Tuner better than CD player?

[GeoffW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus well.......... are you SURE that you are describing your results with the correct terms? cause i can tell you, unless if your CD player is worse than the worst that could ever be bought at wal-mart.... there is LESS measurable "detail," "dynamics," and "transients." ....but... more detail? no way. more dynamics?--hell no! ...radio is HEAVILY compressed. not even close to a CD's dynamic range.

What can I say? Logic tells me one thing, but my ears tell me another

I should clarify the "detail" comment - the detail I hear is more "spatial" detail. It seems that instruments are more well-defined in the soundstage. I guess that would be called better imaging.

Regarding dynamics, I think I remember reading that radio goes to 15khz, while CD goes to 20Khz. So in absolute terms, yes CD should be much better. I can't explain it. They could be (and probably are) using better recordings & equipment than I have. And some of that quality is finding it's way to my ears.

Quote:

.......but, the phenomenon you are describing is similar to something a vinyl-lover experiences. the combination of distortion and high-frequency roll-off, smaller dynamic range, and the addition of pleasing artifacts and noise can produce something that you find better than CD sound. [/B]

As JaZZ and others have commented, there may be euphonic distortions acting to make the sound more enjoyable, I don't know. I do notice that violins and string sections seem more "alive". They just seem to have more "guts". Maybe euphonic distortion has something to do with that.

Quote:

anyway... try buying a turntable. if you find your radio sounds better, it's very likely you'd like vinyl too. i'm trying to buy one myself.... seems like fun.

I have a 15 year old turntable stuffed away in a closet somewhere. Maybe I'll dig it out.

 

[tanfenton]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus but, the phenomenon you are describing is similar to something a vinyl-lover experiences.

What is it you think we experience? Why do we listen to music this way?

NGF

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

Regarding dynamics, I think I remember reading that radio goes to 15khz, while CD goes to 20Khz. So in absolute terms, yes CD should be much better. I can't explain it. They could be (and probably are) using better recordings & equipment than I have. And some of that quality is finding it's way to my ears.

geoffw, we're talking about different things. you see, dynamics usually refers to the volume changes in a program. it has nothing to do with frequencies. frequency response has some to do with what you would call "detail," because having a frequency response that extends higher would result in a sharper and more detailed sound. there are other things that effect "detail" too though.

but anyway.......... again, i dunno what a technical defination of dynamics is, but it's basically the range of volume that your equipment can reproduce. i'm not sure what the dynamic range of radio really is, but radio stations use a technology called "compression" that does what it sounds like... it compresses the dynamic range. they do that for several reasons... one, because radio stations battle each other based simply on how loud they are (compression makes things sound louder), it brings out small details that would be lost in the background noise, and verious other reasons. anyway, radio is heavily compressed.... and really doesn't have much of a dynamic range at all.

Quote:

What is it you think we experience? Why do we listen to music this way?

.........i think for one, a person who enjoys the sound quality of radio/vinyl over CD probably objects to what is thought of as "digital harshness." i think that phrase is not appropriate though--that what is harshness is actually accuracy. you see... if your ear settles on the sound of vinyl, CD WILL sound harsh. and if you listen to CD a lot and listen to vinyl briefly, vinyl WILL sound rolled-off. ..........how do we know which one is accurate though?--well, the frequency response of vinyl is nowhere close to CD's.... so, i would say that's pretty much proof that it is vinyl/radio that is misrepresenting the music.

now...... as for personal experiences: a friend recently brought his MMF turntable over. we hooked it up to my studio system and i listened pretty carefully. here's the story....... i thought that the turntable sounding muffled, so i enabled the EQ on my Mackie 32x8 and pumped up the 12khz range... and made some other changes. ....well, then the turntable sounded more like the familiar CD sound. i fiddled with some more stuff... and we listened for a while.... and ate dinner. then.............. i wanted to compare with my CD player, so i got a CD of the same album that was playing on vinyl and started to compare............. and i was like........... What they ******, they sound very close! my heart sank..... and i was about to apologize for bashing on the turntable to my friend. i couldn't believe that the turntable sounded very close to my CD player!........................................... ..... i couldn't believe it. there goes my honor..... proven wrong by this real-life experience.

then...... guess what?-----------i noticed that the EQ was still engaged!

god i laughed. i turned of the EQ, and voila.......... the expected turntable sound was back!........ totally rolled-off. what a relief!--almost had to apologize! ha ha.

now i have to admit, the turntable sounded much better than i was expecting. enough so, that i wanted one for myself. it seemed like so much fun. i watched my friend go through his ritual (yes, it really is a ritual)... he takes the vinyl out of the sleeve like cherrished china...... then he places it on the platter and inks up his solvent pad. then proceeds to carefully clean the vinyl. then after a minute he's satisfied and goes to his "carbon fiber" brush and then does another round of cleaning. then he stares and marvles at his brilliant reflection on the newly cleaned face............................. man. took 2 minutes before we even could play the damn thing!........ but still.... it looked like fun.

anyway........... much of geoffw's original comments can be easily explained with some common sense. like, "Smooth, rich, and luxurious.".............. if the sound is rolled off, the sound WILL sound smooth and rich, simnply because it is lacking what would be harsh, which is in the upper frency range.

well....... there's more to why i think people like vinyl/radio..... but i'm tired of writing, so i'll stop now.

