I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You



RGA
09-13-2012, 03:25 AM
Love it

I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You (http://thecampussocialite.com/i-own-a-turntable-therefore-i-am-better-than-you)

Feanor
09-13-2012, 04:43 AM
Love it

I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You (http://thecampussocialite.com/i-own-a-turntable-therefore-i-am-better-than-you)
Turntable as small phallus compensation. :16:

Tubes too, I guess :shocked:

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/thetubestore_2222_120356537

texlle
09-13-2012, 05:57 AM
Is that what we really sound like to the rest of the A/V world? Hmm, I figured we were a bit more subtle than that.

JohnMichael
09-13-2012, 05:59 AM
That was fun. Of course I feel much the same way about owning a turntable. No compressed formats for me.

frenchmon
09-13-2012, 07:59 AM
I love it!


You can leave your “dope new albums” in the back of your aging economy car, because I know the difference between an album and a CD.

Priceless!

3db
09-13-2012, 12:27 PM
I own a turntable because I'm getting older and its too difficult to read the liner notes of CDs

dingus
09-13-2012, 02:53 PM
I do not harbor lossy audio in my home. I own a turntable.
compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

3db
09-14-2012, 03:49 AM
compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

That is incorrect. The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart because of the physical limitations of vinyl. However, other than classical music and maybe jazz, the remaining genres on CD suffer from the commerical loudness wars and thus reduces the amount of dynamic range available.

bobsticks
09-14-2012, 05:01 AM
"I’d love to tell you about them, but then they would become instantly passé and detestable."


Now I'm going to spend my day wondering which Rave Rec contributor leads a double life penning hipster miniblogs for the Campus Socialite...

dingus
09-14-2012, 11:48 AM
compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.
That is incorrect. The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart because of the physical limitations of vinyl. However, other than classical music and maybe jazz, the remaining genres on CD suffer from the commerical loudness wars and thus reduces the amount of dynamic range available.

i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-17-2012, 02:03 PM
i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

CD has that benefit as well, that benefit is not exclusive to vinyl. Each choice has its subjective pluses and minuses. After listening to my master tapes, and comparing it to a vinyl pressing and CD, I felt the CD sounded more like my master than the vinyl did. After being able to do this kind of comparison on my stuff, and other folks stuff as well, I have come to the conclusion that Vinyl may be pleasing to the ear, but it is not accurate to the source. Since vinyl affectionados have no real comparison, they rely solely on how it sounds to the ear.

Now to be clear, I am not thrilled about the Redbook CD format. As it stands, it does not have enough resolution to fully represent instruments with ultra high frequency harmonics. Vinyl does. However as we go up in sample rate(and out of the Redbook spec) that difference is completely erased. By the time we get to 24/192khz, then vinyl sounds more colored that digital.

Smokey
09-17-2012, 02:50 PM
Now to be clear, I am not thrilled about the Redbook CD format. As it stands, it does not have enough resolution to fully represent instruments with ultra high frequency harmonics. Vinyl does.

I don't know Sir TT, but that might be giving vinyl too much credit :)

Notwithstanding the fact that high frequency harmonics (which have low enegry) are probably buried in the groove due to excessive LP surface noise, the builtin RIAA low pass filter circuitry also take another wack at those harmonics by attenuating and filtering them out.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/409KH_Fig3.jpg

thekid
09-17-2012, 04:46 PM
I own 3 turntables so I guess I am 3 times better........... :D
But according to many because I also cassettes and laser discs I am not as smart as I think......... :D

RGA
09-17-2012, 06:27 PM
Smokey - please source the link of graphs.

RGA
09-17-2012, 06:54 PM
It would also help if we had real world comparisons.

For instance when I compare I try where possible to list the comparison. So for example:

Madonna Immaculate Collection song "Vogue" on LP versus the same on the CD via CA CD6 versus NAD 533/Rega 250 Arm Shure M97xE or AN TT2/Arm3/IQ 3.

This way when the CD wins or the vinyl wins you have some idea as to what was compared and you can somewhat crosscheck back and say I get why you came to that opinion because I heard the same or similar combo and agree that the CD or the LP was clearly better.

I never quite understand the arguments over these technologies. If I have 100 albums recorded on CD and LP and 50 albums sound better on CD and 50 sound better on vinyl then I need both to get the best out of the recorded music.

I personally have found that replay is an important factor via the turntable and the phono stage. They're more finicky and big name or prices doesn't necessarily mean good. CD replay is less substantial in playback quality in comparison to vinyl replay.

Changing a $70 cart to $100 cart was a massive improvement - going from a $400 CD player to a $700 CD player isn't nearly as noticeable and not likely to pass a DBT - with the carts you would.

The info is fairly important because plenty of people own a $100 Fisher or Sony turntable with a misaligned cart and then proclaim vinyl to suck. That is considerably different than using a Voyd Reference and Helius arm with an Io Gold cartridge and S4 step up transformer. I tried plenty of the Duals and used cheapies of the world as well as project and Regas and Oracles and Linns and the classic 124. I wasn't convinced by any of them.

3db
09-18-2012, 04:50 AM
i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

Dynamic range of CDs is far greater than that of vinyl. Its a non arguement. However, you are correct that the recording engineer ultimately determines how much of that range is used. In classical music, a recording on CD will wipe the floor of its vinyl counterpart in dynamic range. The differences in loudness between the loudest and quitest part is far greater than it is on vinyl.

E-Stat
09-18-2012, 05:48 AM
Smokey - please source the link of graphs.
That's simply the RIAA de-emphasis curve. Understand that the signal is boosted initially by an identically inverse curve. Which does not support Smokey's rather simplistic claim.

The top octave is where vinyl can be superior in harmonic integrity to Redbook.

E-Stat
09-18-2012, 05:53 AM
The differences in loudness between the loudest and quitest part is far greater than it is on vinyl.
Some of that is "false" dynamic range at the bottom end of the scale. The Redbook standard 16 bit word length is insufficient to render the lowest level signals without going deaf (losing detail). The challenge is that you don't get 16 bit resolution at the lowest levels because not all of the bits are firing. Even in the presence of surface noise, however, you can hear detail on analog at lower levels where below a certain threshold, 16/44 ignores it.

As Sir T pointed out, that is solved with when one improves the word length to 24 or greater. Higher sampling rate solves the HF extension limitation.

3db
09-18-2012, 06:58 AM
From what I've been reading... 60db tops is what one gets out of vinyl...and for bass its much lower than that almost half...



Audioholics Home Theater Forums - View Single Post - Dynamic range of vinyl (http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/686045-post8.html)

E-Stat
09-18-2012, 07:37 AM
From what I've been reading... 60db tops is what one gets out of vinyl...and for bass its much lower than that almost half...
You forgot the qualifier "prior to noise reduction" which occurred in what - the 60s? Your *poster* provided the answer as 75 db. As for bass and "groove touching", that is addressed by shorter play lengths as found in 12" 45 RPM recordings. I have about a dozen of those and the bass response is much better.

