Why do my LP's sound better than CDs? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Why do my LP's sound better than CDs?



20to20K
03-07-2005, 09:00 AM
I've recently started playing my vinyl again after ignoring it for about 10 years. I was able to find a new stylus for my Signet OM40 cartridge to put on my Denon DP37L turntable.
I also upgraded the RCA jacks with Monster interconnects when I had a recent short.
Good analog equipment...but definitely not what an audiophile would consider high-end.

I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!

The music was tighter, sharper, and cleaner. Sure you had a little surface noise but that was usual only noticible between tracks and at the quietest of passages. The CD's on the other hand had a harshness to them. Particularly the higher frequencies had a shrillness to it. Female vocals had an echo and the bass seemed more muddy.

Mind you none of this was apparent to me when I only listened to CD's...it was only when I hooked up my turntable and compared the two did I hear these differences. Could there be something wrong with my CD player? I've gone through all the audio set menus on the 2200 and I believe everything to be set up correctly. Could there be something obvious I'm missing? Would it sound better if I connected it through a Tosc link to my AVR's CD input instead of the DVD input? Here's the rest of my equipment:

Denon 3805
ATI 1502 amp (front only)
Polk LSi 15
Polk LSi C
Polk FXi 3 (rears)
Velodyne DLS4000 sub
Monster M series biwire(front and center only)
Monster interconnects

theaudiohobby
03-07-2005, 10:14 AM
There may be couple of reasons for this, but one that was suggested in the latest edition of Hi-Fi News, that I had not thought of before but once you think about it, it is fairly obvious, that is that the limited dynamic range of LPs gives them an upper hand much in the same way as subtle use of compression makes wide dynamic range music more listenable on dynamically challenged equipment. More to the point and on more subjective level and even objective level, there are a variety of reasons why an LP may sound better than the equivalent CD, however shrillness and harshness should not be included or least should be very minimal except on the most incompetent engineered CDs, so without mincing words, I will suggest that your CDP or DAC section of your receiver is very sub-standard vis -a vis your analog gear.

As for your question, I very much doubt that changing the digital input will alter the sound much since they pass through same DAC, changing from toslink to coaxial may have some effect but not so much as to totally banish the reported issues, though you may give a try. Since you are already using the DAC section of your receiver, audition better DACs. Also why not try out the analog outputs of your CDP, they may sound better than the receiver.

ericl
03-07-2005, 10:22 AM
I've been recently ramping up my home theater and computer audio - surround receiver/speakers, airport express, etc and have been listening to my vintage thorens/fisher/klipsch system much less. In fact I was just about to go buy a denon 2200 like you've got. I was toying with the idea of packing up the vintage system for a while because the speakers, turntable and records take up so much space. Digital is so much more convenient, I also felt like the digital end of my system was getting pretty good.

Then I threw on a record after not listening to vinyl for while. GEEZ! The sound is so much better it is just silly. All the experimenting and investment and time spent on the digital end just can't compete with my 25 yo turntable, worn out shure cartridge, 40 year old tube receiver, and 25 year old klipsch speakers. I guess I won't be able to pack up the records after all!

So we've established that the denon 2200 is inferior to vinyl, but how has it been for you in general as a player? I am considering buying this guy used for a decent price. How's the video, sacd, etc?

Thanks,
Eric

20to20K
03-07-2005, 10:56 AM
I've been recently ramping up my home theater and computer audio - surround receiver/speakers, airport express, etc and have been listening to my vintage thorens/fisher/klipsch system much less. In fact I was just about to go buy a denon 2200 like you've got. I was toying with the idea of packing up the vintage system for a while because the speakers, turntable and records take up so much space. Digital is so much more convenient, I also felt like the digital end of my system was getting pretty good.

Then I threw on a record after not listening to vinyl for while. GEEZ! The sound is so much better it is just silly. All the experimenting and investment and time spent on the digital end just can't compete with my 25 yo turntable, worn out shure cartridge, 40 year old tube receiver, and 25 year old klipsch speakers. I guess I won't be able to pack up the records after all!

So we've established that the denon 2200 is inferior to vinyl, but how has it been for you in general as a player? I am considering buying this guy used for a decent price. How's the video, sacd, etc?

Thanks,
Eric

Keeping in mind that I've never owned anything other than conventional CD players before the higher resolution formats sound "good" to me...but still not as good as my analog. One source material I was fortunute to have in all three formats: LP, conventional CD, and SACD. That was the Police Synchronicity...a very well recorded album. While the SACD sound was noticibly better than conventional CD...my 20 year old LP blew them both away!

The dynamic range issue that the previous poster mentioned is possible...it does make sense, but if that's the case why don't they mix down the digital sources to compensate for this? I mean like you say...digital is easy right? I would certainly expect a SACD to sound as good as it possibly can. There no way a 20 year old over the counter LP should sound better.

There are a couple of quircks about the 2200 I don't like. You can't que up a track to play.
You must first start the disk playing from the begining, skip to the track you want, then quickly hit pause (or skip back again)...quite annoying. Also the fast scan feature is useless...it only has one speed...which I believe is only 2x...and it's completely audible.
The onscreen menu is far from intuitive and the instruction manual is only of minimal help...of course this is a patented and well documented Denon shortcoming.

On the other hand...the video is awesome. Reads every DVD I throw at it, great picture, great sound. No complaints on the video end...but keep in mind I'm probably 85% audio
and 15% video...and a good chunk of that video is music concerts.

I love my Denon turntable though! Would trade it for anything!

Does anyone think I would benefit from buy a higher end CD player (Linn, Meridian, etc) and using that for 2 channel listening exclusively?

hermanv
03-07-2005, 11:39 AM
When I was first seduced by hearing a high end system I decided to junk my exsisting equipment. I had probably paid about $500 for the whole set-up. Clearly seperates were the way to go. I bought an expensive Denon 20 bit(!) CD and an expensive Denon integerated Amp about $1,400 and a pair of $800 speakers (used). This was 15 years ago, I thought that the amount I spent was real money and I was in the big time. I wasn't very happy with the end result.

Now I know that careful attention to each piece of gear, picking pieces from manufacturers that have good reputations for that particular kind of device is neccesary to avhieve optimum sound for a given price point. Over the years I have gone back and listened to Denon digital gear and to me it always has that harsness, glare or etch. I haven't heard every thing they make but what I have heard has a consistent signature in the mid to upper mid frequency range which to me at least is unpleasant.

musicoverall
03-07-2005, 12:19 PM
...the LP's sound better to me!

Me, too! Possible reasons - not that I say "possible":

1) Redbook CD is simply not high enough resolution to accurately reproduce music. This would make some sense in that my SACD's level the playing field between analog and digital.
2) The recordings you have were done well on vinyl and the digitization to CD was done less well.
3) Your digital components are not up to snuff. Note that I own a Denon PMA-2000R CDP in my basement system and I do not find it harsh sounding. It's actually a tad bit on the dull side. However, after recently replacing my DAC in my main system, redbook CD sound is much improved. Still not as good as vinyl but much closer.
4) The reputedly narrower frequency response of the LP is shaving off some glare that the CD passes through.
5) The LP has some measurable built-in distortions that convey more of a sense of realism while being less accurate and you like the sound of these distortions.

There are probably more. I would lean more towards number 2 and then number 1 in which case you have few options for improvement. You might audition a few other CD players and see if that helps any and use the Denon for high rez audio and video. My personal feeling is that if vinyl sounds better to you than CD, you might simply start checking out flea markets and used shops and buying more vinyl! :)

risabet
03-07-2005, 12:21 PM
There may be couple of reasons for this, but one that was suggested in the latest edition of Hi-Fi News, that I had not thought of before but once you think about it, it is fairly obvious, that is that the limited dynamic range of LPs gives them an upper hand much in the same way as subtle use of compression makes wide dynamic range music more listenable on dynamically challenged equipment. More to the point and on more subjective level and even objective level, there are a variety of reasons why an LP may sound better than the equivalent CD, however shrillness and harshness should not be included or least should be very minimal except on the most incompetent engineered CDs, so without mincing words, I will suggest that your CDP or DAC section of your receiver is very sub-standard vis -a vis your analog gear.

As for your question, I very much doubt that changing the digital input will alter the sound much since they pass through same DAC, changing from toslink to coaxial may have some effect but not so much as to totally banish the reported issues, though you may give a try. Since you are already using the DAC section of your receiver, audition better DACs. Also why not try out the analog outputs of your CDP, they may sound better than the receiver.


True the dynamic range of analog is limited compared to the theoretical limit of digital media; reality is that very few popular or classical recordings utilize all of the dynamic range of either format. Popular music is dreadfully compressed and most vinyl albums, save the few Classical Decca's, Living Stereos, Lyritas etc are not utilizing the full DR of that medium either. Some of the rock reissues are better but most current music is recorded horribly

Personally, I have yet to hear any pair of recordings, when presented on CD and vinyl, where the vinyl isn't preferable in almost every important aspect save, sometimes, bass clarity, not necessarily bass extension. Specifically Appalachian Spring (Reference Recordings, RR-22 and CREF-22), when compared side by side on vinyl and on CD, with matched levels, sounds significantly more realistic on vinyl then on CD.

musicoverall
03-07-2005, 12:21 PM
[QUOTE=musicoverall]Me, too! Possible reasons - not that I say "possible":QUOTE]

"Not" in the above sentence should be "Note"..

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-07-2005, 04:59 PM
I think that LP sounds better to most of you because it was mastered with better care than their CD counterparts. Also early digital recording used digital recorders with brickwall filters in their D/A conversion. Very nasty on the high frequencies. I believe musicoverall pretty much summed it all up.

RobotCzar
03-07-2005, 05:00 PM
I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!


Why tell us what your equipment is? Do you think hearing LPs as being superior has something to do with your specific equipment?

There are four reasons you might hear LPs as being better than your CDs, but I only know three:

1) You have bad judgement of what is "better" recorded sound.
2) The recordings on CD are not as good as those on vinyl.
3) Vinyl is adding some effect that you like.

Item 2) is often the problem as recordings have to be mixed differently for LP than CD and the CD mix is not done very well. This is true of many pop/rock CDs as often no care is taken in creating the CD. Even if the recording has been properly remixed for CD, you may not like the recording engineer's take on how the music should sound.

Item 3) either the noise level is acting as a audible biasing agent (don't ask) or perhaps the hyper demensionality displayed by the way LPs kludge stereo is to your liking.

This has come up before so I will simply make two points:

a) The CD medium is significantly superior in every measured variable including noise, distortion and frequency response (except for extension of recorded high frequencies into the ultrasonic).

b) You can check these factors by either listening to better recordings--such as non-multitracked jazz or classical on both LP and CD or you can take a more experimental approach (which I know you might like) and record your LP onto a recordable CD and then make the comparison (they should sound identical). If they do sound identical, then either factor 2) or 3) above is true.

royphil345
03-07-2005, 05:28 PM
You said your DVD / CD player is hooked up with a toslink? Try a coax cable connection if possible. Always sounds better to me. If one of your components lacks a coax input / output, try a glass toslink if yours is not glass. You will hear a difference in detail, bass and smoothness.

