Why do my LP's sound better than CDs?

[Woochifer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/surr.../page_08.shtml

Higher sampling rates improve imaging;


http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.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]

Hey guys, I think this thread has run it's course and is de-evolving. It's about time to call it done.