familiar with Sheffield Labs and with Mr. Sax's recording and mastering techniques. His direct to disc records are of phenomenal quality. However, did he ever provide any concrete evidence as to why he was never happy with the quality of the CD's aside from "critical listening"? Mr. Sax has admitted that he knows the vast majority of record companies don't use the master tapes for CD. Thus, vinyl sounds better! (What!) Once again...comparing apple to oranges. When Mr. Sax has compared his own transfers of master tapes to digital he has said that it sounds right to him even though it doesn't have the resolution of the master tape. For what it is worth, all his rants about digital that everyone references were from an article that was published in the 80's! Digital has advanced a great deal since then. He also said many times that "the LP is dead". Regardless, I have a lot of respect for the guy. Frankly, I don't care who you listen to as I really have no agenda to push. I have been on here way before I even started my business and honestly, this audiophile community accounts for 0% of my business. What irks me is when people come around throwing around dollar figures and anecdotal experience trying to make a point that they usually know nothing about.
 
Also, you really need to learn to read. I never said that CD is better or worse than vinyl. My point was that the format is unimportant and that what really counts is the mastering quality. All things being equal, I am willing to bet you would be unable to distinguish a 32/192 file to a 16/44.1 that are the same mastering.

 

[nanaholic]

 
Quote:

I take it you are the only one that may have bothered to check out Mr. Robertson's video? I wonder how he would defend his position in this forum

 

I don't think he has to.  Since in the video he pretty much came out clean and said that it's a philosophical thing that he wants to do the best capture of the vinyl, never did he once claim that the difference is audible.  I'm also not questioning his theory in regards to analog to digital conversion (which he is absolutely correct in theory, I've studied digital signal processing during university), I'm merely questioning whether the difference would be audible by human ears in practice (which if he does claim the scientific facts would be against him on).  
 
It's pretty much like how a lot of the forum people here archive their music in FLAC because it's lossless, but only ever listens to their music at 320kbps because while their hearing can't tell the difference, they just feel better than the archive is in lossless.  This kind of position is subjective and quite defensible, unlike claims that vinyl is superior to CD because the measurable facts surely doesn't support it.  And as many had already pointed out, the culprit is in the mastering not the format.   

 

[khaos974]

 

I don't think he has to.  Since in the video he pretty much came out clean and said that it's a philosophical thing that he wants to do the best capture of the vinyl, never did he once claim that the difference is audible.  I'm also not questioning his theory in regards to analog to digital conversion (which he is absolutely correct in theory, I've studied digital signal processing during university), I'm merely questioning whether the difference would be audible by human ears in practice (which the scientific facts are against him on).  
 
It's pretty much like how a lot of the forum people here archive their music in FLAC because it's lossless, but only ever listens to their music at 320kbps because while their hearing can't tell the difference, they just feel better than the archive is in lossless.  This kind of position is subjective and quite defensible, unlike claims that vinyl is superior to CD because the measurable facts surely doesn't support it.  And as many had already pointed out, the culprit is in the mastering not the format.   

While it's true that there's an inevitable amount of quantization error in the ADC process, it's mostly translated as noise after dithering,

Besides, let's consider a very direct signal chain for an all analog chain (since some people are extolling the virtues of analog vs. digital)
- Suppose that one has a master, one has to.
- create a pressing master, this is a first electromagnetic > mechanical conversion preceded by a heavy equalization.
- press the vinyl, mechanical > mechanical conversion (ever heard of bad pressing?)
- read the vinyl, mechanical > electrical conversion, another source of inaccuracies + re-RIAA equalization

Compared to CD
- from the master to the digital stream arriving to the DAC, zero error is easily achievable nowadays, you only have a single data > analog electrical signal conversion.

I bet that the second option is more faithful to the master than the first. Not to mention the high number of vinyl with a digital master.

 

[grokit]

Well the first pressing is certainly better than subsequent ones, that is for sure. To me that is the biggest advantage of CD "pressings", they are all the same without and generational degradation.
 
And I certainly agree that the quality of the master recording makes the most difference, as opposed to whatever medium the recording is ultimately transferred to.

 

[MZ Lab]

Quote:

 
Yes, I had that CD actually but lost it somehow. All I have now are the crap MP3's I made from it. Should have backed it up to FLAC.
 
 


 
First of all...I have no need to provide any accountability to you but since you asked, I have done several and I am sure that how ever many I have done, it is definitely more than you. My specialization is in restoration and preservation but I do all types of mastering, be it for vinyl release, CD singles, demo, movie soundtracks, etc.
 