Unfortunately, there are precious few commercial recordings on any format that even approach that level. :)

Redbook's theoretical dynamic range occurs only at the highest modulation levels. When the level drops, so do the number of bits. Just as the S/N ratio drops in an analog system when the input level is reduced. Which is one of the reasons why higher resolution formats sound more like the live mic feed. Redbook at its best sounds a bit sterile at the top and goes deaf at the lowest levels.

3db
09-18-2012, 08:50 AM
You forgot the qualifier "prior to noise reduction" which occurred in what - the 60s? Your *poster* provided the answer as 75 db. As for bass and "groove touching", that is addressed by shorter play lengths as found in 12" 45 RPM recordings. I have about a dozen of those and the bass response is much better.

Unfortunately, there are precious few commercial recordings on any format that even approach that level. :)

.

Metric's latest album came out on vinyl as well as CD and I managed to scoop it up on a double 45rpm set. Not that it has 75db of range ...Its just my first album of that ilk.

E-Stat
09-18-2012, 09:42 AM
Metric's latest album came out on vinyl as well as CD and I managed to scoop it up on a double 45rpm set.
Well, now you can compare them directly yourself. What are the turntable-arm-phono pre/CD playback systems used for each?


Not that it has 75db of range ...
Understood. Since most of Synthetica will most likely be sold as lossy downloads, the mix was made for those formats. Just as cassettes dumbed down the quality of vinyl mixes years ago.


Its just my first album of that ilk.
I acquired mine twenty years ago!

RGA
09-18-2012, 04:27 PM
As Sir T pointed out, that is solved with when one improves the word length to 24 or greater. Higher sampling rate solves the HF extension limitation.

But then you enter the real world problem (instead of just technology arguments) that barely anything is available to actually listen to at high res/

190,000+ albums on CD and close or more than that on vinyl and less than 7000 SACDs and less again on other high res formats. I said it at CAS - master tape sounded the best but there's no music - so as great as it sounds IMO the point is moot. You could go an subscribe to the tape project - they make 12 tapes a year and you get to have any 8 that you want - the price is $3000 for 8 albums (as was described to me). And one of those is pretentious drivel in Patricia Barber so I am already down to choosing 8 out of 11.

E-Stat
09-19-2012, 05:31 AM
But then you enter the real world problem (instead of just technology arguments) that barely anything is available to actually listen to at high res/
Which is why I never bought a SACD player. It just wasn't worth the money required to buy a unit that would provide equivalent Redbook performance along with providing the capability to play a tiny minority of high resolution recordings in my library.

The music industry correctly assumed that most folks think CD is "perfect sound forever", so there was little need to roll out a new format across the board. Then they shot themselves in the foot with the copy protection schemes on the few high rez formats that preclude server based playback.

Despite the fact that I'm an old boomer who grew up having to spin one record at a time, I'm all about server based music. Consequently, I will never invest in dead end shiny disc-only formats for music - nor will the current generation. Yes, I own two turntables and spin my early library contents on a regular basis. I'd rather make selections, however, with an iPhone based remote to the music server. .

I really wish I could buy the music of my choice on a better sounding format.

Feanor
09-19-2012, 08:25 AM
Which is why I never bought a SACD player. It just wasn't worth the money required to buy a unit that would provide equivalent Redbook performance along with providing the capability to play a tiny minority of high resolution recordings in my library.

The music industry correctly assumed that most folks think CD is "perfect sound forever", so there was little need to roll out a new format across the board. Then they shot themselves in the foot with the copy protection schemes on the few high rez formats that preclude server based playback.

Despite the fact that I'm an old boomer who grew up having to spin one record at a time, I'm all about server based music. Consequently, I will never invest in dead end shiny disc-only formats for music - nor will the current generation. Yes, I own two turntables and spin my early library contents on a regular basis. I'd rather make selections, however, with an iPhone based remote to the music server. .

I really wish I could buy the music of my choice on a better sounding format.
As a classical music listener I have a better selection on SACD format than is relevant to a lot of people. I have an SACD player but it is just not capable of extracting any more resolution from the SACD layer than the CD layer of hybrid discs. Possibly adequate SACD players seem to start at $1000 which is a lot money to me.

Nevertheless I know that Hi-rez is better than RBCD because of 24/88.2 tracks I have downloaded from HDTracks: I've compared the hi-rez downloads with CD rips which demonstrated the point. Unfortunately there is a much smaller selection than even that for SACD -- and they are are 2 channel only.

Yes, copy protection sucks. It's an interference with "fair use", IMO, but then the digital world is unprecedented and other people have a different idea.

BTW, I can listen to SACD multichannel with my HT system but that system doesn't extract the highest resolution either.

E-Stat
09-19-2012, 09:00 AM
Nevertheless I know that Hi-rez is better than RBCD because of 24/88.2 tracks I have downloaded from HDTracks: I've compared the hi-rez downloads with CD rips which demonstrated the point.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every CD offering was also available as a 24/88 download? That is the biggest-bang-for-your-buck improvement over Redbook and would likely benefit most every recording's fidelity. The music industry could re-sell the entire catalog with far lower distribution costs due to the elimination of having to create, inventory and distribute hard media.

Feanor
09-19-2012, 10:41 AM
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every CD offering was also available as a 24/88 download? That is the biggest-bang-for-your-buck improvement over Redbook and would likely benefit most every recording's fidelity. The music industry could re-sell the entire catalog with far lower distribution costs due to the elimination of having to create, inventory and distribute hard media.
For clarity I should have stated, "I've compared the hi-rez downloads with CD rips of the same recording which demonstrated the point.

Yes, it would be great, and I would spring the dough for quite a few of my generally well-recorded CDs. But as we know, to the music companies hi-rez is a niche market after-thought.

E-Stat
09-19-2012, 10:48 AM
But as we know, to the music companies hi-rez is a niche market after-thought.
Yes, they blundered into creating it as such.

Smokey
09-19-2012, 05:13 PM
That's simply the RIAA de-emphasis curve. Understand that the signal is boosted initially by an identically inverse curve. Which does not support Smokey's rather simplistic claim.

RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis curve standard was created to work with audible range of 20-20k hz window, not harmonics that can go beyound 20 khz. Enhnace RIAA curve (red) was suggested later on to address that issue, but it was never standardized.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/409KH_Fig6.jpg


The top octave is where vinyl can be superior in harmonic integrity to Redbook.

That would be true if it wasn't for excessive noise (S/N ratio) associated with LP. I download alot of hi-bit MP3 from internet (Usenet) and can tell right away if source is vinyl. And I let you guess what gives it away :)

E-Stat
09-19-2012, 05:18 PM
RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis curve standard was created to work with audible range of 20-20k hz window, not harmonics that can go beyound 20 khz. Enhnace RIAA curve (red) was suggested later on to address that issue, but it was never standardized.
And? How many MC cartridges with significant output above 20k have you heard? Is theory your only guide?


That would be true if it wasn't for excessive noise (S/N ratio) associated with LP. I download alot of hi-bit MP3 from internet (Usenet) and can tell right away if source is vinyl. And I let you guess what gives it away :)
Let's hear it for all the folks who record into MP3 with their crappy changers!