I just bought this inexpensive one on eBay, a big improvement over the Monster toslink I was using. http://stores.ebay.com/24-7-MINIDISCS_W0QQssPageNameZl2QQtZkm

JoeE SP9
03-07-2005, 06:19 PM
I've really really tried, honest! Vinyl still sounds better to me. My lady friends prefer vinyl also. I can listen for longer periods of time when playing vinyl. I have quite a few recordings on vinyl and CD. In every instance I prefer the vinyl. The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl. No, that is not an editing mistake.

theaudiohobby
03-08-2005, 12:28 AM
True the dynamic range of analog is limited compared to the theoretical limit of digital media; reality is that very few popular or classical recordings utilize all of the dynamic range of either format. Popular music is dreadfully compressed and most vinyl albums, save the few Classical Decca's, Living Stereos, Lyritas etc are not utilizing the full DR of that medium either. Some of the rock reissues are better but most current music is recorded horribly

I think you should take a look a the DR across the whole frequency spectrum for LPs, it is non linear, have a look, RIAA curve is a dB levels compensation curve, dB levels have to be lifted to compensate for its limited dynamic range in the bass regions.

markw
03-08-2005, 03:27 AM
I've recently started playing my vinyl again after ignoring it for about 10 years. I was able to find a new stylus for my Signet OM40 cartridge to put on my Denon DP37L turntable.
I
I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!... is that phono cartridges, being transducers, are just as euphonic as speakers. You can radically change ths sound of your vinyl playback by simply replacing your cartridge. Some are warm and woody, some are bright and analytical, some have depressed midranges, fat ones, skinny ones, kids who play on rocks...

theaudiohobby
03-08-2005, 07:48 AM
... is that phono cartridges, being transducers, are just as euphonic as speakers. You can radically change ths sound of your vinyl playback by simply replacing your cartridge. Some are warm and woody, some are bright and analytical, some have depressed midranges, fat ones, skinny ones, kids who play on rocks...

markw and Pat D

What turntables are price competitive below 1500USD? I know the Project turntables, are there any others?

JoeE SP9
03-08-2005, 11:41 AM
markw and Pat D

What turntables are price competitive below 1500USD? I know the Project turntables, are there any others?
Here in the US we have access to Music Hall TT's. I don't know if they are available in the UK. Check www.needledoctor.com (http://www.needledoctor.com)

risabet
03-08-2005, 04:55 PM
I think you should take a look a the DR across the whole frequency spectrum for LPs, it is non linear, have a look, RIAA curve is a dB levels compensation curve, dB levels have to be lifted to compensate for its limited dynamic range in the bass regions.

The RIAA curve is set up to allow the cutting stylus to maximize the amount of music on a side. In doing so, the designers of the system boosted the trble and lowered the level of the bass. This minimized the power that the cutting head would need, limited the groove pitch cut into the record and maximized the time of each side.

To my knowledge, the RIAA curve was not meant to limit the dynamic range of the album, as the inverse curve in phono pre-amps is just that and if properly done should lead to "flat" frequency response and whatever DR the engineer put on the tape, in theory.

However, as a transducer system the cartridge will run into grooves that cannot be tracked i.e. Tealrc's "1812 Overture." A problem CD's don't have.

RGA
03-08-2005, 11:54 PM
Is there really a reason you need to know why? You won't know why based off of the lack of good information you're getting in this thread...there is quite a difference of opinion on dynamic range and which is in fact superior as to the medium -- the definition was conveniantly changed around 1982 (gee when CD came out) to make it look a lot better than it really is -- this was discussed in UHF's first book.

This site which is pretty problematic still makes for interesting reading regarding the measured response of LP (but his viny rig is not particularly high grade but still) http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/LPsvsCDsDynamics.php

A large part of this comes down to the recording -- who really cares about nitpicking over the format -- no low says you only have to have on or the other -- why not have both? If the Jackson Browne "Running on Empty" album sounds better on vinyl than the same album on cd (which is the case) then if this is one of your favorite albums and you can point to 30 such albums you bought in a row like this then get a turntable --- or if there are plenty of singles and older lbums you like that are not on cd or SACD(and probably never will be) then vinyl is something to get.

So too is cd for the same reason -- I can;t get Loreena McKennitt or Acoustic Alchemy on vinyl -- I like them enough that it's worth getting a cd player JUST for those two artists...and luckily they are very well recorded cds.

i tend to agree that it's the recordings that people take issue with mostly and then blame the format -- but not all cds are bright so that indicates a recording issue not the format. CDs generally get played back on poor cd players and then we get question begging pseudo scientists on about non true to life tests.

theaudiohobby
03-09-2005, 01:06 AM
To my knowledge, the RIAA curve was not meant to limit the dynamic range of the album, as the inverse curve in phono pre-amps is just that and if properly done should lead to "flat" frequency response and whatever DR the engineer put on the tape, in theory.


Hi risabet,

I did not say limit, I said compensation for limited DR in the lower regions, yes it also address longer play time issues, have a look at the RIAA equation.

musicoverall
03-09-2005, 04:42 AM
i tend to agree that it's the recordings that people take issue with mostly and then blame the format -- but not all cds are bright so that indicates a recording issue not the format. CDs generally get played back on poor cd players and then we get question begging pseudo scientists on about non true to life tests.

I agree. I simply prefer the recording that sounds best to my ears - usually the LP or the SACD. I also believe, as your linked article pointed out, that there is a lot of theory in audio that doesn't stand up to empirical evidence.

RobotCzar
03-09-2005, 12:37 PM
Hi risabet,

I did not say limit, I said compensation for limited DR in the lower regions, yes it also address longer play time issues, have a look at the RIAA equation.

I agree that RIAA is primarily designed to compensate for the inability of vinyl to store proper dynamic range at the frequency extremes. Note, however, that it doesn't help much as an LP as a rather poor dynamic range which led (in the past) to the use of dynamic range expanders. This is one of many areas in which a CD out performs the LP playback medium.

While we are on the subject of RIAA, let's be clear for all the "purists" out there that a signal intented for LP playback goes through at least two additional processing phases (i.e., amplification stages) because RIAA equalization must be applied and then compensated for. Hence, LP is at a disadvantage without even considering the limitations of the medium. If you believe less signal modification is better (or a goal) then LP is not for you.

In addition, LPs are made from masters that are recorded as either digital or analog tape and therefore must go through a dub to become LPs (you are listening to second generation copies at best). It is possible to record direct to disc, and such LPs sound great--the best the medium can do, but really quite inferior to CD (redbook digital).

musicoverall
03-09-2005, 12:59 PM
...such LPs sound great--the best the medium can do, but really quite inferior to CD (redbook digital).

So if something sounds "great, but inferior", do you consider what you're comparing it to (redbook CD, in this case) to be perfect or nearly perfect?

Also, have you ever heard a 45 RPM LP which was recorded from an analog source? That is the best the medium can do and is completely superior to redbook digital from a sonic perspective ... er... both of those statements being totally subjective, of course. But my post is not to start a medium war but just to suggest you check one of these LP's out if you ever get the opportunity... just to see if you change your mind.

shokhead
03-09-2005, 01:22 PM
Hard to play LP's in your car.
They're so big.
You can here some stuff really well,like nicks and scratches.
Walk softly around a turntable.
Making copies from LP's just dont sound as good{imo} as a cd copy. ;)

ruadmaa
03-09-2005, 02:43 PM
So if something sounds "great, but inferior", do you consider what you're comparing it to (redbook CD, in this case) to be perfect or nearly perfect?

Also, have you ever heard a 45 RPM LP which was recorded from an analog source? That is the best the medium can do and is completely superior to redbook digital from a sonic perspective ... er... both of those statements being totally subjective, of course. But my post is not to start a medium war but just to suggest you check one of these LP's out if you ever get the opportunity... just to see if you change your mind.

You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

musicoverall
03-09-2005, 05:45 PM
Hard to play LP's in your car.
They're so big.
You can here some stuff really well,like nicks and scratches.
Walk softly around a turntable.
Making copies from LP's just dont sound as good{imo} as a cd copy. ;)

Yes... unless you can get your car into your living room!
Bigger means easier to read the label for an old man like me!
Yes, care must be taken to keep those things off the vinyl.
Not necessary if one's turntable is properly suspended. You could bounce a hammer off my rack and you wouldn't get the thing to skip. My heart would, of course, be another matter!
I make CD-R copies for the car only and the system doesn't sound as good as my main stereo so in that case, I'd agree with you. :)

risabet
03-09-2005, 05:49 PM
You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

You won't get the best sound from analog without a good TT, arm and cartridge, not meaning to offend, but a Pioneer is not a good TT. Direct drive, Goldmund excepted (maybe), is not an acceptable drive system for high-end TT's.

I will admit that analog that is better than redbook CD is usually more expensive, more finicky and you can't play them in your car, but IMO on a good sytem with a good TT analog is better than CD.

musicoverall
03-09-2005, 05:58 PM
You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

Well, if you tell me what world you come from, we'll find out if I'm from a different one! :)

Long story I'll keep short - when CD's came out, I jumped onto the new format as soon as I could afford a player. The $100 units of today cost a grand back then! I could hardly wait! No more surface noise, no accidental scratches, no partyers sitting on them and breaking them, etc, etc. So I took the plunge eventually and I was happy... for awhile. Then my excitement faded as it just seemed like the music didn't sound as good as I remembered. I thought it was my system so I started upgrading. The problem didn't go away and often times it was made worse. At some point, I pulled out my old LP's that I had boxed up and they sounded much better, surface noise and all. More like real music.
That was a rather confounding realization... but I did get an improved stereo out of the deal!

CD sound has improved, particularly with the discs that were newly recorded directly to digital (rather than digital remasters of old analog tapes) and with the improvement in players. In fact, the new DAC I bought has narrowed the gap. No one can tell me that all CD players sound alike and make me believe it! I haven't complained about the sound of CD's since. I still don't think the best of them sounds as good as the average record but they're close enough that the differences aren't worth obsessing over. And if it helps any, it boggles MY mind, too! But I don't necessarily believe that the LP format is superior. I think it's more that the care in recording and mastering was better back in the old days - as a rule. But I think that's changing to a degree as well.

wfontenot
03-09-2005, 06:22 PM
It is funny how this topic still comes up. I remember this 20 years ago when a friend of mine told me his buddy would not buy a CD player since he could hear the limitations on his system. All he would play was OMRs, which were dirt cheap since everyone was converting to CDs. Interesting, very interesting.

ruadmaa
03-09-2005, 06:26 PM
You won't get the best sound from analog without a good TT, arm and cartridge, not meaning to offend, but a Pioneer is not a good TT. Direct drive, Goldmund excepted (maybe), is not an acceptable drive system for high-end TT's.

I will admit that analog that is better than redbook CD is usually more expensive, more finicky and you can't play them in your car, but IMO on a good sytem with a good TT analog is better than CD.


Sorry but I highly disagree, the Pioneer PL540 is an excellent turntable (mayby not high end but very respectable specifications) As to direct drive not being as good as belt drive this was an argument that had gone on for years with an equal number of adherents on both sides. You would be hard pressed to find a better phono cartridge than a Shure V15.

RGA
03-09-2005, 07:48 PM
fdgdfhgfghfdhfdhffdh

Listen to what you like...could not delete post?

musicoverall
03-10-2005, 04:49 AM
It is funny how this topic still comes up. I remember this 20 years ago when a friend of mine told me his buddy would not buy a CD player since he could hear the limitations on his system. All he would play was OMRs, which were dirt cheap since everyone was converting to CDs. Interesting, very interesting.

I have a friend who to this day does not own a CD player nor any CD's because he's so annoyed with the sound. When he comes over, he can always tell when I'm spinning vinyl or CD by sound. He can't believe I can listen to those "foul sounding pieces of garbage" CD's. I tried to reason with him years ago and have long since given up.