(ps....... what's NGF? i searched the web and couldn't find the correct acronym.)

 

[tanfenton]

I wish we could take this up further voice to voice. You make some thoughtful points.

NGF (my initials)

 

[Orpheus]

well, thank you. i don't expect anyone to agree... i'm just offering an argument. again, thank you for the compliment.

we can actually.... talk i mean. i always include a business card in my free CD offer. hint hint...

(now..... i'm gonna put on my chainmail, cause i feel the dark side readying their attack...... tuberoller, the darth vader of vinyl himself...

)

 

[GeoffW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus geoffw, we're talking about different things. you see, dynamics usually refers to the volume changes in a program. it has nothing to do with frequencies. frequency response has some to do with what you would call "detail," because having a frequency response that extends higher would result in a sharper and more detailed sound. there are other things that effect "detail" too though.

Agreed - sorry for the misnomer.

Quote:

radio stations battle each other based simply on how loud they are (compression makes things sound louder), it brings out small details that would be lost in the background noise anyway, radio is heavily compressed.... and really doesn't have much of a dynamic range at all.

I think this is definitely true. Sweeping crescendos don't have as much impact on FM as they do on CD. But I actually like this dynamic leveling late at night - it's relaxing. And if it brings out more detail, that's fine with me. It's amazing how much detail I can actually hear. The reverberations of instruments through the concert hall, for example.


Quote:

...CD WILL sound harsh. and if you listen to CD a lot and listen to vinyl briefly, vinyl WILL sound rolled-off. ..........how do we know which one is accurate though?--well, the frequency response of vinyl is nowhere close to CD's.... so, i would say that's pretty much proof that it is vinyl/radio that is misrepresenting the music.

Shouldn't your ear be the ultimate judge, rather than fidelity to a frequency response curve? When I go to a classical concert, it doesn't sound harsh at all. It sounds smooth and very detailed, sometimes even airy. The recording is not the real thing - it's an approximation of a real experience. IMO, the electronics should do whatever it can to reconstruct this experience from the recording. Maybe this means interpreting the (limited) data in non-standard ways.

Quote:

anyway........... much of geoffw's original comments can be easily explained with some common sense. like, "Smooth, rich, and luxurious.".............. if the sound is rolled off, the sound WILL sound smooth and rich, simnply because it is lacking what would be harsh, which is in the upper frency range.

If that were true, then I could just EQ out the top end of the CD source to make it sound richer. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

If that were true, then I could just EQ out the top end of the CD source to make it sound richer. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.

well................. have you tried? heh he.

try this on your CD player: first roll off the high end a bit... starting at 10khz. boost the bass a little.... let's say 200hz and down. just a bit. ...maybe boost a little in the middle.... like around 500-2000hz... amount to how rich you want it. now, raise the volume a little. sound a little richer?

 

[qwerty870]

I attend live classical music performances weekly. They do not sound harsh yet they do not sound quite like vinyl either. But if I had to pick one that was closer to what I hear live I would pick vinyl because of its greater tonal accuracy (IMO). More instruments sound more accurate.

On another note the more money I've thrown at my CD player the less "digital harshness" I've gotten. Anyone who's heard the Linn CD12 or the dCs Burmester reference digital gear knows what I'm talking about. Therefore I dont think harshness is necessarily inherent to the CD format. The better SACDs (of which they are few) offer most of the sonic benefits of both formats and little harshness at all (IMO.)

Remember "Not everything that can be measured counts, and not everything that counts can be measured." - Albert Einstein

 

[Orpheus]

and that might be true. .....but the issue is more complicated than just what sounds closer to the performance.

...here at home, i record using a computer. before being recorded, i listen to my music live on my monitors of course. that is the original sound. then.... i record to my computer. when i monitor the recorded sound, sounds pretty much the same as the original source (the live music.) follow? so... my digital recording sounds the same as my source.

now...... i usually use synths, and i don't normally employ real musicians. ....but, when i do record a real voice, i will tell you, the recorded sound DOES NOT sound like the real voice. it sounds like a "miked" voice. ................? now, you understand where i'm going right?