RGA
09-19-2012, 06:27 PM
All the turntables in my town that had USB to computer for recording purposes were all sold at Radio Shack for around $129.99 to $199. Turntable, arm, and cartridge and USB to computer.

Yes a CD player is better or hi res recording is easily going to beat recordings made from this device.

What I want answered is why a top of the line Chord, Emm Labs, Audio Note, Electrocompaniet, Sony, Wadia, Linn, Marantz, TEAC, all suck against comparable turntables in every dealer show and home use that I have tried. It can't just be coincidence.

I am currently heading to computer based audio - it's just such a large field from devices like the Halide which seem to be getting raves Halide Design | Profile (http://www.halidedesign.com/)

I am considering something like the Eastern Electric Mini Max Dac plus MMpreIntro (http://www.eeaudio.com/eeaudio_012.htm)

And of course there is Ayre which I quite enjoyed at Soundhounds - liked it much more than the more expensive Linn.

Smokey
09-20-2012, 08:57 PM
And? How many MC cartridges with significant output above 20k have you heard?

The cartridge alone can not addres the issue of ultrahi frequency (or lack of) with vinyl. The surface noise (friction) and RIAA demphasis filtering are the main culprit that effect those frequecy.

If you look at CD, the same propblem exist concerning harmonics frequency. Redbook have brick filtering at at around 22khz that pretty much filter anything above those frequency. But higher resolution formats move the filtering higher determine by sampling rate. There must be a brick-wall filter at less than 1/2 of the sampling rate, which mean 20kHz for 44.1, 22kHz for 48, and 45kHz for 96, and 95kHz for 192 sampliong rate.

E-Stat
09-21-2012, 04:44 AM
The cartridge alone can not addres the issue of ultrahi frequency (or lack of) with vinyl. The surface noise (friction) and RIAA demphasis filtering are the main culprit that effect those frequecy.
I just love the ramblings of non-experiential theorists! Obviously, the answer to my question is: zero.


If you look at CD, the same propblem exist concerning harmonics frequency. Redbook have brick filtering ...
There is no brickwall filtering on phono stages. MC cartridges and phono stages have significant output an octave higher.

3db
09-21-2012, 05:01 AM
I just love the ramblings of non-experiential theorists! Obviously, the answer to my question is: zero..

Smokey has a very valid point Estat in that the RIAA emphasys deemphasys plays a role in the frequency response of analog systems. Even if the cartridge goes well beyond 20KHz, the next link in the chain is the RIAA emphasys deemphasys which does limit frequency response.

E-Stat
09-21-2012, 05:21 AM
Even if the cartridge goes well beyond 20KHz, the next link in the chain is the RIAA emphasys deemphasys which does limit frequency response.
The RIAA de-emphasis is a curve, not a digital styled brickwall filter. Look again at Smokey's graph. Since the curves are complementary, as much boost (out to 50k!) exists as is the subsequent cut.

I'll ask the same question of you that I asked of him to which his lack of response indicates "no". Have you actually auditioned any MC cartridges - all of which have significant output above 20k? Are you also basing your opinion entirely upon theory?

The first MC cartridge I used was an Ortofon SL-15E purchased back in '75. Followed by a range of others by Denon, Accuphase, Shinon and Dynavector. I use the last two in both my turntables today and have heard other makes in systems used by reviewer friends. The Clearaudio Statement and Goldfinger cartridge certainly make a nice combo!

The top octave is clearly an area where the best analog is superior to the limited Redbook standard.

3db
09-21-2012, 09:08 AM
The RIAA de-emphasis is a curve, not a digital styled brickwall filter. Look again at Smokey's graph. Since the curves are complementary, as much boost (out to 50k!) exists as is the subsequent cut.

I'll ask the same question of you that I asked of him to which his lack of response indicates "no". Have you actually auditioned any MC cartridges - all of which have significant output above 20k? Are you also basing your opinion entirely upon theory?

The first MC cartridge I used was an Ortofon SL-15E purchased back in '75. Followed by a range of others by Denon, Accuphase, Shinon and Dynavector. I use the last two in both my turntables today and have heard other makes in systems used by reviewer friends. The Clearaudio Statement and Goldfinger cartridge certainly make a nice combo!

The top octave is clearly an area where the best analog is superior to the limited Redbook standard.

My answer to your question is no and it is based on theory. You are correct that they are curves and not brick wall filtering but the brickwall filters are necessary to remove aliasing affects from the sampling that takes place. Be careful of the cartridge specs. I looked up the Orotofon and I've seen 10Hz to 40/50Khz but they didn't include a frequency deviation. The spec was imcomplete. Perhaps you have a better source.

Whether or not its clearly superior is a moot point as hearing is subjective. I've heard recordings on both formats that were stellar; Tom Petty's MOJO springs to mind. Factor in the that us middle aged guys carry our own brick wall filter between 13K to 15K makes the subtle effects of extended frequency inaudable.

E-Stat
09-21-2012, 10:15 AM
Factor in the that us middle aged guys carry our own brick wall filter between 13K to 15K makes the subtle effects of extended frequency inaudable.
Your conclusion is incorrect for a couple of reasons:

1. Most brickwall filters are not completely phase coherent and introduce audible artifacts at lower frequencies. Which is why much higher sampling rates are audibly better.

2. Not all perception of music is "heard". There have been studies that have proven that humans do respond to supersonic content, even if it isn't directly "heard" as such.

In any event, my opinion is based upon theory and specifications, but far more heavily weighted by more than thirty five years of direct experience using much better than average gear. Not to mention being able to hear the SOTA stuff found at Sea Cliff from time to time. I really wish everyone could share that experience.

I listen to both CDs and records because that is where my music lives. Each format has its advantages and disadvantages Since most of my library since the 80s is CD based, I listen more often through a server based digital solution in both music systems. Neither am I one who particularly enjoys the pomp and circumstance of cleaning and playing a record. I do it because I have to.

3db
09-21-2012, 10:58 AM
Your conclusion is incorrect for a couple of reasons:

1. Most brickwall filters are not completely phase coherent and introduce audible artifacts at lower frequencies. Which is why much higher sampling rates are audibly better.



I have also seen studies where people could not tell the difference between CD and higher rez formats such as SACD. I also wouldn't put a whole lot of faith on studies on unheard sound in the high frequency range as making a difference. I would really question the methodolgy behind such studies. Bass, I can understand as you can feel it. High frequencies, not a chance.


I listen to both formats as well as my music is spread across these. Nothing wrong with liking a ritual.

E-Stat
09-21-2012, 11:32 AM
I have also seen studies where people could not tell the difference between CD and higher rez formats such as SACD.
I've seen some pretty funny ones using ridiculous assumptions. Take E Brad Meyer's test ior the Boston Audio Society where he takes a crappy Pioneer player and inserts a "simulated Redbook processor" in the middle. There was lots of discussion on that years ago here (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digital&n=147938). The only valid test is what engineers like Sir T have done before: compare mic feeds directly using various formats. Convoluted kiss-your-elbow-using-crappy-gear tests merely explore the limitations of the *test*. BTW, Tony Lauck is an engineer who went to college with Meyer. :)


I also wouldn't put a whole lot of faith on studies on unheard sound in the high frequency range as making a difference.
Fortunately, I don't have to rely on other's experience or use my *imagination* in order to draw my conclusions.