BRANDONH
03-10-2005, 07:57 AM
I went back to vinyl a couple of years back.
I only quit spinning records because my T.T. broke and could no longer get parts for it.
Then all the local record stores either went out of business of switched to CD.
I remember thinking back then vinyl must be dead, which I could never understand why because even then I still preferred the sound of analog over digital.
One day I stumbled across a website selling new sealed re-releases then I researched even more and found plenty of online vinyl sites selling new sealed records and used mint.
I now have over 26 vinyl websites in my favorites that I can choose from!
I went to a local family owned electronics store that had Sumiko so I purchased the
Pro-ject 1.2, then upgraded the cartridge to a Shure V15VxMR.
Granted neither the T.T. or cartridge is as high-end as some here have but it does me just fine.
All I know is, that when I am listening to a CD it sounds digital to me lacking depth and realism but when listening to a record it comes to life with a real presence, vocalization and instrumentation feel real.
I do have some CD that sound great and some records that sound terrible.
But the same recording in most cases the records sound better than the CD. If I can only find the Musician (s) on CD then so be it, but if also available on vinyl Ill purchase the vinyl.
I can listen to my vinyl records at high volume levels (600 to 1000 watts*) hours longer than CD at the same level without becoming fatigued.
Musicoverall mentioned 45 RPM and although harder to find they are fantastic sounding.
My favorites are any halfspeed mastered especially 45 RPM halfspeed mastered.
Ruadmaa mentioned surface noise some of my records have it but even with the surface noise some of the records in most cases still sound better than the CD of the same recording.
Incidentally most of my audiophile 180g & 200g albums are dead silent.
I guess that it is all depends on the listeners preference.
* (I live in a rural area I can blast it)

musicoverall
03-10-2005, 10:06 AM
I went back to vinyl a couple of years back.
I only quit spinning records because my T.T. broke and could no longer get parts for it.
Then all the local record stores either went out of business of switched to CD.
I remember thinking back then vinyl must be dead, which I could never understand why because even then I still preferred the sound of analog over digital.
One day I stumbled across a website selling new sealed re-releases then I researched even more and found plenty of online vinyl sites selling new sealed records and used mint.
I now have over 26 vinyl websites in my favorites that I can choose from!
I went to a local family owned electronics store that had Sumiko so I purchased the
Pro-ject 1.2, then upgraded the cartridge to a Shure V15VxMR.
Granted neither the T.T. or cartridge is as high-end as some here have but it does me just fine.
All I know is, that when I am listening to a CD it sounds digital to me lacking depth and realism but when listening to a record it comes to life with a real presence, vocalization and instrumentation feel real.
I do have some CD’s that sound great and some records that sound terrible.
But the same recording in most cases the records sound better than the CD. If I can only find the Musician (s) on CD then so be it, but if also available on vinyl I’ll purchase the vinyl.
I can listen to my vinyl records at high volume levels (600 to 1000 watts*) hours longer than CD’s at the same level without becoming fatigued.
Musicoverall mentioned 45 RPM and although harder to find they are fantastic sounding.
My favorites are any ½ speed mastered especially 45 RPM ½ speed mastered.
Ruadmaa mentioned surface noise some of my records have it but even with the surface noise some of the records in most cases still sound better than the CD of the same recording.
Incidentally most of my audiophile 180g & 200g albums are dead silent.
I guess that it is all depends on the listeners’ preference.
* (I live in a rural area I can blast it)

I have very few records that are dead silent but also very few with enough surface noise to be very noticeable. Plus it tends to be a steady-state noise rather than intermittent and it's easy to filter it out.

As you found out, there is a wealth of places to go to buy new vinyl, not to mention the places with used LP's. And like you, I rarely if ever find a CD that sounds better than its vinyl counterpart. Different strokes, I guess. But I've always wished I preferred CD - life would be so much simpler. OTOH, I am not anti-digital or even anti-redbook digital. I have yet to find a medium that I don't enjoy. P.S I missed the 8-track craze of the 1970's! :)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-10-2005, 10:24 AM
I have had some pretty high quality turntables(and VERY expensive ones at that), love the sound of a clean piece of vinyl, but I don't wax poetic about it like many of you guys. I have always had damn good CD transports with external high quality DAC in my systems over the years, and nothing I heard on vinyl can really compete IMO. Now what has given my CD combo's a run for their money has been a very high quality reel to reel tape player with good quality noise reduction(DBX or Dolby S). This combo I feel is as good as it gets in terms of reaching out and pulling me in. The last reel to reel I had was a discrete 4 channel Teac, with Dolby S on all channels. It had a S/N ratio of close to what you get with digital, dynamic range was equal to redbook CD(about 96db), and it sounded just unreal with stuff I recorded myself.

BRANDONH
03-10-2005, 10:28 AM
I have very few records that are dead silent but also very few with enough surface noise to be very noticeable. Plus it tends to be a steady-state noise rather than intermittent and it's easy to filter it out.

As you found out, there is a wealth of places to go to buy new vinyl, not to mention the places with used LP's. And like you, I rarely if ever find a CD that sounds better than its vinyl counterpart. Different strokes, I guess. But I've always wished I preferred CD - life would be so much simpler. OTOH, I am not anti-digital or even anti-redbook digital. I have yet to find a medium that I don't enjoy. P.S I missed the 8-track craze of the 1970's! :)

My Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here CBS master very quite. And the re-issue of DSOTM is so quiet its eerie.
I remember the 8-track very well especially when sometimes I needed to slide a matchbook under it to prevent double tracking.
I used to have a quadraphonic 8-track and turntable.

BRANDONH
03-10-2005, 10:35 AM
I have had some pretty high quality turntables(and VERY expensive ones at that), love the sound of a clean piece of vinyl, but I don't wax poetic about it like many of you guys. I have always had damn good CD transports with external high quality DAC in my systems over the years, and nothing I heard on vinyl can really compete IMO. Now what has given my CD combo's a run for their money has been a very high quality reel to reel tape player with good quality noise reduction(DBX or Dolby S). This combo I feel is as good as it gets in terms of reaching out and pulling me in. The last reel to reel I had was a discrete 4 channel Teac, with Dolby S on all channels. It had a S/N ratio of close to what you get with digital, dynamic range was equal to redbook CD(about 96db), and it sounded just unreal with stuff I recorded myself.

Where can I find one of these redbook CD s?
If you have a link please provide I want to try one.
thanks

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-10-2005, 10:43 AM
Where can I find one of these redbook CD s?
If you have a link please provide I want to try one.
thanks

Brandon,
The CD's you are currently listening to are redbook CD

risabet
03-10-2005, 10:47 AM
All I know is, that when I am listening to a CD it sounds digital to me lacking depth and realism but when listening to a record it comes to life with a real presence, vocalization and instrumentation feel real.
I do have some CD that sound great and some records that sound terrible.
But the same recording in most cases the records sound better than the CD. If I can only find the Musician (s) on CD then so be it, but if also available on vinyl Ill purchase the vinyl.
I can listen to my vinyl records at high volume levels (600 to 1000 watts*) hours longer than CD at the same level without becoming fatigued.
Musicoverall mentioned 45 RPM and although harder to find they are fantastic sounding.
My favorites are any halfspeed mastered especially 45 RPM halfspeed mastered.
Ruadmaa mentioned surface noise some of my records have it but even with the surface noise some of the records in most cases still sound better than the CD of the same recording.
Incidentally most of my audiophile 180g & 200g albums are dead silent.
I guess that it is all depends on the listeners preference.
* (I live in a rural area I can blast it)

Regarding surface noise, I find most of my LP's dead silent. I use a Nitty Gritty machine on all LP's before the first listen, I store them in VRP style rice paper sleeves and the whole thing is kept in a polyethylene bag to form a dust seal. On the few albums that have some surface noise the noise is out of the plane of the music and as such does not intrude on the music for me.

I can definitely play analog longer and louder, with less fatigue than CD. I agree that there are some CD's that sound good and some albums that sound TERRIBLE.

The "best" pressings do tend to be the 180 to 200g versions but even the standard pressings can be kept quiet and warp free with a little care, well a lot of care.

20to20K
03-10-2005, 10:54 AM
Looks like I've instigated a real "Hatfields and McCoy" scenario here!

You guys should divide into two panels with desks and microphones and get a C-Span thing going. Put it on pay-per-view. Have one of those monster truck voice-overs do the promo:

"It's the DIGITAL DOMINATORS vs. VINYL-SAURUS REX!!!"

"LIVE LIVE LIVE..."

"AT THE LAS VEGAS CONSUMER ELECTRONIC SHOW ARENA ARENA ARENA!!!"

First 5000 get a free computer burned CD or pre-recorded cassette....YOUR CHOICE!

BE THERE!!!!!!!

risabet
03-10-2005, 10:56 AM
I have had some pretty high quality turntables(and VERY expensive ones at that), love the sound of a clean piece of vinyl, but I don't wax poetic about it like many of you guys. I have always had damn good CD transports with external high quality DAC in my systems over the years, and nothing I heard on vinyl can really compete IMO. Now what has given my CD combo's a run for their money has been a very high quality reel to reel tape player with good quality noise reduction(DBX or Dolby S). This combo I feel is as good as it gets in terms of reaching out and pulling me in. The last reel to reel I had was a discrete 4 channel Teac, with Dolby S on all channels. It had a S/N ratio of close to what you get with digital, dynamic range was equal to redbook CD(about 96db), and it sounded just unreal with stuff I recorded myself.

Open reel tapes were the finest medium for reproducing sound ever. I too had a 4 track Teac (3.25 and 7.5 IPS) machine and the tapes that I had were simply incredible. But storing tapes is nightmarish, infinitely harder than LP's and they deteriorate under the best of circumstances. I finally gave mine away as parts were no longer easily available.

BRANDONH
03-10-2005, 10:59 AM
Thanks Sir Terrence,
I feel dumb not knowing I looked it up though and here is a link for others to read if they want.
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0%2C%2Csid5_gci503642%2C00.html

RobotCzar
03-10-2005, 11:25 AM
So if something sounds "great, but inferior", do you consider what you're comparing it to (redbook CD, in this case) to be perfect or nearly perfect?

Also, have you ever heard a 45 RPM LP which was recorded from an analog source? That is the best the medium can do and is completely superior to redbook digital from a sonic perspective ... er... both of those statements being totally subjective, of course. But my post is not to start a medium war but just to suggest you check one of these LP's out if you ever get the opportunity... just to see if you change your mind.

No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

Redbook CD is nearly perfect because that is what it was designed to be. All parameters were chosen to exceed the ability of humans to distinguish. How can one get better than that? The major flaw of redbook CD is that it is two channel only.

I suggested a simple experiment that you could perform to demonstrate the superiority of CD (i..e., record an LP to CD and try to distiguish it from the LP).

The differences you are hearing are almost certainly due to differences in the recordings themselves. Many CD recordings are terrible--just compare samples of old rock CDs with newer remastered versions and you will begin to understand the problem. Instead of telling us what your equipment is, you should have told us what the recordings were. You must compare media only with high quality, non-multitracked/mixed recordings. Until you do this (and perhaps the experiment I suggested) your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

20to20K
03-10-2005, 11:38 AM
And Digital Dominator Scores With A Sharp Kick To The Groin.

Don't Know If Rex Can Recover From That One Rusty...

Wait A Minute...he's Starting To Move On The Canvas...

Is He Getting Back Up...?????

BRANDONH
03-10-2005, 12:39 PM
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html

The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

From the graph you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling. This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion. This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise. good job of replicating the original signal.

20to20K
03-10-2005, 01:28 PM
Yes...yes...rex Is Back On His Feet...

...and While Dominator Had His Back Turn...not Doubt Celebrating His Presumed Victory...rex Stabbed Him In The Back With A Pointy Sine Wave!!!

musicoverall
03-10-2005, 02:00 PM
your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

It doesn't matter if I'm comparing apples to bicycles, my subjective opinion is the only thing that IS useful... to me. If better measurements don't result in better sound (even if it's because the mastering was poorly done), it's the objective side of the argument that isn't useful to me. Unless I argue that "analog is better than digital" I'm taking a personal, subjective approach and simply telling of my personal experiences rather than presenting an argument.

Geoffcin
03-10-2005, 04:07 PM
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html

The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

From the graph you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling. This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion. This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise. good job of replicating the original signal.

Nearly all of your assumptions are false.

The graph is very misleading. What you see as a truncated waveform is not what the D/A converter in the CD Player sees.

The D/A converter doesn't "think" like you. When it sees a code for a 10khz waveform, it produces an ANALOG 10khz waveform. This squared & truncated waveform that you show in the graph would produce a perfect ANALOG 10khz tone from my CD player. Not only that, but the waveform would be without any harmonics that a record needle/cartriage assembly would produce. The 10khz note would be cleaner than any phonograph could possibly produce.

Your claim that transients are not handled well by CD is also false. With a 44,100 sample rate, the transient would have to be faster than 1/20,000 of a second for it to move "faster" than the CD is able to capture. A 33 rpm record moves less than 1/1000 of an inch in that
span of time, do you think it could respond faster?