....so here's the point: digital is accurately recording what it is being fed, HOWEVER, what is being recorded never did sound like the original performance in the first place!

Quote:

I attend live classical music performances weekly. They do not sound harsh yet they do not sound quite like vinyl either. But if I had to pick one that was closer to what I hear live I would pick vinyl because of its greater tonal accuracy (IMO). More instruments sound more accurate.

so........ why is this, if i think digital is more accurate? well, as i have said before, opinions like this can easily be explained with some common sense. ....now, keep in mind, CDs/vinyl are only as good as the sound that was recorded to them. since the sound being recorded was not what a human actually hears sitting their in the audience, but actually what the microphones heard, the sound after recording was also not what a human heard. microphones are far from perfect. they are like speakers--they have imperfect frequency responses, and also impart distortion. in fact, the most expensive condenser mics ($3000-15,000) aren't necessarily the most accurate. they are chosen for their sound. so, sound after being miked inherently sounds different from the original live performance.

......so, what does vinyl sound more like the original performance according to qwerty870?--well, i propose my theory: that the distortion/frequency roll-off/noise artifacts/etc... all combine to partially reverse the effects of microphone usage, or more possibly cover it up somehow.

 

[qwerty870]

Quote:

...here at home, i record using a computer. before being recorded, i listen to my music live on my monitors of course. that is the original sound. then.... i record to my computer. when i monitor the recorded sound, sounds pretty much the same as the original source (the live music.) follow? so... my digital recording sounds the same as my source.

Of course it does. It was digital to start with.

Quote:

and that might be true. .....but the issue is more complicated than just what sounds closer to the performance.

Not for me. I listen mainly to unamplified music. Whatever sounds to me most like the performance is what I'll listen too. Of course its not always vinyl. A well recorded CD will always beat a poorly recorded LP. To each his own for it is obvious that I have made up my desicion and Orpheus his own.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

Of course it does. It was digital to start with.

the origins of the source is irrelevant. the point is that digital recording can accurately record what was fed to it. whether it was a real voice or my synths makes no difference to my argument.

 

[qwerty870]

Quote:

the origins of the source is irrelevant. the point is that digital recording can accurately record what was fed to it. whether it was a real voice or my synths makes no difference to my argument.

Do you honestly believe this? Read it out loud to yourself and see if you can do it with a straight face.

 

[Orpheus]

huh? i think you misunderstand the argument. ......this isn't an opinion. this is a logical argument. and there's nothing wrong with my argument that i can tell.

.......i'll say it in a different way: whatever it is i'm recording, my monitor feed sounds the same as the resulting recording when recording digital. so, ...i am comparing the sound before recording, and after. so, do you understand?--it doesn't matter if my source is a digital synth or a live singer singing into a mic. my argument remains the same.

the assumption to my previous posts was of course that i really didn't hear a significant difference before and after digital conversion. that's the only opinion.

 

[qwerty870]

The difference between a digital source and a analog (live) source is large. When recording from a digital synth (via midi right?) you never leave the digital domain. NO conversion takes place. Of course your recording sounds like the actual thing. For all purposes it is the same.

Does your live feed from your mic preamp sound exactly the same as your recording of it? Unless you have really expensive pro-gear I strongly doubt it. Whenever you get a chance to record a live performer listen directly from your mic preamp and then to your recording? Can you honestly say they are the same? I have done a little amatuer recording and with my gear the recording is never the same as the mic feed. Perhaps you'll say my ADC (MSB - PRO) is not perfect or that my DACs (Perpetual technologies P-3A with modwright mods and power supply) is also not perfect and of course you'd be right. But no matter how good your digital recording equipment is how can you deffinitely say that what you've recorded is exactly the same as the mic feed? It is not and can never be no matter what format you choose to record on.

 

[GeoffW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus well................. have you tried? heh he. try this on your CD player: first roll off the high end a bit... starting at 10khz. boost the bass a little.... let's say 200hz and down. just a bit. ...maybe boost a little in the middle.... like around 500-2000hz... amount to how rich you want it. now, raise the volume a little. sound a little richer?

Actually that combination sounds muffled and distant. No, there is definitely something more than just EQ'ing going on with FM.

Yesterday I was listening to jazz (miles davis, I think) on FM, and I was just amazed at the rich detail, especially the pinpoint imaging. The bass, piano, trumpet, and drums occupied very distinct regions on the soundstage. I could even (spatially) distinguish between the right and left drumsticks on the snares, and the bass and treble registers on the piano. Of course this was all presented by my excellent CD3k's, but still, all that musical information had to be there to begin with.