I would really question the methodolgy behind such studies.
Without first having any understanding whatsoever as to what it is. Talk about expectation bias!


Bass, I can understand as you can feel it. High frequencies, not a chance.
My experience is certainly quite different from yours in multiple respects.

3db
09-21-2012, 12:11 PM
I've seen some pretty funny ones using ridiculous assumptions. Take E Brad Meyer's test ior the Boston Audio Society where he takes a crappy Pioneer player and inserts a "simulated Redbook processor" in the middle. There was lots of discussion on that years ago here (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digital&n=147938). The only valid test is what engineers like Sir T have done before: compare mic feeds directly using various formats. Convoluted kiss-your-elbow-using-crappy-gear tests merely explore the limitations of the *test*. BTW, Tony Lauck is an engineer who went to college with Meyer. :)


Fortunately, I don't have to rely on other's experience or use my *imagination* in order to draw my conclusions.


Without first having any understanding whatsoever as to what it is. Talk about expectation bias!


My experience is certainly quite different from yours in multiple respects.

So we agree to disagree. No sense flogging this dead horse. :)

E-Stat
09-21-2012, 01:00 PM
So we agree to disagree. No sense flogging this dead horse. :)
I think we ascertained that a few years ago. Remember this discourse (http://forums.audioreview.com/general-audio/emaidel-right-about-hi-fi-tuning-fuses-31879.html)? I was searching for something else recently and revisited the entire thread.

I really enjoyed your humor. And for whatever reason, you never took the online DBT I referenced (and took myself) or told us about it since it is you who values them so highly. :)

3db
09-21-2012, 03:20 PM
I think we ascertained that a few years ago. Remember this discourse (http://forums.audioreview.com/general-audio/emaidel-right-about-hi-fi-tuning-fuses-31879.html)? I was searching for something else recently and revisited the entire thread.

I really enjoyed your humor. And for whatever reason, you never took the online DBT I referenced (and took myself) or told us about it since it is you who values them so highly. :)

It hope you aren't being sarcastic when you say sense of humor. That would be derogatory.

E-Stat
09-21-2012, 05:03 PM
It hope you aren't being sarcastic when you say sense of humor. That would be derogatory.
Surely you were being facetious with responses like this:

<i>"The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. </i>"

I thoroughly enjoyed your Captain Meteorite explanation. :)

edit: BTW, I never spoke of phono cartridges.

Smokey
09-21-2012, 11:21 PM
1. Most brickwall filters are not completely phase coherent and introduce audible artifacts at lower frequencies. Which is why much higher sampling rates are audibly better.

But higher sampling rate also use brick filtering due to reason 3db mentioned :)

Higher sampling rate sound better mainly due its harmonics frequency (above 20khz) being intact and not filtered out.


2. Not all perception of music is "heard". There have been studies that have proven that humans do respond to supersonic content, even if it isn't directly "heard" as such.

That is true, in a sort of way. Supersoinc frequency (which probably can not be heard) are integral part of signal which shape its [lower] fundamental frequecy. Music signal is very complex and its complexity is due to having supersonic higher harmonic frequency which dictat how the signal look. If you remove those supersonic ftrequecy, you also change the shape of its fundamental frequency (which can be heard).

That is why higher sampling rate formats are more true to the original recording than Redbook CD. Vinyl doesn't even come close due to having more shortcomings than CD.

E-Stat
09-22-2012, 05:02 AM
But higher sampling rate also use brick filtering due to reason 3db mentioned :)
Why would they? That makes no sense. Let's revisit the reason behind the use of brickwall filters in the Redbook world. With PCM systems, you must filter 100% of all content above the Nyquist frequency for that system. Which is half the sample rate which is 22050 in this case. So the transition band from full output (20k) to ZERO output (22k) is only 2k wide. You have to fully suppress ALL signal in 2k otherwise what remains is interpreted as 100% distortion.

In the case of 24/192, the Nyquist frequency is 96k and the transition band is 76k wide - 38 times <i>greater</i> than that of the Redbook case. Why on earth would anyone use a brickwall filter when a more gradual one with less phase shift would work perfectly well?


Higher sampling rate sound better mainly due its harmonics frequency (above 20khz) being intact and not filtered out.
That is part of it and refutes 3db's assertion that the musical experience does not involve the perception of supersonic frequencies.


That is true, in a sort of way. Supersoinc frequency (which probably can not be heard) are integral part of signal which shape its [lower] fundamental frequecy. Music signal is very complex and its complexity is due to having supersonic higher harmonic frequency which dictat how the signal look. If you remove those supersonic ftrequecy, you also change the shape of its fundamental frequency (which can be heard).
3db, are you getting this?


Vinyl doesn't even come close due to having more shortcomings than CD.
Except of course at the top where the deleterious effects of the brickwall filter and severe bandwidth limiting don't exist in the analog world.

Feanor
09-22-2012, 05:50 AM
...
Except of course at the top {frequencies} where the deleterious effects of the brickwall filter and severe bandwidth limiting don't exist in the analog world.
Except of course that physical limitations of the vinyl medium and cartridge suspensions render the top frequencies hypothetical.

E-Stat
09-22-2012, 06:06 AM
Except of course that physical limitations of the vinyl medium and cartridge suspensions render the top frequencies hypothetical.
Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.

Feanor
09-22-2012, 06:37 AM
Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.
BTW, I'll remind you that own exposure isn't entirely hypothetical. I used a phono system for a dozen years before CD was even invented, and listened to LP and CD side by side for another decade after that

Yes, I remember the hoopla about Quadraphonic. One of the criticisms of the Quad was that the supersonic groves were very subject to rapid wear.

E-Stat
09-22-2012, 06:45 AM
BTW, I'll remind you that own exposure isn't entirely hypothetical. I used a phono system for a dozen years before CD was even invented, and listened to LP and CD side by side for another decade after that
Just curious. Which moving coil cartridge(s) did you use on what arm(s)?


YOne of the criticisms of the Quad was that the supersonic groves were very subject to rapid wear.
The supersonic grooves. Yes, they were.

Which fostered the development of the so-called Shibata stylus shape. The basic Pickerings and Shures of that day were pretty crude.

JohnMichael
09-22-2012, 07:15 AM
Suspensions have improved in modern cartridges through continued engineering. Ortofon is one company that is still looking for new elastomers to improve their cartridges.

I would like to hear the Rega Apheta moving coil. It has neither foam dampers nor a suspension wire. When you set tracking force a visual check is needed to ensure the coils are centered in the generating system.

E-Stat
09-22-2012, 09:09 AM
Suspensions have improved in modern cartridges through continued engineering. Ortofon is one company that is still looking for new elastomers to improve their cartridges.
That is largely a moving magnet only issue. They are inherently more limited attempting to reproduce the "eleventh" octave.