A vinyl record has grooves cut in it. These grooves DO NOT mirror the waveform of the recorded sound, anymore than the pulse-code of Redbook CD does. The grooves on a record are coded too. The coding is ANALOG in nature, but if you were to hear the uncoded signal, it would be tinny and unnatural. Only after RIAA Eq is applied to the signal is the record a "usable" medium for music reproduction.

There's only one digital lossless codec in use right now, and that is the MLP coding for DVD-Audio. Your graph shows that as a "less truncated" signal, but in reality, when it's decoded the ANALOG output from the D/A converter can EXACTLY conform to the original.

Vinyl records are NOT a lossless technology. If you could compare the waveform output of the master tape to the output of a phono cartridge you would see it quite clearly.

All of this has NOTHING to do with the apparent "quality" of either LP, CD, or any of the other recording mediums. Many people prefer the sound of vinyl to CD. I am happy for them, and I also like good records too.

Shwamdoo
03-10-2005, 05:31 PM
No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

Yes, you are correct that CDs are statisticly superior.

However, I have heard numerous speakers or amplifiers be trumped by other speakers or amplifiers with less impressive specifications. The obvious goal of every piece of audio equipment is to stay true to the music (With the exception of Bose and Sony. :p ). But, nothing can ever be perfect. Thus, each component adds its own characteristics to the music. A speaker or amplifier with greater dynamic range may sound less appealing simply because it is to forward and less musical.

This also reminds me of the comaprison of tube amplifiers versus solid state amplifiers...alot. Statisticly, solid state amplifiers are superior. However, many audiophiles are returning to the tube amplifier because they find it to be more musical and warm.

I find this to be the case with CDs in comparison to LPs. CDs, while statisticly superior, often sound less musical and lively than LPs. Granted, a crapy LP on a crapy turn table will sound...well, crappy. And, a well recorded CD on a high quality CD player will sound brillantly.

In the end, its personal prefrence. Some people like a very forward sound. Some people like a smooth and very warm sound. I will say that my collection is almost entirly comprised of CDs. This is because I am young and by the time I discovered LPs I already had 400 CDs in my collection. Also, CDs are far more convenient and universal. And, I will say this in defense of the CD: even in comparison to LPs, CDs still sound magnificently well.

risabet
03-10-2005, 05:57 PM
No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

True, CD measures better than LP, and if I listened to measurements CD would win hands down. Fortunately I listen to music and analog sounds more like it than CD.


Redbook CD is nearly perfect because that is what it was designed to be. All parameters were chosen to exceed the ability of humans to distinguish. How can one get better than that? The major flaw of redbook CD is that it is two channel only.

The major flaw of Redbook CD isn't its 2-channel format, it is its sound.


I suggested a simple experiment that you could perform to demonstrate the superiority of CD (i..e., record an LP to CD and try to distiguish it from the LP).

The differences you are hearing are almost certainly due to differences in the recordings themselves. Many CD recordings are terrible--just compare samples of old rock CDs with newer remastered versions and you will begin to understand the problem. Instead of telling us what your equipment is, you should have told us what the recordings were. You must compare media only with high quality, non-multitracked/mixed recordings. Until you do this (and perhaps the experiment I suggested) your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

I have a standard piece that I use for exactly this purpose. Reference Recordings "Copland: Appalachian Spring" (RR-22 on LP, RR-22CD on CD) The LP is from an analog master and the CD is from a digital master. Both were recorded from the identical feed from the console with no further processing.

On this disc the LP simply sounds more like real instruments playing in a real space. The clarinet on the LP has the sound of a real instrument, the woody tone with the same surrounding space heard in real life. The CD version's sound is thinner, less woody, a simulacrum of the real thing.

In the "Simple Gifts " section the entire ensemble plays a lyrical, mezzo-forte passage. The sound on the LP is open and quite detailed, the strings have the glow and rosin of the real thing, the 13 players are spread out in a realistic placement. The CD presentation is brighter, especially in the strings, and not as three dimensional.

CD isn't terrible, I own and buy many CD's, but it simply IMO is not as realistic sounding as analog. I find myself pulling out albums when I listen seriously and CD's when I'm cleaning or working on the computer. It is rare that I will listen to CD's, especially classical CD's, for Pleasure

RGA
03-10-2005, 06:35 PM
The debate rages on...really the proof is in the listening so far LP and the vinyl format is an opinion based thing -- Robot Czar is arguing about frequencies of 20khz which no one on this board over the age of 25 could hear anyway. Just because you have some measurements doesn;t mean you measured the right things...

20to20K
03-11-2005, 05:28 AM
...it cracks me up how some people try to counter someones subjective listening preferences with stats, charts, and theories. When I'm listening to music I don't have
any measuring devices handy to help me decide what sounds nice. I don't have Ohms Law, Amperes Law, or Maxwell's equations on an index card to reference. Nor do I have a list of quotations by Julian Hirsch or John Atkinson. I'm just listening to the damn music!

Your listening experience should be the only thing that matters. Whether your preference is LP, CD, or an organ grinder you should not have to justify your preference to anyone no matter how much their gear or your gear costs. This hobby shouldn't be as complicated as you guys are making it (I guess unless you want it to be). Just keep listening to what sounds good to you and don't feel insecure that someone may be able to put up a better argument than you that their gear sounds better. Are you worried their argument is gonna change what you're hearing?

I don't believe in the Golden Ear theory. I just think some people are more persuasive
(and persistant) in validating their arguments. I'm not adept enough in audiophile buzz words to counter or concour with all this theoretical jibberish so I'll just sit back, chuckle, and enjoy the show!

Carry on! :D

BRANDONH
03-11-2005, 10:48 AM
Your looking at the chart with "analog eyes"
I am also listening with analog ears sound is analog in nature.


Nearly all of your assumptions are false.
They are not my assumptions that is why I provide a link


The graph is very misleading. What you see as a truncated waveform is not what the D/A converter in the CD Player sees.
That graph is listed in other places as well as the link I provided.
See this link on how stuff works http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm


The D/A converter doesn't "think" like you. When it sees a code for a 10khz waveform, it produces an ANALOG 10khz waveform. This squared & truncated waveform that you show in the graph would produce a perfect ANALOG 10khz tone from my CD player. Not only that, but the waveform would be without any harmonics that a record needle/cartriage assembly would produce. The 10khz note would be cleaner than any phonograph could possibly produce.
I have no coment.


Your claim that transients are not handled well by CD is also false. With a 44,100 sample rate, the transient would have to be faster than 1/20,000 of a second for it to move "faster" than the CD is able to capture. A 33 rpm record moves less than 1/1000 of an inch in that span of time, do you think it could respond faster?
Not my claim I just provided the info.


A vinyl record has grooves cut in it. These grooves DO NOT mirror the waveform of the recorded sound, anymore than the pulse-code of Redbook CD does. The grooves on a record are coded too. The coding is ANALOG in nature, but if you were to hear the uncoded signal, it would be tinny and unnatural. Only after RIAA Eq is applied to the signal is the record a "usable" medium for music reproduction.
Not true. The Victrola requires no EQ or electrical amplification to play back whats in the grove.
The same goes with todays albums if you could get the Victrola to spin at 33 1/2 rpm then it would still play, although it would ruin todays records. In fact electrical amplification is not needed to record. The Dictaphone comes to mind: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/images/PDRM1571c.JPEG


There's only one digital lossless codec in use right now, and that is the MLP coding for DVD-Audio. Your graph shows that as a "less truncated" signal, but in reality, when it's decoded the ANALOG output from the D/A converter can EXACTLY conform to the original. .
I do not deny this.
Here is a link to backup your claims: http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm


Vinyl records are NOT a lossless technology. If you could compare the waveform output of the master tape to the output of a phono cartridge you would see it quite clearly.
I do not disagree, digital is perfect and Vinyl is not.


All of this has NOTHING to do with the apparent "quality" of either LP, CD, or any of the other recording mediums. Many people prefer the sound of vinyl to CD. I am happy for them, and I also like good records too.
True there is no reference to the quality of either.
My preference is vinyl. I just wanted to provide information to the original question why one feels that vinyl sounds better.
Is it the age old question that has been going on for since the introduction of the CD.
Many people went away from vinyl when the CD came out.
Then we vinyl lovers were forced to into some dark corner of the vinyl underworld and had the CD shoved down our throat because THEY said it was better! (how about more profitable) Some people have recently gone back to vinyl asking themselves; why did I leave in the first place? Or some are experiencing it for the first time, ultimately discovering the sound of vinyl and too are saying wow what a better sound.
Does Vinyl sound better? IMO Yes.
Is digital superior? Yes
Is it safe to yell MOVIE in a crowded firehouse? Now that is the question. lolo
Here are some links of interest for both Digital and Analog:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm
happy reading

markw
03-11-2005, 11:36 AM
The Victrola requires no EQ or electrical amplification to play back whats in the grove.
The same goes with todays albums if you could get the Victrola to spin at 33 1/2 rpm then it would still play, although it would ruin todays records. In fact electrical amplification is not needed to record. The Dictaphone comes to mind: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/images/PDRM1571c.JPEGISeriously, when is the last time you listened to one of these recordings? You're saying that a 78 rpm recording made in the 20's and 30's sounds better than a modern recording done in the digital domain?

And, since when is a dictaphone considered a "hi fi" medium?

Didja ever look at early pramps, say a Marantz model 7C, and notice all the different eq's they have on there? Wanna know why? Those early records (before 33 1/3, not 33 1/2, BTW) were recorded with a multitude of different eqs. RIAA was one of the later and became a standard, thankfully.

Granted, you prefer analog and all it's related idiosynchrisities and that's all well and good but you're going from the sublime to the ridiclous here trying to defend it. ...and in some cases, you're simply wrong. Now, where can I get some of those great sounding dictaphone recordings? Did they release DSOTM in that format yet?

Let's keep this discussion real, shall we?

BRANDONH
03-11-2005, 07:28 PM
All I did was to look up and provide information for others to read.
State an opinion.
I humbly apologize if any of the false information that I provided swayed some of the CD lovers over to the dark side of the vinyl underworld.
Please feel free to go to thes links
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm

SlumpBuster
03-11-2005, 10:49 PM
So after lurking in these boards for the last year I'm finally putting in my 2 cents.

Certain arguments will always rage, including: Digital vs. Analog; signal compression vs. Hi Def; exotic cables vs. home depot cable, the location of the line between high end and hi fi. Hell, I remember years ago when the now defunct Stereo Review ran a cover story of Dolby S vs. Mini Disc, which I think is a good example of how fruitless these sort of arguments are seeing as how both of those mediums are museum pieces.

These arguments always seem to revolve around the technical aspects of sound reproduction. I, however, enjoy vinyl for entirely non-technical reasons. I just wanted to see if anyone else agreed, or for that matter disagreed and thinks I should blow it out my bagpipe. :D

1. The music industry sucks right now. Good Charlotte?!? What the hell is that? Linday Lohan?!? Really, Lindsay Lohan? She can get a record deal but bands like third eye blind and Better than Ezra (or other innumerable good solid pop rock bands with proven sales) can't even get arrested let alone signed. Label consolidation simply killed artist developement. I'd rather by kick butt old records than new garbage on CD. Back in the seventies bands released records every year, sometimes even two per year. Now the Beastie Boys go five years between records.

2. I dig the vinyl ritual. Vinyl just looks cool, whether black virgin, colored (blue, red, white, clear, ect), or picture disks. I dig full sized sleaves and album inserts. ELO's "Out of the Blue" came with a card board UFO you could assemble, try fitting that in a CD. I dig putting the record on platter, hitting it with the dry brush, putting on the record clamp and letting the arm down. I dig the sound of the groove the right before the first cut, first loud crackle, then quiet, then music. I dig that I can't take it in my car with me. I dig it that if I want to listen, I have to sit down and listen - and that I only get to listen to one at a time. Cameron Crowe got it perfect in "Almost Famous," listening to Quadrophenia with a candle burning is just not the same on CD :D

3. I am not alone. Within a three mile radius of my house, there is only one dedicated all genre CD store. There is one hip/r&b only shop, too. Most went bankrupt and are gone. If you want to buy CD's its Borders or Wal-Mart, and good luck with that nonsense. Although I do enjoy amazon for the hard to find stuff. On the other hand there are six used record stores all within three miles. That number jumps to dozens if your willing to drive all over town. Factor in monthly record shows and you can't help but trip over some LPs. That fact is, record stores are more numerous than CD stores now.