I am very familiar with Sheffield Labs and with Mr. Sax's recording and mastering techniques. His direct to disc records are of phenomenal quality. However, did he ever provide any concrete evidence as to why he was never happy with the quality of the CD's aside from "critical listening"? Mr. Sax has admitted that he knows the vast majority of record companies don't use the master tapes for CD. Thus, vinyl sounds better! (What!) Once again...comparing apple to oranges. When Mr. Sax has compared his own transfers of master tapes to digital he has said that it sounds right to him even though it doesn't have the resolution of the master tape. For what it is worth, all his rants about digital that everyone references were from an article that was published in the 80's! Digital has advanced a great deal since then. He also said many times that "the LP is dead". Regardless, I have a lot of respect for the guy. Frankly, I don't care who you listen to as I really have no agenda to push. I have been on here way before I even started my business and honestly, this audiophile community accounts for 0% of my business. What irks me is when people come around throwing around dollar figures and anecdotal experience trying to make a point that they usually know nothing about.
 
Also, you really need to learn to read. I never said that CD is better or worse than vinyl. My point was that the format is unimportant and that what really counts is the mastering quality. All things being equal, I am willing to bet you would be unable to distinguish a 32/192 file to a 16/44.1 that are the same mastering.

I am sorry but you can't possibly know if I've done any vinyl mastering, or if Doug is my friend, or what I can or can't hear... If you read a lot more than me and you are really smarter  you should probably know that  smart  people don't speculate what other people are capable of without knowing them in person.   You never know...

 

[leeperry]

if you actually read it, they state the reasons for it are on the audio production side. For music playback, 44.1kHz is fine and mastering and music production is a far bigger factor than dithering bandwidth etc... on sound quality. I respect Dan but y'know, actually read the thing.
 
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-sacd-vs-cd-part-5/dynamic-comparison-sacd-vs-cd-part-5-page-5
 
- Basically states in more scientific words what I have said above and Audioholics' education sections are darn good as well.
Same really for vinyl vs. CD
 
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-6
 
Conclusion: the format is not the biggest factor, it is dynamic range of the track. Vinyls typically have higher dynamic range in terms of the track, not because of the format.
Same applies for SACD etc...
see hi-rez audio file e-tailers releasing higher dynamic range files on 24/96 so they can charge more.
 

Gotta love how we always seem to understand things differently.
 
1) I don't see what your audioholics links have to do w/ anything I said, yes some SACD's are sourced from CDDA's and yes CDDA can achieve 96dB SNR. It's often brickwalled coz record companies know that loud records sell better, simple as that. Joe Six Pack wants his CD's LOUD when he's playing them in his car or his ipod, the louder the music the less he'll be annoyed by the external noise surrounding him. Also, the ipods output volume is severely capped in Europe...those kids are allowed to blast their eardrums too ya know.
 
But when you don't listen to rock music, you can pretty easily steer away from this loudness nonsense. I've always been a huge fan of Larry Jon Wilson, and his two first albums were recently remastered from the original master tapes. I initially thought that it'd be bs -as usual- and would sound terrible...well, believe or not, there are still some mastering engineers on this planet that care about SQ as this one sounds truly phenomenal

 
A noisy vinyl will never sound this good, case closed.
 
2) Dan Lavry in that link doesn't specifically talk about the optimal sample rate for music production, he also meant it as the optimal sample rate for mastering/music playback. OTOH, Rupert Neve stands his case that 44.1kHz butchers the >20kHz harmonics.
 
http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry_forum/viewtopic.php?p=661#p661

there is a tradeoff between speed (in this case sample rate and bandwidth) and accuracy (how accurately we can process the signal).
[..]
Less accuracy means more distortions and noise. So where do we set the sample rate? In theory, at twice the bandwidth we can hear (Nyquist theorem). In practice, we need some reasonable practical margin

 
And someone else saying the exact same thing as Mr Lavry: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/45106-32-digital-imperfect-audio-engineers-doomed

When I was working directly with telecoms and military types, the "rule of thumb" we used was 2.5x the intended bandwidth [..] By that criteria, 44.1 is a bit low for a 20kHz bandwidth, 96kHz a bit generous.

 

[Willakan]

Yes, mastering engineers like to have a hefty "working space" - 32 bit audio anyone?

 

[leeperry]

Yes, mastering engineers like to have a hefty "working space" - 32 bit audio anyone?

Humm? It's funny how we also always understand things differently.
 
I'm not talking about bit depth here, I'm talking about sample rate...in order to avoid SRC from mastering to playback.
 
Surely, mastering engineers will work in 48int/64fp these days and then use severe dithering to 16int...but that's really not the point of my previous post.