Which is why you don't find moving magnet tweeters.

Feanor
09-22-2012, 09:17 AM
Just curious. Which moving coil cartridge(s) did you use on what arm(s)?
...
No, I never used an MC cartridge. In the heyday of my LP listening I used a Sonus Blue cartridge, Grace 707 tonearm, ERA belt-drive turntable, and APT Holman preamp.

E-Stat
09-22-2012, 09:32 AM
No, I never used an MC cartridge. In the heyday of my LP listening I used a Sonus Blue cartridge, Grace 707 tonearm, ERA belt-drive turntable, and APT Holman preamp.
Sonus Blue on a Grace arm you say? That was a really nice combination! We sold quite a few of them at the shop where I worked part time in college. The arm was also very easy to set up unlike some of the others we sold. I too, had a Sonus Blue (Peter Pritchard's ultimate design) but used a Transcriptors Vestigal arm (a pain to set up correctly) on the Ariston RD-11s I have to this day. After transitioning to moving coils, I used a Grace 714. The pic with the Accuphase AC-2 is from '82 or so.

Moving magnet designs just don't have the extended HF capability of MCs.

JohnMichael
09-23-2012, 10:38 AM
I would love to have an Orofon A 90 and of course a table that would let it perform at it's best. The engineering needed to create the body and the suspension is very interesting.

MC A90 FSE and WRD (http://www.ortofon.com/products/cartridges/moving-coil/a90/mc-a90-fse-and-wrd)

MC A90 Diamond and Coil (http://www.ortofon.com/products/cartridges/moving-coil/a90/mc-a90-diamond-and-coil)

Maybe one day.

E-Stat
09-23-2012, 11:22 AM
I would love to have an Orofon A 90 and of course a table that would let it perform at it's best. The engineering needed to create the body and the suspension is very interesting.
Clearly, Ortofon has been at the forefront of cartridge design for many decades.

BTW, note the frequency response of the A90 cartridge as found on the technical data page: it's only 3db down at 80 kHz!

3db
09-24-2012, 03:59 AM
Surely you were being facetious with responses like this:

<i>"The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. </i>"

I thoroughly enjoyed your Captain Meteorite explanation. :)

So you are being a derogatory flamer... i thought maybe you would grown but alas, your still very much simple minded my friend. peace out!!

3db
09-24-2012, 04:08 AM
Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.

What's your point? Just because it was done doesn't mean that the higher frequencies are recorded on the commercially available albums. And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.


I still don't believe in the supersonic sound affecting sound perception unless you have proof from an independent lab. I'm not going take your hot air opinions as fact The energy in the higher frequencies is so low compared to that of the lower frequencies that its "modulation" effect of the lower frequencies is negligible.

E-Stat
09-24-2012, 04:38 AM
So you are being a derogatory flamer... i thought maybe you would grown but alas, your still very much simple minded my friend. peace out!!
I guess that means - you don't have a sense of humor.

E-Stat
09-24-2012, 04:51 AM
What's your point?
You just answered it below:

And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.

Redbook CD tops out at 22 kHz


I still don't believe in the supersonic sound affecting sound perception...
You still won't *believe* it because you've already made up your mind. :)

There's life above 20 kHz (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm)

More... (http://skreddypedals.com/digital_sucks/Ultrasonics.htm)

Tannoy on HF (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gearslutz.com%2Fboard%2Fattac hments%2Fhigh-end%2F119636d1240952170-capturing-ultrasonics-tannoywp_wideband.pdf&ei=2VRgUOCEPKjm2gXqyIHQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFeJ3q6lQT7j_-gf_-ReZ0CrnfgUw&cad=rja)

Hypersonic effects (http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full)

I really couldn't care less if you wish to bury your head in the sand over understanding the actual harmonic content of instruments. Wait - you already have!

3db
09-24-2012, 08:27 AM
You just answered it below:

And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.

Redbook CD tops out at 22 kHz


You still won't *believe* it because you've already made up your mind. :)

There's life above 20 kHz (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm)

More... (http://skreddypedals.com/digital_sucks/Ultrasonics.htm)

Tannoy on HF (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gearslutz.com%2Fboard%2Fattac hments%2Fhigh-end%2F119636d1240952170-capturing-ultrasonics-tannoywp_wideband.pdf&ei=2VRgUOCEPKjm2gXqyIHQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFeJ3q6lQT7j_-gf_-ReZ0CrnfgUw&cad=rja)

Hypersonic effects (http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full)

I really couldn't care less if you wish to bury your head in the sand over understanding the actual harmonic content of instruments. Wait - you already have!

I will take a read through the links. Thanks for posting.

E-Stat
09-24-2012, 09:28 AM
Thanks for posting.
You're welcome. Happy reading!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-24-2012, 02:17 PM
What's your point? Just because it was done doesn't mean that the higher frequencies are recorded on the commercially available albums. And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.


I still don't believe in the supersonic sound affecting sound perception unless you have proof from an independent lab. I'm not going take your hot air opinions as fact The energy in the higher frequencies is so low compared to that of the lower frequencies that its "modulation" effect of the lower frequencies is negligible.

When you look at the various bandwidth waveforms of Vinyl, CD, DVD-A, SACD(of the same recording), and ultra high resolution audio, Vinyl has at least the performance of DVD-A and SACD. Not many vinyl products reach that higher bandwidth, but the capacity to do so it definitely there.

What is largely missing from the anti bandwidth crowd is the benefits of hi rez within the audible bandwidth. More air, and better imaging are the biggest benefits. These benefits are audible with the right combination of recording equipment, carrier format, and speakers. The accurate reproduction of instruments with significant high energy components above 20 khz is also a benefit. That means muted trumpets, triangles, glockenspiels, and massed strings sound more natural when ALL of their harmonics are reproduced. The resolution of space(between instruments with acoustical material) and sound-stage depth and width is improved without a ringing brick-wall filter to hinder it. Oversampling and up-sampling filters have their issues, and are never a replacement for more bandwidth in the recording system. Let's face it, microphone technology has come a loooooooong way in the last decade. Fully 60% of my recent purchases of microphones for my studio have over 20 khz pickup capabilities - and the other 40% are used where their sonic attributes outweighed their bandwidth.

E-stat is dead right in his comments. The RIAA has a emphasis and de-emphasis curve applied to both sides of the equation. They are fully complimentary, and does not result in loss of bandwidth. This is solely for bandwidth difficulties for vinyl itself, and takes that burden off of the system. In saying that, I have seen waveforms of instruments with considerable HF information accurately rendered on vinyl.

You really don't need a lot of energy above 20khz to gain the benefits of it. You just need a more relaxed filter response from the reconstruction filter.

E-Stat
09-24-2012, 02:41 PM
You really don't need a lot of energy above 20khz to gain the benefits of it. You just need a more relaxed filter response from the reconstruction filter.
Say, how time consuming a job is it to make a 24/88 version from a DXD master? Wouldn't it just be peachy if every label that sells CDs would also offer a downloadable 24/88 version - preferably in FLAC to reduce the bandwidth required?