4. Collecting. Lots of records are out of print and often rare. So... collect away.

I still do buy alot of CDs, but I buy way more records. And, I'm even more likely to buy a concert DVD over a CD, but that is a whole other post. :P But, to answer the original question of this post "Why do my records sound better?" Well, I think my sound better because I have a lot more fun playing them, collecting them, and shopping for them, and certainly not because of someone dropping some science on me.
Anyway enough of my rant.

markw
03-12-2005, 02:49 AM
All I did was to look up and provide information for others to read.
State an opinion.
I humbly apologize if any of the false information that I provided swayed some of the CD lovers over to the dark side of the vinyl underworld.
Please feel free to go to thes links
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htmWhen you start spouting off about victrolas and dictaphones and using them in reference to a discussion about hi fi and how bad CD's sound, you make vinyl afficianiados appear to be totally, unqualified, Planters Peanuts style nutz.

...and this is from one who spins vinyl himself.

Oh, if you are as into old recordings as your posts would lead one to believe, how did you ever survive without one of these?

http://www.smartdev.com/LT/remaster.html

So much for no eq, eh?

JoeE SP9
03-12-2005, 04:04 PM
As a batchelor it comes down to self interest. My female friends prefer analog. They are around more often and stay longer (sometimes too long) when I'm using tubes and playing vinyl. Many of them specifically ask me to play LP's. My brother and I have provided our mother with a "reasonable" rig. Although it includes a CD/DVD player she prefers playing vinyl on her TT. As for all the "heated discussion", after 30+ years of being an audiophile I've stopped worrying and just enjoy.

musicoverall
03-14-2005, 10:33 AM
[QUOTE=20to20K. Are you worried their argument is gonna change what you're hearing?
[/QUOTE]

That sums it up and the answer is no, not at all. I've been asked by many that I should excuse CD's inferior sound due to its superior measurements. I'm sorry, but something can measure wonderfully and have all this capability but the proof is in the listening. Redbook CD is probably the main reason a lot of audiophiles don't put much faith in lab tests. It matters not that it might be the recording or mastering or something else and not the medium itself. What matters is how it sounds.

franklinpross
03-14-2005, 10:40 AM
I've recently started playing my vinyl again after ignoring it for about 10 years. I was able to find a new stylus for my Signet OM40 cartridge to put on my Denon DP37L turntable.
I also upgraded the RCA jacks with Monster interconnects when I had a recent short.
Good analog equipment...but definitely not what an audiophile would consider high-end.

I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!

The music was tighter, sharper, and cleaner. Sure you had a little surface noise but that was usual only noticible between tracks and at the quietest of passages. The CD's on the other hand had a harshness to them. Particularly the higher frequencies had a shrillness to it. Female vocals had an echo and the bass seemed more muddy.

Mind you none of this was apparent to me when I only listened to CD's...it was only when I hooked up my turntable and compared the two did I hear these differences. Could there be something wrong with my CD player? I've gone through all the audio set menus on the 2200 and I believe everything to be set up correctly. Could there be something obvious I'm missing? Would it sound better if I connected it through a Tosc link to my AVR's CD input instead of the DVD input? Here's the rest of my equipment:

Denon 3805
ATI 1502 amp (front only)
Polk LSi 15
Polk LSi C
Polk FXi 3 (rears)
Velodyne DLS4000 sub
Monster M series biwire(front and center only)
Monster interconnects

+
undefined


The Secret Is Out of the Bag. YES, old is better than new . . .24 bit resolution

on CD's merely tries to capture the openeness of the LP.

When I listen to vinyl- I use my equalizer. The two kind of go hand in hand,

like . . . . . .fontina and sausage..........egg salad and anchovies. . . . . .


mangia . . . . . .

Arc45
03-14-2005, 12:26 PM
"The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl.The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl."

I gotta side with Joe E here. I just purchased a SOny SACD 9000 or something series player. It is an incremental imporvement over the Adcom (but not by a large margin IMO). Irregardless Vinyl (not all Vinyl) sounds better. I am using a mid priced Grado Gold and the difference is very noticeable.

Having said all that though there are some CD's which are incredible. (Telarc..)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-14-2005, 03:18 PM
"The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl.The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl."

I gotta side with Joe E here. I just purchased a SOny SACD 9000 or something series player. It is an incremental imporvement over the Adcom (but not by a large margin IMO). Irregardless Vinyl (not all Vinyl) sounds better. I am using a mid priced Grado Gold and the difference is very noticeable.

Having said all that though there are some CD's which are incredible. (Telarc..)

Vinyl does not inherently sound better. The bottom line to all of this depends on the care and time put into the mastering process. Vinyl usually had 2-3 times more mastering time on them than CD. That is why most CD's of that period were inferior to their CD counterparts. Nowadays, I would put any DVD-A or SACD that I have worked on against any LP, and would worry one bit about the comparison. Well mastered vinyl is better than mediocre mastered CD. But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance

Woochifer
03-14-2005, 06:19 PM
Vinyl does not inherently sound better. The bottom line to all of this depends on the care and time put into the mastering process. Vinyl usually had 2-3 times more mastering time on them than CD. That is why most CD's of that period were inferior to their CD counterparts. Nowadays, I would put any DVD-A or SACD that I have worked on against any LP, and would worry one bit about the comparison. Well mastered vinyl is better than mediocre mastered CD. But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance

I think we got a winner.

Most of these format arguments consistently neglect the fact that nobody except a recording professional has access to the original master tapes. I think that people often confuse personal preference for their favorite type of sound with something that sounds most transparent to the source.

The issue with vinyl is that it has to be extensively tweaked during the mastering process. For example, if the original master has too much headroom, then compression has to be applied. I've heard too many good and bad LPs, and good and bad CDs to attribute everything that I hear to the format alone.

An LP in the hands of virtuoso mastering engineer can sound incredible. But, is this actually the most transparent playback to the original source, or just a well done job at tweaking the sound to play optimally with a particular medium? And with LPs, you also have the issue with how variable the pressings can sound from copy to copy. If you have the misfortune of buying an album that got pressed from a worn out stamper, then you'll hear distortion and sibilance galore (and this increases as the needle gets closer to the end of a side). All the wet vac cleaning and the best turntable rig on the planet cannot save an album in that condition. And back in my LP heyday, I'd estimate that I returned roughly 1 out of every 10 albums I bought because of defects of some kind.

Similarly, I've heard enough well done CDs to know that the gratingly harsh and "metallic" sound that was common with a lot of early CDs was not due to the format itself.

The new Neil Young Greatest Hits CD-96/24 DVD package is great example of how much a reissue can improve upon previous versions with just a little care taken during the mastering process. (The remastered CD already sounds at least as good as any vinyl playback I can recall, and the 96/24 DVD is yet another step above) And Classic Records' 96/24 high res discs benefit from not only higher resolution, but also involvement by the original recording engineers, research into the processing used during the original sessions, reference playback of first production library copies, and simple attention to detail. This typically results in the best available playback quality, including comparisons to LP versions. Is this format/resolution driven, or a byproduct of good mastering? Who the *uck cares, it sounds good!

theaudiohobby
03-15-2005, 01:11 AM
But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance

Sir Terence your point is taken but what can be done to save both DVDA and SACD from dissappearing from the marketplace? As for now anyway, I want to try and get as many SACDs that I like whilst there is still availability, huge investment but an important one IMHO.

musicoverall
03-15-2005, 04:30 AM
Is this format/resolution driven, or a byproduct of good mastering? Who the *uck cares, it sounds good!

Totally agree! I also agree with Terrence regarding the sound of SACD (I don't own any DVD-A discs) in that they sound as good as anything I've heard that is easily available.

RobotCzar
03-15-2005, 09:22 AM
So after lurking in these boards for the last year I'm finally putting in my 2 cents.

These arguments always seem to revolve around the technical aspects of sound reproduction. I, however, enjoy vinyl for entirely non-technical reasons. I just wanted to see if anyone else agreed, or for that matter disagreed and thinks I should blow it out my bagpipe. :D

1. The music industry sucks right now.
2. I dig the vinyl ritual. Vinyl just looks cool, whether black virgin, colored (blue, red, white, clear, ect), or picture disks. I dig full sized sleaves and album inserts.
3. I am not alone.
4. Collecting. Lots of records are out of print and often rare. So... collect away.
.

It is always nice to hear (or read, actually) a new opinion. It should be made clear that there is room in high fidelity audio for LP fans. The joy of collecting is a valid reason for sticking with LPs. You certainly are NOT alone. And, there is a ritual with vinyl that simply isn't there with CDs (which is one reason why CDs are popular--many don't want the ritual).

The problem I have is when LPs are offtered up as some kind of superior medium based, it seems, only on snob appleal and a bunch of subjective opinions. If some people like the sound of vinyl, fine. They simply should not pretend is it somehow "superior". If someone wants to say "All I know is that vinyl sounds better..." then that is ok by me, that probably IS all they know. It doesn't sound better to me, but it can sound pretty good.

Whether or not you like vinyl, the music industry sucks and is not going to get better unless the Internet can somehow force some positive changes.

Thanks for you comments.

RobotCzar
03-15-2005, 09:36 AM
Totally agree! I also agree with Terrence regarding the sound of SACD (I don't own any DVD-A discs) in that they sound as good as anything I've heard that is easily available.

There is zero reason to think these bit-wasting formats have any audible advantage over redbook CD. The redbook CD format was chosen becuase further increases in specificantions are useless (i.e., inaudible) in a playback medium. The new formats were invented for reasons other than audio quality (like potential copy protection).

While I don't doubt that some discs of those formats sound very very good, we simply cannot separate the recording quality from the playback medium quality (as with LP vs CD) so we cannot judge just by listening to them. A formal test you have to be done, but why bother we already know the results (see the paragraph above). We simply do not know what the "sound" of SACD or DVD-A is.

Face it, the music biz is heading in the other direction (i.e., fewer bits). There just aren't enough true believers out there to maintain uselessly high sampling rates.

Woochifer
03-15-2005, 11:37 AM
There is zero reason to think these bit-wasting formats have any audible advantage over redbook CD. The redbook CD format was chosen becuase further increases in specificantions are useless (i.e., inaudible) in a playback medium. The new formats were invented for reasons other than audio quality (like potential copy protection).

No, it was chosen because that was the limitation of the technology that could be affordably offered to the buying public at the time that the CD specs were set in the late-70s.

If "further increases in specifications are useless" then why aren't the original recordings recorded in 44.1/16 to begin with? I don't know of any recording engineer that currently uses that resolution during the recording process. From what I've read, most recordings nowadays use a 24-bit bit depth and 96 kHz or 88.2 kHz sampling rates at a minimum. Obviously, the professionals in the field see some benefit to going with higher resolution. If anything above 44.1/16 was "useless" then why have they continually upgraded even with the CD still locked into its 70s-vintage standard?

While the new formats do have external agendas attached to them, they are much closer to the resolution of the source nowadays than the CD standard. Plus, they allow for uncompressed 5.1 playback.


While I don't doubt that some discs of those formats sound very very good, we simply cannot separate the recording quality from the playback medium quality (as with LP vs CD) so we cannot judge just by listening to them. A formal test you have to be done, but why bother we already know the results (see the paragraph above). We simply do not know what the "sound" of SACD or DVD-A is.

Frankly, I could care less about "formal tests." Unless you have access to studio master sources or a SACD encoder, neither your or I are in any position to do these tests anyway, so you're forwarding a circular argument.

The issue with me is improving upon the available source material. There are too many poorly done CDs out there that very well might just sit idle until a new re-release opportunity comes along. Whether that entails bumping up the resolution, or remixing the source material, or just transferring the material with a mastering engineer that can adequately do the job, the simple fact is that SACD and DVD-A provide multiple avenues to improve on what's currently available. Because a multichannel remix requires going back to the multitrack master tapes, it provides an opportunity for not only a new 5.1 mix using high resolution formats, but also a new two-channel mix that's no longer limited by the added noise and data loss that occurs when mixing and overdubbing with older analog studio equipment. If the higher resolution playback format further benefits the process, then all the better.

BRANDONH
03-15-2005, 12:11 PM
Hard to play LP's in your car.
They're so big.
You can here some stuff really well,like nicks and scratches.
Walk softly around a turntable.
Making copies from LP's just dont sound as good{imo} as a cd copy. ;)
Once upon a time they made a record player for the car.
http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html

Feanor
03-15-2005, 12:31 PM
[QUOTE=Woochifer]
...
The issue with vinyl is that it has to be extensively tweaked during the mastering process. For example, if the original master has too much headroom, then compression has to be applied. I've heard too many good and bad LPs, and good and bad CDs to attribute everything that I hear to the format alone.
...
Similarly, I've heard enough well done CDs to know that the gratingly harsh and "metallic" sound that was common with a lot of early CDs was not due to the format itself.
...
QUOTE]

Indeed I believe that the best examples of CD can deliver the music perfectly as I can hear.

That is, I don't actually agree that SACD is necessary just to improve on CD's stereo sound. Granted the typical SACD that I own sounds a lot better than my typical CD. But that is for the same reason the LPs so often sound better than CDs -- more care was taken in recording process.

RobotCzar
03-16-2005, 07:47 AM
No, it was chosen because that was the limitation of the technology that could be affordably offered to the buying public at the time that the CD specs were set in the late-70s.
What evidence do you have to support this claim? I see no reason why the redbook specs could not have been set higher. I have never heard any support for your claim. There is plenty of support that people cannot hear better than Redbook sampling.


If "further increases in specifications are useless" then why aren't the original recordings recorded in 44.1/16 to begin with? I don't know of any recording engineer that currently uses that resolution during the recording process. From what I've read, most recordings nowadays use a 24-bit bit depth and 96 kHz or 88.2 kHz sampling rates at a minimum. Obviously, the professionals in the field see some benefit to going with higher resolution. If anything above 44.1/16 was "useless" then why have they continually upgraded even with the CD still locked into its 70s-vintage standard?
Isn't is obvious that they want to sell you an new format, that---and several other reasons like copy protection--are why they want you to "upgrade".

Pro recording equipment does not record at the redbook rate (redbook is a playback format). There is some reason to record at slightly higher sampling rates, for example for increased headroom (this makes recording errors less likely) and also because many recordings are mixed and processed. The mixing process can benefit from the increased sample size. I don't think it is "obvious" that "professionals" are all think a ridiculously high sampling rate is a good idea, and I don't trust those who say it does because they work for the companies that are trying to promote the new formats. Note that the bit-wasting formats go way way beyond what is necessary for even recording purposes. Frankly, I don't care what recording engineers do--I will go with what physics says. And it says we can't hear anywhere near the new sampling rates, musical instruments cannot produce sounds to the new formats, and our equipment cannot reproduce at the theoretical levels of the new formats (no equipment can they would have to be submerged in liquid nitrogen).



While the new formats do have external agendas attached to them, they are much closer to the resolution of the source nowadays than the CD standard. Plus, they allow for uncompressed 5.1 playback.
What in the world do you mean by "much closer to the source"? The theoretical frequency response of those formats cannot be heard by dogs, the dynamic range cannot be generated by instruments and were certainly not intended by Beethoven. The dynamic range of the new formats greately exceeds the ability of room temperature electronics to reproduce. Who cares (or even knows) what the "resolution of the source" is, what matters is the resolution of what we can hear.



Frankly, I could care less about "formal tests." Unless you have access to studio master sources or a SACD encoder, neither your or I are in any position to do these tests anyway, so you're forwarding a circular argument.
You are making my point. If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".


The issue with me is improving upon the available source material. There are too many poorly done CDs out there that very well might just sit idle until a new re-release opportunity comes along. Whether that entails bumping up the resolution, or remixing the source material, or just transferring the material with a mastering engineer that can adequately do the job, the simple fact is that SACD and DVD-A provide multiple avenues to improve on what's currently available. Because a multichannel remix requires going back to the multitrack master tapes, it provides an opportunity for not only a new 5.1 mix using high resolution formats, but also a new two-channel mix that's no longer limited by the added noise and data loss that occurs when mixing and overdubbing with older analog studio equipment. If the higher resolution playback format further benefits the process, then all the better.
I agree in wanting to improve source material (which has to do with recording, not playback media). After recording, bad multimixing can ruin a records, but often record companies don't even bother to remix for the CD medium (e.g., those that don't say "digitally remastered". Using new formats for previously recorded material is a complete waste of time as you can never improve the recording beyond how it was originally recorded. You seem to fail to distinguish recording media from playback media. Imporving playback media will never improve a bad recording.

While I agree with your goal. I don't see the bit-wasting formats as making any difference in that goal (i.e., they offer zero avenues for improving recordings).

I think you are a reasonable person who has a lot of good things to contribute in a forum like this. I hope you carefully consider what I have to say (as I have considered what you said).

nobody
03-16-2005, 08:03 AM
[QUOTE=RobotCzar]
If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".
QUOTE]

Few of us have that access. In fact, all we do have would be the final media and our stereos. We listen and whichever we like best is best to us. Theoretical arguements go out the window. If you want to listen to CDs because they sound better to you fine, we just disagree. If you think everybody should prefer the sound of CDs because of some theoretical superiority, then that's just silly.

RobotCzar
03-16-2005, 08:30 AM
[QUOTE=RobotCzar]
If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".
QUOTE]

Few of us have that access. In fact, all we do have would be the final media and our stereos. We listen and whichever we like best is best to us. Theoretical arguements go out the window. If you want to listen to CDs because they sound better to you fine, we just disagree. If you think everybody should prefer the sound of CDs because of some theoretical superiority, then that's just silly.

While I can't blame people for making up straw men to attack when their logic fails, let's get something straight. Neither I, nor anybody I have ever read on AR with an objectivist viewpoint "wants" people to listen to CDs or not buy expensive cables, or do anything other than stop spreading misinformation.

If you want to say something like this: "..it cracks me up how some people try to counter someones subjective listening preferences with stats, charts, and theories. When I'm listening to music I don't haveany measuring devices handy to help me decide what sounds nice." Or, if you want to just pick and buy audio gear based on "what sounds nice" then go ahead. It rather cracks me up when people base their choices on personal preference and then have to tell others about it.

I certainly am NOT trying to tell people what to do or to save them from folly. But, as I have stated previously, if you are going to try to justify you actions with lame quotes, illogical reasoning, or parroting of high end nonsense, then I am going to point that out.

nobody
03-16-2005, 08:36 AM
OH...I see...you don't want to coinvince anyone of anything...you just want to say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. OK...now I get it.

Speaking of straw men..pot...kettle...black...

I've never ever mentioned cables, never claimed anything illogical, unless you consider a statement like..."i personally like the way vinyl sounds" as illogical...only lame quote I used was yours...

OH...and if you're not out to convince others, as you claim not to...look in my post where I specifically say that if you like CDs, that's fine with me. You're the one with a problem with people who prefer records.

theaudiohobby
03-16-2005, 08:59 AM
Recording is already happening at 5.6MHz for delta-sigma and 384KHz for PCM and so far there are no playback formats that support these sampling frequencies. Secondly, the issue of bit wasting seems somewhat illogical, why settle for good enough when better is widely availaible.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-16-2005, 02:17 PM
What evidence do you have to support this claim? I see no reason why the redbook specs could not have been set higher. I have never heard any support for your claim. There is plenty of support that people cannot hear better than Redbook sampling.

It is widely known that Sony/Philips knew that storage space at the time was very expensive. It was not economically feasible at the time to try and store audio at a higher bit and sampling rate, and still have a respectable playback time. The standard was not set for ultimate sound quality even though it was marketed that way. It is short sighted to think that higher resolution audio is chosen for what can be heard above the range of human hearing. It is chosen because there are more samples taken within the range of human hearing, and that better represents the analog signal.



Isn't is obvious that they want to sell you an new format, that---and several other reasons like copy protection--are why they want you to "upgrade".

If you were locked into a conspiracy theory, you may be right. But if the new formats didn't actually sound better, then its a no sell. Fortunately SACD and DVD-A actually sound better than CD, so copy protection for the record companies is not the only reason for high rez audio.


Pro recording equipment does not record at the redbook rate (redbook is a playback format).

This is not correct at all. Pro recording equipment can handle a variety of sampling and bit rates( i.e 16,20,24 bit rates, 32,44.1,48,88.2,96,176.4 and 192khz sample rates). You could easily do a recording at 16/44.1khz, but you would have to compress and limit the hell out of it during recording to tape. There is no room for error when recording at this sample rate, that is why 24bits are usually chosen. Truncating from 24 to 16 bits is unneccesary when you have a playback medium that can support 24bit signals. The more processing you do, the more damage to the original signal. Dithering is just a band aid that puts a digital glaze over the audio itself.



There is some reason to record at slightly higher sampling rates, for example for increased headroom (this makes recording errors less likely) and also because many recordings are mixed and processed. The mixing process can benefit from the increased sample size. I don't think it is "obvious" that "professionals" are all think a ridiculously high sampling rate is a good idea, and I don't trust those who say it does because they work for the companies that are trying to promote the new formats.

I don't work for anyone but myself, and I am constantly promoting high rez. Many recording engineers don't work for record companies or pro gear manufacturers, but they promote high rez. I think your assumption maybe be a bit off base here.



Note that the bit-wasting formats go way way beyond what is necessary for even recording purposes.

How do you know this? Do you record audio? I haven't heard a single engineer say anything like this.



Frankly, I don't care what recording engineers do--I will go with what physics says. And it says we can't hear anywhere near the new sampling rates, musical instruments cannot produce sounds to the new formats, and our equipment cannot reproduce at the theoretical levels of the new formats (no equipment can they would have to be submerged in liquid nitrogen).

First, nobody chooses high rez for what you can't hear. They prefer it for what they can hear(improved imaging, improved bass clarity, cleaner highs, better soundstaging). A muted trumpet produces harmonics up to 70khz, string harmonic go as high as 40khz. Manufacturers are making wideband amps with responses to 100khz, and by way of an external super tweeter you can extend the response of any speaker to at least 50khz. So it looks like you are pretty much wrong on all points.



What in the world do you mean by "much closer to the source"? The theoretical frequency response of those formats cannot be heard by dogs, the dynamic range cannot be generated by instruments and were certainly not intended by Beethoven. The dynamic range of the new formats greately exceeds the ability of room temperature electronics to reproduce. Who cares (or even knows) what the "resolution of the source" is, what matters is the resolution of what we can hear.

You are looking at sample rates only in terms of frequency extension. But that is not why higher sample rates are used at all.

A higher sampling rate means that each second of music is represented by a greater number of individual samples. More samples means greater accuracy in the mapping of musical waveforms. This is increasingly relevant as audio frequency rises.For example; CD uses 44,100 samples per second (44.1k). This sampling rate allowsuseable audio response up to 22,050hz(22.05khz). At this sampling rate each individual cycle of a 10,000hz (10khz) tone is sampled just 4.41 times, similarly each cycle of a 20khz tone is sampled 2.2 times while a 5khz tone would be recorded using 8.82 samples per cycle.

DVD-Audio can use a variety of sampling rates up to a maximum 192,000Hz (192khz)
for stereo recording. At this sampling rate each individual cycle of a 10,000hz (10khz)
tone is sampled 19. 2 times, similarly each cycle of a 20khz tone is sampled 9.6 times
while a 5khz tone would be recorded using 38.4 samples per cycle.

These facts should clear up why a higher sampling rate is desireable, even if you lop off anything above 20khz.



You are making my point. If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".

I do have access to the original recordings, and can easily make that comparison. Can everyone? Maybe not.



I agree in wanting to improve source material (which has to do with recording, not playback media).

Why would I want to improve the recording technique if it was not possible to hear what I am doing? Doesn't make alot of sense does it.