Speaking of lossless formats, I don't think I've ever heard you comment on them. So, what do you think of a FLAC or AIFF version for any given word size/sample rate?

Feanor
09-24-2012, 02:47 PM
Say, how time consuming a job is it to make a 24/88 version from a DXD master? Wouldn't it just be peachy if every label that sells CDs would also offer a downloadable 24/88 version - preferably in FLAC to reduce the bandwidth required?

Speaking of lossless formats, I don't think I've ever heard you comment on them. So, what do you think of a FLAC or AIFF version for any given word size/sample rate?
I'm looking forward to Sir T's opinion on these formats.

To my modest knowledge, FLAC and AIFF are audio-optimized, lossless compression schemes; (AIFF provides for metadata tags). Both are capable of storing hi-rez data.

Note that it's possible to make bit-perfect WAV, (uncompressed), files from either format. If WAV sounds better than FLAC/AIFF, it's because of real-time playback issues, not the data content.

E-Stat
09-24-2012, 03:23 PM
If WAV sounds better than FLAC/AIFF, it's because of real-time playback issues, not the data content.
That has been my experience - especially as of late where I now listen to streamed lossless content exclusively in both music systems.

The Dell server I use has a quad core i7-860 processor that runs at under 1% CPU utilization decoding separate streams for each of the systems simultaneously.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-24-2012, 04:15 PM
Say, how time consuming a job is it to make a 24/88 version from a DXD master? Wouldn't it just be peachy if every label that sells CDs would also offer a downloadable 24/88 version - preferably in FLAC to reduce the bandwidth required?

It is quite easy, and does not take any longer than any other encode. DXD really is a storage format, but there are processors out there (like my Grass Valley) that includes a DXD decoder, and can play back the files at 32/48/384khz or 48/352.4khz bit and sample rates. The amount of processing power to playback a direct DXD file is huge, hence why there are not that many sources that can do so.


Speaking of lossless formats, I don't think I've ever heard you comment on them. So, what do you think of a FLAC or AIFF version for any given word size/sample rate?

Never used AIFF, but I love FLAC. I have never done any formal testing with it, but I know it works pretty similar to Meridian Lossless Packing found on Dolby TrueHD. I used FLAC to send soundtrack mixes to Bluray or DVD compression houses and sometimes to clients as well(easier download than PCM). I also have some FLAC downloads from 2-L, and the audio quality is fantastic. .

E-Stat
09-25-2012, 08:00 AM
The amount of processing power to playback a direct DXD file is huge, hence why there are not that many sources that can do so.
Of that I am sure. Even my pretty ordinary Dell server has equivalent dhrystone and whetstone benchmark performance as the Cray 2 Supercomputer - which was the fastest computer in the 80s. Today's high speed DXD mastering workstations are far more powerful.


Never used AIFF, but I love FLAC... I also have some FLAC downloads from 2-L, and the audio quality is fantastic. .
Thanks for your assessment.

Smokey
09-25-2012, 06:30 PM
When you look at the various bandwidth waveforms of Vinyl, CD, DVD-A, SACD(of the same recording), and ultra high resolution audio, Vinyl has at least the performance of DVD-A and SACD. Not many vinyl products reach that higher bandwidth, but the capacity to do so it definitely there.

I think if you look at master for Vinyl and better format such as masters used for CD, it tell different story regarding vinyl capabilities.

I am sure you know when CD first came out, alot of same master that was used for vinyl was used for CD and it sounded so bad due to limited dynamics and bandwidth of vinyl master (ex, LED Zepplin first generation CDs). And that is the first of many vinyl format limitations as we move down chain link :)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-26-2012, 03:57 PM
I think if you look at master for Vinyl and better format such as masters used for CD, it tell different story regarding vinyl capabilities.

Smokey, I think you have forgotten that I am one of the few people on this forum who has already done this. The reason two master are made is to enhance the inherent capabilities of the different formats, not point out its inadequacies. If the case was to point out inadequacies, then my master for CD would be filtered from 10khz up - as CD's performance in that area sucks quite frankly. All one has to look at is the various band-aids that have been applied to CD because of the Redbook standard. Oversampling, upsampling, and dither are all band-aids to increase the performance of the format. Let's not mention specialized filters such as the apodizing filters found in Meridian's digital products to counter playback issues. There are drawbacks with having a needle touch a vinyl surface, and having to use brickwall anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters. Pick your trade offs.


I am sure you know when CD first came out, alot of same master that was used for vinyl was used for CD and it sounded so bad due to limited dynamics and bandwidth of vinyl master (ex, LED Zepplin first generation CDs). And that is the first of many vinyl format limitations as we move down chain link :)

Not so fast here. The problem with early CD had nothing to do with the dynamics or bandwidth of the masters themselves, but the equipment that reproduced them. Most all early Digital equipment had jitter issues, and ringing anti-aliasing(in the digitizing process) and reconstruction filter on the playback side. Take that same recording and eliminate those effects, and it sounds like a different product altogether.
Let's not mention that there are different recording practices for recording analog and digital. One size does not fit all in this case until you get out of the Redbook standard.

Tony Brown did an experiment a decade ago to prove that the filters used in CD players are the source of playback quality issues. He took a analog recording and digitized it for playback on CD. He then moved the response of the reconstruction filter up to 88.2khz which moved the filter response to 44.1khz. After doing this he A/B both the analog tape and the digital audio and could not tell which is which. He then moved the filter back down to 22.5khz(Redbook standard) and immediately the audio sounded digital, hazy and harsh from the filter effects and added dither.

While CD is ultimately more accurate than vinyl, there is no free lunch for either.

E-Stat
09-26-2012, 05:31 PM
While CD is ultimately more accurate than vinyl, there is no free lunch for either.
Amen and hallelujah!

On another audio board, Charles Hansen of Ayre has discussed this very point of compromise. His players offer multiple filter profiles with different tradeoffs. You want (relatively) full bandwidth? Fine, then you suffer more phase errors and lack of resolution. You want minimal phase errors? Then you get truncated bandwidth.

As you said, there is no free lunch with the thirty year old Redbook standard.

Smokey
09-26-2012, 08:25 PM
Tony Brown did an experiment a decade ago to prove that the filters used in CD players are the source of playback quality issues. He took a analog recording and digitized it for playback on CD. He then moved the response of the reconstruction filter up to 88.2khz which moved the filter response to 44.1khz. After doing this he A/B both the analog tape and the digital audio and could not tell which is which. He then moved the filter back down to 22.5khz(Redbook standard) and immediately the audio sounded digital, hazy and harsh from the filter effects and added dither.

That just show how supersonic harmonics (above 20 khz) are important to the sound quality :)


On another audio board, Charles Hansen of Ayre has discussed this very point of compromise. His players offer multiple filter profiles with different tradeoffs. You want (relatively) full bandwidth? Fine, then you suffer more phase errors and lack of resolution. You want minimal phase errors? Then you get truncated bandwidth.

I would say that is a fair statement.

If music industry had embraced high resolution format like video industry did with Bluray, I don't think we would have these conversations arguing about which inferiour audio formats sound better.

Feanor
09-27-2012, 05:43 AM
...
If music industry had embraced high resolution format like video industry did with Bluray, I don't think we would have these conversations arguing about which inferiour audio formats sound better.
What keeps coming around is that industry doesn't believe there is a significant market for hi-rez sound.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-29-2012, 06:46 PM
What keeps coming around is that industry doesn't believe there is a significant market for hi-rez sound.

This would apply to some genres of music, but they do support high resolution in jazz and classical. All of the largest labels and a lot of smaller ones offer their songs as high resolution downloads on HDtracks.

Feanor
09-30-2012, 04:16 AM
This would apply to some genres of music, but they do support high resolution in jazz and classical. All of the largest labels and a lot of smaller ones offer their songs as high resolution downloads on HDtracks.
Yes, and this very worthwhile mentioning, however classical and jazz are (unfortunately) a tiny portion of the music market.

Further, the hi-rez selection is relatively limited even in these genre. For example, ArkivMusic, the classical specialist, has almost 3300 SACDs, but they feature almost 10,700 discontinued CD titles, not to mention tens of thousands of current CDs. HDTracks' classical selection is even less. So the SACD coverage is actually quite low.

hifitommy
10-06-2012, 02:37 PM
no, i am LUCKIER than you.

This is incorrect: The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart. cd is limited to its top limit after which it is ALL distortion, and its lower limit which cannot capture sounds below the noise floor. analog can go both over the redline with minor diminution in fidelity and below the noise floor where sounds are still captured.

analog also will yield faster soft to loud transitions and has a greater startle or jump factor. transients also are better captured in analog format than redbook as sometimes the ictus of the transient signal falls after the beginning of one of the 44.1k samples and thereby loses some of its life.

the luckier part is that i never crumbled to the onslaught of digital with the release of redbook cd playback. i kept my LPs and waited until good sounding affordable cd players were available. i then found out that the same music recording on vinyl sounded better and more real than its cd counterpart (most of the time).

its not like i don't enjoy my cd collection. they became more valuable when i got my first sacd player due to upsampling and its effect on the sound. that and the fact that sacd sounds much closer to analog than rbcd. i am ready to accept the hi-rez downloads when it becomes a turnkey operation and the software prices fall to affordable levels. i would hope that ALL releases will be done this way thereby reducing the production cost.

"cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl" i can oly see this statement as incorrect. the upper limit of rbcd is ostensibly 22k and realistically 19k whereas vinyl can go to approximately 40k as was required by CD4 records. its not to say we can hear that but we can hear the freedom from stress when the capability is there.

here come the flames.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-06-2012, 03:29 PM
Yes, and this very worthwhile mentioning, however classical and jazz are (unfortunately) a tiny portion of the music market.

Further, the hi-rez selection is relatively limited even in these genre. For example, ArkivMusic, the classical specialist, has almost 3300 SACDs, but they feature almost 10,700 discontinued CD titles, not to mention tens of thousands of current CDs. HDTracks' classical selection is even less. So the SACD coverage is actually quite low.

I guess it is also worthwhile to mention that downloads are only about 5 years old, SACD is 13 years old, and the CD is 30 years old. Also HD tracks is but one of many downloading sites that offer classical and Jazz.

I am sure that vinyl enthusiasts made the same argument about the amount of titles released on CD early in its life.

Pat D
10-07-2012, 04:15 PM
no, i am LUCKIER than you.

This is incorrect: The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart. cd is limited to its top limit after which it is ALL distortion, and its lower limit which cannot capture sounds below the noise floor. analog can go both over the redline with minor diminution in fidelity and below the noise floor where sounds are still captured.

analog also will yield faster soft to loud transitions and has a greater startle or jump factor. transients also are better captured in analog format than redbook as sometimes the ictus of the transient signal falls after the beginning of one of the 44.1k samples and thereby loses some of its life.

the luckier part is that i never crumbled to the onslaught of digital with the release of redbook cd playback. i kept my LPs and waited until good sounding affordable cd players were available. i then found out that the same music recording on vinyl sounded better and more real than its cd counterpart (most of the time).

its not like i don't enjoy my cd collection. they became more valuable when i got my first sacd player due to upsampling and its effect on the sound. that and the fact that sacd sounds much closer to analog than rbcd. i am ready to accept the hi-rez downloads when it becomes a turnkey operation and the software prices fall to affordable levels. i would hope that ALL releases will be done this way thereby reducing the production cost.

"cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl" i can oly see this statement as incorrect. the upper limit of rbcd is ostensibly 22k and realistically 19k whereas vinyl can go to approximately 40k as was required by CD4 records. its not to say we can hear that but we can hear the freedom from stress when the capability is there.

here come the flames.

You are entitled to your preferences. However, you are not correct in stating that CD cannot reproduce anything below the digital noise floor of -90.31 dB. Some audio writers thought that, and some may still believe it. However, Stereophile has routinely measured the low level linearity of CD players down to -120 dB. How is it done? With dither. A dithered signal can resolve well below -90 dB. Here is one example. Check out Fig. 5.

Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player Measurements | Stereophile.com (http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-cdp-xa7es-cd-player-measurements)

E-Stat
10-08-2012, 08:50 AM
However, Stereophile has routinely measured the low level linearity of CD players down to -120 dB.
That must be right. Just look at the square wave response at -90db that is virtually indistinguishable from its original! :)

hifitommy
10-09-2012, 10:19 AM
it seems that you are being snide, Ralph.

E-Stat
10-09-2012, 10:26 AM
it seems that you are being snide, Ralph.
I prefer "facetious", implying humor. Hence the smiley face.

That square wave is about as mangled as you can get. Which illustrates your point pretty well I think!

hifitommy
10-09-2012, 10:47 AM
I'm gonna change your name to Snidely Whilash.

;'7

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-09-2012, 12:01 PM
This is incorrect: The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart. cd is limited to its top limit after which it is ALL distortion, and its lower limit which cannot capture sounds below the noise floor. analog can go both over the redline with minor diminution in fidelity and below the noise floor where sounds are still captured.

Analog may be able to do what you say, but not vinyl. The noise floor of the original master analog tape may be below the surface noise of the vinyl disc. With dither, the CD can be as good at capturing the low level detail as analog is.

You are also mixing dynamic range and bandwidth together here.


analog also will yield faster soft to loud transitions and has a greater startle or jump factor. transients also are better captured in analog format than redbook as sometimes the ictus of the transient signal falls after the beginning of one of the 44.1k samples and thereby loses some of its life.

The former is basically a subjective opinion, as there is no evidence to support this. Once again, you are correct about "analog's" ability to capture transients, but there is no evidence that says it applies to the vinyl disc.


"cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl" i can oly see this statement as incorrect. the upper limit of rbcd is ostensibly 22k and realistically 19k whereas vinyl can go to approximately 40k as was required by CD4 records. its not to say we can hear that but we can hear the freedom from stress when the capability is there.

You are mixing a specially encoded vinyl disc characteristics with vinyl disc playback in general. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records. Playback of ultrasonic frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.(taken from vinyl myths).
Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a lowpass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies.(also taken from vinyl myths)

While your observations are correct on analog in relation to tape, they cannot be applied to analog playback systems like vinyl.