Using new formats for previously recorded material is a complete waste of time as you can never improve the recording beyond how it was originally recorded. You seem to fail to distinguish recording media from playback media. Imporving playback media will never improve a bad recording.

I cannot disagree more profoundly. Some well kept older analog tapes have tremendous fidelity and dynamic range. Doing a DSD encoding of these older works does them justice, and takes nothing away from them.



While I agree with your goal. I don't see the bit-wasting formats as making any difference in that goal (i.e., they offer zero avenues for improving recordings).

What experience do you have in recording that you can draw from that makes you come up with these conclusions? You use of the words "bit wasting" shows that you have little or no knowledge of the recording process. No bits are wasted at all, they are all used. As a audio engineer I can plainly hear improvements(even while blind) that using both a higher bit rate and sampling rate can impart. I find it incredible that you can say the things that you do with absolutely no recording experience whatsoever.


I think you are a reasonable person who has a lot of good things to contribute in a forum like this. I hope you carefully consider what I have to say (as I have considered what you said).

If I was Wooch, I wouldn't. Why listen to a person who has no recording experience, cannot campare a master tape to the encoded afterproduct, has little or no studio experience, and limit knowledge of digital audio in general? If I were Wooch, I would listen to Chuck Ainley, Eliott Schneider, Tony Brown, Tom Jung, Jack Renner, or Michael Bishop. All of these guys have more experience in digital audio, recording, and mastering than just about anyone on this planet, not to mention they are all Grammy award winners.

Woochifer
03-16-2005, 04:26 PM
What evidence do you have to support this claim? I see no reason why the redbook specs could not have been set higher. I have never heard any support for your claim. There is plenty of support that people cannot hear better than Redbook sampling.

Plenty of reasons, and they all had to do with what could be feasibly offered to the public given the technology of the time. Terrence already discussed the storage issues. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the proposals for the CD was originally to make it an analog optical format because of these types of issues. The digital recording of that time was already capable of more than 44.1/16 resolution, but that kind of bandwidth at that time could only be supported using magnetic tape. The CD format was finalized based on the limitations of what the carrier systems could deliver at that time. If you think back to the digital technology contemporary to 1979, the IBM PC was still two years away from its debut and modems entailed inserting a telephone handset into a suitcase sized receptacle.


Isn't is obvious that they want to sell you an new format, that---and several other reasons like copy protection--are why they want you to "upgrade".

And you don't notice that the new formats also offer uncompressed multichannel playback, which IMO can be a huge step forward in the enjoyment of an album.


Pro recording equipment does not record at the redbook rate (redbook is a playback format).

Of course it does. Professional digital recorders have used any number of different resolution combinations over the years -- 14-bit, 16-bit, 20-bit, 24-bit, 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 50 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, 192 kHz, 384 kHz, etc.


There is some reason to record at slightly higher sampling rates, for example for increased headroom (this makes recording errors less likely) and also because many recordings are mixed and processed. The mixing process can benefit from the increased sample size. I don't think it is "obvious" that "professionals" are all think a ridiculously high sampling rate is a good idea, and I don't trust those who say it does because they work for the companies that are trying to promote the new formats.

I don't get the impression that you've ever been in a recording studio or actually talked to people in the field because you make it sound like upgrading studio equipment is some big conspiracy. Fact is that even when there was no high res digital consumer format on the horizon, the resolution on the studio masters continually increased, even though the end product still got downsampled to 44.1/16. You can hypothesize that some recording professional out there agrees with your "ridiculously high sampling" rates assessment, but that's not the consensus among the actual practitioners in the field (all you have to do is flip through a trade journal or magazine that caters to sound professionals and see what's actually in use in the field).


Note that the bit-wasting formats go way way beyond what is necessary for even recording purposes. Frankly, I don't care what recording engineers do--I will go with what physics says. And it says we can't hear anywhere near the new sampling rates, musical instruments cannot produce sounds to the new formats, and our equipment cannot reproduce at the theoretical levels of the new formats (no equipment can they would have to be submerged in liquid nitrogen).

Unless you can point out a physicist that knows their way around a mixing board and knows how to properly mic for recording, I would rather rely on people who work with recorded sound for a living than people who are more concerned about churning hypotheticals.


What in the world do you mean by "much closer to the source"? The theoretical frequency response of those formats cannot be heard by dogs, the dynamic range cannot be generated by instruments and were certainly not intended by Beethoven. The dynamic range of the new formats greately exceeds the ability of room temperature electronics to reproduce. Who cares (or even knows) what the "resolution of the source" is, what matters is the resolution of what we can hear.

If a recording was originally mastered and mixed to a resolution of 96/24, and the format allows for a direct transfer of that recording in an unaltered state, how's that not closer to the source than a 44.1/16 format that requires downsampling?

What matters to you is the theoretical arguments. What matters to me is the end result, irregardless of how all of the causal factors play into all of this. If I listen to a DVD-A, and it sounds better than the CD version, why the hell should I care that the DVD-A format requires subzero electronics to reproduce in its entirety?


You are making my point. If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".

No, you were making the point that DVD-A and SACD are useless for any number of theoretical reasons, and automatically eliminating the resolution as a causal factor for any perceived improvements that come out in the listening. I'm merely pointing out that you lack the data to draw those conclusions because you do not have the master sources and encoding equipment needed to do the types of "formal tests" that you demand.

My assertions are based on what is available to an average consumer, and I have not eliminated the resolution as a potential causal factor because I freely acknowledge that I don't have the necessary data to conclude otherwise.


I agree in wanting to improve source material (which has to do with recording, not playback media). After recording, bad multimixing can ruin a records, but often record companies don't even bother to remix for the CD medium (e.g., those that don't say "digitally remastered". Using new formats for previously recorded material is a complete waste of time as you can never improve the recording beyond how it was originally recorded. You seem to fail to distinguish recording media from playback media. Imporving playback media will never improve a bad recording.

Of course you can improve upon a previously recorded album. That's exactly what DVD-A and SACD have allowed for because of what it takes to assemble a multichannel mix, which goes back to the original multitrack masters, not just the two-channel mixdown (which might be the end product of dozens of overdubs and mixdowns, all of which add noise and signal loss when using older analog equipment). In many cases, a new two-channel master got created in the process of mixing together the 5.1 mix.


While I agree with your goal. I don't see the bit-wasting formats as making any difference in that goal (i.e., they offer zero avenues for improving recordings).

I think you are a reasonable person who has a lot of good things to contribute in a forum like this. I hope you carefully consider what I have to say (as I have considered what you said).

I have considered the possibilities and I still am, that's why my mind is still open on the benefits of the high res formats. If the high res discs that I hear represent an improvement over what's currently available, then I will support that endeavor by buying them. If they don't, then I stick with the CD versions. Getting caught up in the reasons why these perceived improvements occur is wasted space IMO. I know that there are many variables, and unless I have access to the tools to find out for myself, I prefer to stick with what I know rather than draw conclusions based on what I don't know.

RobotCzar
03-17-2005, 06:36 AM
Your response does not show you considered what I said. It is obvious why the redbook standard was set where it is set, it has nothing to do with "limitations" of the time. 44/16 supports a theoretical playback of 20 KHz and 96 dB dynamic range. These values exceed what people can hear (and what is in most music), increasing them serves no purpose. That is what the engineers and recording companies said when it was invented. Funny how quick you are to believe them now.

As I said, a bunch of guys at working mixing boards do not impress me. When you are faced with the fact that a 96/24 format records high frequencies well beyond what people can hear and a 24 bit sample has a theoretical dynamic range unacheiveable with today's equipment, one has to wonder if the "professionals" know what the hell they are doing. As I said, humans can only hear to about 20 KHz (not anywhere near 48 KHz and no music has a dynamic range of 24 bits (and no home audio equipment can produce that dynamic range, and no listening environment would allow one to hear a 24 bit dynamic range). The opinions of the "professional" guys are verging on ridiculous. That is not my fault. If they want to be respected as professionals they had better get their facts straight--don't count on it when the boss is pushing a new format.

You can try to label what I say as a conspiracy, but the recording companies have a lengthy history of trying to put things over on the public. They have repeatedly let marketing drive their efforts and what they say is unreliable. I understand this is how capitalism works, but we do not have to be dumb enough to believe what they say. The recording engineers that work for them had better fall in line or look for work elsewhere. Recording engineers are also subject to hype the same as anybody else. They need to feel cutting edge and a ridiculous recording format can provide a measure of superiority.

You know as well as I do that there is no support that these formats sound superior other than the opinions of those with a reason to be biased. The "source" is not the master tape but what was recorded--the live performance. The live performance does not have a "resolution" of 96/24 and we could not hear it if it did. A 96/24 format takes up over three time the storage for zero audible differences. Why not admit boys like their toys and that if you can record at 96/24 and feel "professional" you will enjoy doing it and defend it. Fine, but let's not pretend we are making some kind of progress.

You are correct in saying that the new formats have a use in supporting multichannel. But, the "professionals" can't even get that right. They are supporting multichannel formats designed for movie sound, not accurate live audio reproduction that audiophiles want. They have no proper format for high fidelity audio multichannel which is a shame.

theaudiohobby
03-17-2005, 07:32 AM
Your response does not show you considered what I said. It is obvious why the redbook standard was set where it is set, it has nothing to do with "limitations" of the time. 44/16 supports a theoretical playback of 20 KHz and 96 dB dynamic range. These values exceed what people can hear (and what is in most music), increasing them serves no purpose. That is what the engineers and recording companies said when it was invented. Funny how quick you are to believe them now.

You miss the fact that recording have been taking place with 24bits at 24/48KHz and even 24/96KHz for a long time before any of the hirez formats can into being, by the mid 1990s, folks were already recording at 24bits, the first 20bit recordings started trickling in the early 90s, Soundstream digital recording was recording @50KHz in the 80s! Sampling at higher frequency gives you more actual data below 20KHz and some other associated benefits, so it is beneficial irrespective of whether we hear (or even perceive) sounds above 20KHz, the original DVD-V (not DVD-A) spec supported playback at 24/96 for 2CH. If a recording is done at a higher sampling frequency, why should the listener have to endure downsampling to lower frequency if the technoligy is there to support playback at the original sampling frequency?

I do not think that any physicist will argue against sampling at higher frequencies on the basis of a lower sampling frequency being good enough, from a thereotical standpoint, a higher sampling frequency is simply better, the only downside being extra storage space which is getting cheaper by the day.

Woochifer
03-17-2005, 02:33 PM
Your response does not show you considered what I said. It is obvious why the redbook standard was set where it is set, it has nothing to do with "limitations" of the time. 44/16 supports a theoretical playback of 20 KHz and 96 dB dynamic range. These values exceed what people can hear (and what is in most music), increasing them serves no purpose. That is what the engineers and recording companies said when it was invented. Funny how quick you are to believe them now.

No, I considered the theoretical arguments in the past and have never drawn any conclusions about the causal effects of resolution increases. My mind is still open about potential causal effects from high res formats, obviously you've drawn your own conclusions, even in the absence of conducting any of the "formal tests" that you say are necessary to draw conclusions.

And your version of history is quite different from what I remember. Recording engineers at the time that the CD standard was released came out very much against the 44.1/16 spec. When the redbook standard was set, the prevailing sampling rates of the digital recorders of the time were already higher than 44.1 kHz, and the recording engineers were asking why the CD did not at least match the higher sampling rates already in use at that time. Are you saying that downsampling with a 16-bit digital master produces no audible effects? Again, neither of us has the access to the studio masters that are necessary to establish whether there's an audible effect when a digital master gets downsampled to the CD spec.


As I said, a bunch of guys at working mixing boards do not impress me. When you are faced with the fact that a 96/24 format records high frequencies well beyond what people can hear and a 24 bit sample has a theoretical dynamic range unacheiveable with today's equipment, one has to wonder if the "professionals" know what the hell they are doing. As I said, humans can only hear to about 20 KHz (not anywhere near 48 KHz and no music has a dynamic range of 24 bits (and no home audio equipment can produce that dynamic range, and no listening environment would allow one to hear a 24 bit dynamic range). The opinions of the "professional" guys are verging on ridiculous. That is not my fault. If they want to be respected as professionals they had better get their facts straight--don't count on it when the boss is pushing a new format.

You can try to label what I say as a conspiracy, but the recording companies have a lengthy history of trying to put things over on the public. They have repeatedly let marketing drive their efforts and what they say is unreliable. I understand this is how capitalism works, but we do not have to be dumb enough to believe what they say. The recording engineers that work for them had better fall in line or look for work elsewhere. Recording engineers are also subject to hype the same as anybody else. They need to feel cutting edge and a ridiculous recording format can provide a measure of superiority.



And again, you keep pushing theoretical arguments that don't make an ounce of difference to me. My support of high resolution formats has been in the clear cut improvements that high res discs have made over several of the CD or LP versions that I own. Have I ever concluded that the resolution alone is responsible for what I hear? No, and it would be irresponsible of me to do so, given the variety of other causal variables that are involved in the process. But, given the number of variables that I cannot isolate as an end user, it would be equally irresponsible for me to rule out the resolution as a causal effect in the absence of the data that I would need to draw ANY conclusion about the causal effect.

For you to start pinning all of these accusations on recording engineers is pretty ridiculous in itself. If anything, the cost involved in constantly upgrading the recording and encoding equipment would serve as a disincentive to moving up to higher resolutions, particularly if all of the output from a particular studio is destined for CDs. The record companies have nothing to do with what recording engineers use in their studios. Last time I checked, most of them are independently owned and operated.

The sound engineers that I've met are all about getting the sound quality to meet the requirements for whatever project they're working on. And that entails using whatever tools are available to do that job better. If that includes higher resolution encoders, then that's part of the picture. The guys who operate the mixing boards have done a lot more work with digital audio formats and done a lot more recording than most of the physicists that I know. Given that nearly all of what I listen to is actually recorded by these guys on the mixing boards and not theoreticians, I obviously don't hold them in as low a regard as you clearly do.


You know as well as I do that there is no support that these formats sound superior other than the opinions of those with a reason to be biased. The "source" is not the master tape but what was recorded--the live performance. The live performance does not have a "resolution" of 96/24 and we could not hear it if it did. A 96/24 format takes up over three time the storage for zero audible differences. Why not admit boys like their toys and that if you can record at 96/24 and feel "professional" you will enjoy doing it and defend it. Fine, but let's not pretend we are making some kind of progress.

Neither you or I record live performances, so how do you know for sure that going to 96/24 has "zero audible differences"? The source of course is the master tape, because THAT is what the playback format is trying to reproduce. Not all musical selections are about emulating live performance, and most pop recordings are studio creations with a lot of processing, overdubbing, and manipulation used in the process. Given these conditions, the master is the source. If you're trying to "prove" the hypothesis that CDs and high res formats are equal, then the listening test would use a high res master as the source.


You are correct in saying that the new formats have a use in supporting multichannel. But, the "professionals" can't even get that right. They are supporting multichannel formats designed for movie sound, not accurate live audio reproduction that audiophiles want. They have no proper format for high fidelity audio multichannel which is a shame.

Huh? "no proper format for high fidelity audio multichannel audio"? What do you think DVD-A and SACD are? This statement just jumps all over the place, so I have no idea what point you're trying to convey. "Professionals" like Eliot Scheiner and Rob Eaton are "supporting" multichannel high res, because they produce and mix 5.1 music soundtracks and release them in DVD-A and/or SACD.

The potential with multichannel is not just with the formats, but with how the extra channels open up a new range of possibilites with the mixes. Multichannel soundtracks are mixed and monitored differently depending on whether they are destined for movie theaters or home audio systems. The studio monitoring setups for mixing multichannel music are different than the dubbing stages used for mixing movie theater prints, and increasingly, DVD releases now involve repurposed soundtracks. But, that has NOTHING to do with the playback format. Whether you're listening to it in a lossy format or an uncompressed format, the effect conveyed by the multichannel mix is still there. Whether or not the sound quality takes a jump when listening to that same multichannel mix using DVD-A rather than DD or DTS is a different question.

The specs on Dolby Digital are actually superior to CD on paper -- same frequency response and wider dynamic range. Doesn't this exceed what humans can hear as well? Yet, I don't know anyone who prefers the sound of DD to 44.1/16 PCM, and quite a few who prefer the sound of CD tracks to what two-channel DD versions provide. And let's not forget that the whole reason for the bit resolution that DD uses the high compression rate has to do with the limitations of the carrier formats -- first, with what could be squeezed into an optical frame on a film print, and now with working around the storage limits of the DVD format after accounting for the space needed for video. With Blu-ray and HD-DVD on the horizon, lossless audio formats from DD and DTS are now part of the package. Why? Because the storage technology now allows for more audio bandwidth to be feasibly included.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-17-2005, 05:51 PM
Your response does not show you considered what I said. It is obvious why the redbook standard was set where it is set, it has nothing to do with "limitations" of the time. 44/16 supports a theoretical playback of 20 KHz and 96 dB dynamic range. These values exceed what people can hear (and what is in most music), increasing them serves no purpose. That is what the engineers and recording companies said when it was invented. Funny how quick you are to believe them now.

I am stunned. I cannot believe(or maybe I can) that you believe you own press, and completely ignore what is factual and well documented. It is widely know that Sony and Philips used the 44.1khz standard because it was already previously used to store digital signals to video tape which was at the time the most economical way to store digital data. That my friend is a compromise because this sample rate was inherited from a previous standard, and not developed specifically for the format.

16bits does garantee 96db dynamic range, however garanteeing a dynamic range does guarantee good sound quality when compared to the analog master, or other bit rates. The very fact that Sony and Philips were debating between 14bits and 16bits with no dither or noise shaping shows that they were looking theoritical limits, but not sound quality specifically. No engineer will agree with you that 16bits is enough. And it is completely logical that if you record in 24bits, playback in 24bits will sound much better than adding dither or noise shaping to 16bit downconversion. Now you can bath in your ignorance and believe what you desire, but your beliefs do not equal facts in the field, or in my living room. Please read;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc
.


As I said, a bunch of guys at working mixing boards do not impress me. When you are faced with the fact that a 96/24 format records high frequencies well beyond what people can hear and a 24 bit sample has a theoretical dynamic range unacheiveable with today's equipment, one has to wonder if the "professionals" know what the hell they are doing.

This is an interesting comment. I am personally not impressed by someone trying to use theory to describe sound quality. I am even less impressed by someone who takes a superior attitude about something they know so little about. Once again for the blind(who has trouble reading what is clearly written) Nobody supports 96khz sampling for frequency extension(please read this again so you can finally get it) They support it for the amount of samples taken within the human hearing, which equals to greater accuracy in tracking the analog waveform. 24bits are used for the simple reason that large classical music works often have the dynamic range from 100-116dbs, which is beyond the scope of 16bits. In order to get this much dynamic range onto CD, you have to compress and limit it. This processing does degrade the original signals in varying degree's.



As I said, humans can only hear to about 20 KHz (not anywhere near 48 KHz and no music has a dynamic range of 24 bits (and no home audio equipment can produce that dynamic range, and no listening environment would allow one to hear a 24 bit dynamic range). The opinions of the "professional" guys are verging on ridiculous. That is not my fault. If they want to be respected as professionals they had better get their facts straight--don't count on it when the boss is pushing a new format.

You are begininng to sound like a broken record.. Everyone knows humans can only hear to 20khz, (one again) 96khz is chosen for the increased sampling below 20khz. So it really doesn't matter that we cannot hear above 20khz, but we can certainly here better bass definition, improved imaging, smoother highs, and better soundstaging which are all benefits of a higher sampling rate. 24bits are used during recording is better for music that is highly dynamic in nature such as large classical works, large choruses with orchestra, and close miked acoustical guitars. While you can dither the audio down to 16bits, dither adds a digital glaze that is very apparent when comparing the 16bit downconversion to the analog master. Why do this when you have 24bit coverters in both the recording side, and the playback side. So whether or not you can reproduce 144db or not, not having to go through alot of resolution reducing steps is a benefit that can be heard, at least in a comparison. It is also well understood that the noise floor of 16bit can be heard, and that is not the case with 20 or 24bit depths.


You can try to label what I say as a conspiracy, but the recording companies have a lengthy history of trying to put things over on the public. They have repeatedly let marketing drive their efforts and what they say is unreliable. I understand this is how capitalism works, but we do not have to be dumb enough to believe what they say. The recording engineers that work for them had better fall in line or look for work elsewhere. Recording engineers are also subject to hype the same as anybody else. They need to feel cutting edge and a ridiculous recording format can provide a measure of superiority.

First let's address some misinformation that you are continually spreading. I know of no recording engineer that works for any audio manufacturer. I know of a few that work for record companies, but they do not drive audio technology forward. Mostly everyone working in high resolution audio are freelancers. Most own their own recording or mastering facilities. Before making any upgrades to their facilities which can cost anywhere from $250k to over a million bucks, they have done exhastive listening comparisons to fully justify this kind of capital outlay. Now you can think whatever you desire, but if you were in their shoes, would you spend your on money on something that brings nothing to the table just because a record company tells you to do it? To think this through requires that you use your brain, and not your overeactive emotions.


You know as well as I do that there is no support that these formats sound superior other than the opinions of those with a reason to be biased.

Oh really, and where evidence do you have to support this theory? Can you explain to me why Tony Brown, Eliott Schneider, Michael Bishop, Chuck Ainley and serveral other grammy award winning engineers would be biased? They are independent freelance engineers with no ties to any products, manufacturers, or record companies.


The "source" is not the master tape but what was recorded--the live performance. The live performance does not have a "resolution" of 96/24 and we could not hear it if it did.

Excuse me, but the master tape would be derived from the live recorded performance. The performance would have 24/96khz resolution if it was recorded with that bit and sample rate. If it was recorded in 24/96khz you WOULD HEAR a difference if it was downsampled to 16/44.1khz. If the performance included cymbal crashes, muted brass, massed strings, or acoustical guitars you would need to record in 24/96khz to capture the fundimental and natural harmonic tones of these instruments. Whether you hear it are not, theoritically you are altering the natural harmonics of these instruments by downsampling them to 16/44.1khz.(since you rely so heavily on theory)



A 96/24 format takes up over three time the storage for zero audible differences.

Oh really? And what listening test have you organized or participated in that allows you to come to this conclusion? Perhaps you should read this listening test taken from Surround professional 2002

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_08.shtml

Higher sampling rates improve imaging;


http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=7408


Why not admit boys like their toys and that if you can record at 96/24 and feel "professional" you will enjoy doing it and defend it. Fine, but let's not pretend we are making some kind of progress.

I guess some people like to wear their ignorance like a favorite blanket.


You are correct in saying that the new formats have a use in supporting multichannel. But, the "professionals" can't even get that right. They are supporting multichannel formats designed for movie sound, not accurate live audio reproduction that audiophiles want. They have no proper format for high fidelity audio multichannel which is a shame.

Your uninformed opinion is like a pimple on the but of a t-rex. You have never recorded a nursery ryme and you feel like you can judge what is good better than the professionals. One of the things that has always amazed me when participating on boards like this is all of the experts that come out of the woodwork, with no experience in what they debate, and state their opinion as word. There is nothing you have noted that the people who actually work with high rez audio would agree with. The bottom line is your opinion is the ranting raves of a conspiracy theorist, with no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. You quote theory, but you don't mention that theory doesn't tell you how to get the result the theory promotes. Sure 16bit gives you 96db of dynamic range, but that doesn't speak of anything to do with sound quality. Sure no playback system can do 144db, but is that a reason to subject audio signals to the degrading process of downsampling? I think not. If you have a pipeline that can support 24bits, why not record in 24bits, process in 24bits, and playback in 24bits?

You have laid down some VERY unsupported, shortsighted, and malinformed claims here. Perhaps you need to go back to square one, and try this again.

Geoffcin
03-17-2005, 06:17 PM
Hey guys, I think this thread has run it's course and is de-evolving. It's about time to call it done.