There is no evidence whatsoever that vinyl has any performance advantages over redbook CD. There are tradeoffs on both sides. The one thing that CD has over vinyl, is accuracy and transparency to the original source. CD does not impart a sonic "signature" like vinyl does. It is that signature that vinyl enthusiasts love.

See Hifi, no need for flames.......

E-Stat
10-10-2012, 07:14 AM
I'm gonna change your name to Snidely Whiplash.
Music from my yute!

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Npfi0UZL2ow?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Npfi0UZL2ow?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

tube fan
10-24-2012, 05:35 AM
Use your ears! Judging by the rooms at the recent 2012 CAS, audio retailers realize that analogue is FAR, FAR superior to digital. Systems based on analogue sources and tubes (of course) simply DESTROYED digital and ss systems if you aim for something that sounds like live music.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-29-2012, 12:27 PM
Use your ears! Judging by the rooms at the recent 2012 CAS, audio retailers realize that analogue is FAR, FAR superior to digital. Systems based on analogue sources and tubes (of course) simply DESTROYED digital and ss systems if you aim for something that sounds like live music.

Here we go again. More blanket, unsubstantiated opinion by one of the most biased members on this forum.

hifitommy
10-29-2012, 03:48 PM
for what it's worth, when i listen to the analog version of music vs the rbcd version, i nearly always feel that the vinyl represents the music more closely than the redbook rendition.

i cannot say that about sacd, dvda, or hi-rez downloads. with those formats and a couple of others, reality can be more closely approximated.

its not to say that rbcd can't sound very good indeed as true progress in that direction has been made.

tube fan
11-01-2012, 06:45 PM
Here we go again. More blanket, unsubstantiated opinion by one of the most biased members on this forum.

NOT unsubstantiated at all. Even the Magico representative admitted that people stayed in his room FAR longer when he was playing vinyl than they did when he was playing "high rez" digital. DUH!!! I asked him if he agreed with those potential customers. His reply: "Of course great vinyl is better than "high rez" digital, but there are some measurement freaks who have LOVED digital for decades." RGA can confirm that analogue and tubes simply KILLED digital and ss.

RGA
11-02-2012, 05:10 AM
Tube fan

Everyone I talked to said exactly the same thing - Tape/Vinyl/digital in any guise - in that order.

I am a lazy butt - I soo want to like computer audio more - because 1) I live in Hong Kong now where space is at a premium and I don;t want to lug records around with me. 2) records are a big ole pain in the ass on a number of fronts. Tape would be even WORSE on that front

Technically though high res digital is better. So the only thing I can think of that is the impeding factor is the playback equipment. perhaps hi res machines are using crappy output transformers or pathetic power supplied or just something in the conversion to analog is screwing something up.

I was on two different forums talking about the fact that Madonn's first 4 albums have come out in 24/192 - and very mixed reviews mostly in the "can;t tell it apart from CD" but that's not even the issue because it depends on the CD player.

But I have all of Madonna's early albums on vinyl most of her singles on 45 and all of her CDs. I was 13 and yes I had a crush on Madonna.

But the vinyls are so easily better than the CD's and the 45s destroy the full length LPs. So if the reviews are correct and the 24/192 is the same or only marginally better than the CD then the vinyl's are going to kill those too.

I am also not sure how HD tracks is getting these 24/192 and there seems to be much confusion on the forums as to whether these numbers are merely achieved through upsampling or recording from CD to a Tape and then back off the tape so they can claim 24/192. I don't have the time to really look into it but if it's "around the CD quality" then if you don;t have the vinyl you're seriously missing out.

Peter Q wrote a piece no longer on the net a long while back frustrated that with all the advances stone age stuff like SET/Tape/Vinyl "sounds much better." Even the recordings of old actually sound live. I find so much of todays stuff even classical by Iso Mike and Chesky sound bloody banal compared to pretty much anything from the 1950s. Soundhounds ran a demo for me of a Chesky recording - the supposed best in the biz for classical and it sounded smooth and detailed and audiophiley good but then he put on a recording of a Victoria artist recorded in his basement that could make you pick your jaw up off the floor. Dynamics and lack of compression is so nice.

Anyway, I've been talking to a Throsten Loesch owner of a company called AMR that makes hi res systems and he is extremely knowledgeable on this technology and I'm on a waitlist to review one of their new units. I am very excited because they use no oversampling DA conversion and basically appear to be making what Audio Note would make if they made hi res digital. But it's out of my price range so I'll be waiting for an entry levelish unit to get my feet wet but the 777 is calling - especially since Art loved it.

Abbingdon Music Research - Products - Digital Processor-777 (http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/html/dp777_individual.html)

Feanor
11-02-2012, 05:47 AM
SO-o-o-o tedious. :frown2: The virtue of vinyl is in the ear of the vinyl lover.

Yes, hi-rez is like CD only a somewhat better -- if you prefer vinyl to CD you aren't going to prefer to hi-rez over vinyl. But note: Sir TofT has said over & over & over again that in his professional experience vinyl colors the music.

If you feel that vinyl is truer to live performance, fine. There are two explanations: (1) recording practice is often not what it should be, and (2) recollection of live sound is a combination of poor memory and good imagination.

E-Stat
11-02-2012, 09:03 AM
I was on two different forums talking about the fact that Madonn's first 4 albums have come out in 24/192 - and very mixed reviews mostly in the "can;t tell it apart from CD" but that's not even the issue because it depends on the CD player.
I recently downloaded Like a Virgin and True Blue in 24/96. I have some cuts from the former on CD and the entire album of the latter. While not all of the tracks are of equal quality, I definitely find the 24/96 more extended and less "dry" on top. I also have both albums on vinyl. With my systems, I'm getting equivalent performance between vinyl and 24/96.


IBut I have all of Madonna's early albums on vinyl most of her singles on 45 and all of her CDs. I was 13 and yes I had a crush on Madonna.
I too, have about eight of the uncompressed 12" 45 RPM singles. They have incredible dynamics, range and punch. I'd really like to hear those mixes in a high rez digital format. I find it terribly ironic that I have never heard a single CD with that wide a dynamic range. Theoretical performance is great when it is actually implemented.



as to whether these numbers are merely achieved through upsampling or recording from CD to a Tape and then back off the tape so they can claim 24/192.
I seriously doubt that. Upsampling cannot retrieve lost data. Only perform better dither.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-02-2012, 11:00 AM
I seriously doubt that. Upsampling cannot retrieve lost data. Only perform better dither.

I don't think the word "better" is accurate. Additional is probably a better word. There is no good/better dither. Dither is dither. There is such thing as dither that is improperly applied(not enough, or too much). Dither is a necessary evil when downcoverting from a higher resolution to a lower one - but no dither is IMO better.

E-Stat
11-02-2012, 11:09 AM
Additional is probably a better word.
Ok.

Post processing will not, however, magically transform 16/44 content into what it would have been had it been captured in 24/96. The horse left the barn.