Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 81
  1. #51
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    155

    No matter what side of the argument you're on...

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

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

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

    Carry on!

  2. #52
    AUTOBOT BRANDONH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    GRANBURY, TX
    Posts
    541

    Not my assumptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Your looking at the chart with "analog eyes"
    I am also listening with analog ears sound is analog in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Nearly all of your assumptions are false.
    They are not my assumptions that is why I provide a link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. #53
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    The victrola? Dictaphones? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

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

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

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

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

    Let's keep this discussion real, shall we?
    Last edited by markw; 03-11-2005 at 01:05 PM.

  4. #54
    AUTOBOT BRANDONH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    GRANBURY, TX
    Posts
    541
    All I did was to look up and provide information for others to read.
    State an opinion.
    I humbly apologize if any of the false information that I provided swayed some of the CD lovers over to the dark side of the vinyl underworld.
    Please feel free to go to thes links
    http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html
    http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
    http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
    http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm

  5. #55
    Mutant from table 9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,205

    Talking

    So after lurking in these boards for the last year I'm finally putting in my 2 cents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. #56
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    I don't think you converted anyone, believe me.

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

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

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

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

    So much for no eq, eh?
    Last edited by markw; 03-12-2005 at 05:12 AM.

  7. #57
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    As a batchelor it comes down to self interest. My female friends prefer analog. They are around more often and stay longer (sometimes too long) when I'm using tubes and playing vinyl. Many of them specifically ask me to play LP's. My brother and I have provided our mother with a "reasonable" rig. Although it includes a CD/DVD player she prefers playing vinyl on her TT. As for all the "heated discussion", after 30+ years of being an audiophile I've stopped worrying and just enjoy.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  8. #58
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    [QUOTE=20to20K. Are you worried their argument is gonna change what you're hearing?
    [/QUOTE]

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

  9. #59
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ny,ny
    Posts
    8

    Rule of Thumb

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


    mangia . . . . . .

  10. #60
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    26
    "The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl.The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl."

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

    Having said all that though there are some CD's which are incredible. (Telarc..)
    ARC VT100 MKIII , ARC LS-15 , Anthem PRE1P Phono Stage
    Acoustics Signature TT , Adcom GCD-750 CD
    Tascam 130 Cassette Deck ,Transparent Audio Plus Speaker Cable , Transparent Audio Plus Balanced interconnects
    Martin Logan Ascents , HG 10 SX Velodyne Sub
    Pioneer TX-9100 Tuner

  11. #61
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Arc45
    "The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl.The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl."

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

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

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  12. #62
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Vinyl does not inherently sound better. The bottom line to all of this depends on the care and time put into the mastering process. Vinyl usually had 2-3 times more mastering time on them than CD. That is why most CD's of that period were inferior to their CD counterparts. Nowadays, I would put any DVD-A or SACD that I have worked on against any LP, and would worry one bit about the comparison. Well mastered vinyl is better than mediocre mastered CD. But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance
    I think we got a winner.

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

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

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

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

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

  13. #63
    It's just a hobby
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance
    Sir Terence your point is taken but what can be done to save both DVDA and SACD from dissappearing from the marketplace? As for now anyway, I want to try and get as many SACDs that I like whilst there is still availability, huge investment but an important one IMHO.

  14. #64
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Is this format/resolution driven, or a byproduct of good mastering? Who the *uck cares, it sounds good!
    Totally agree! I also agree with Terrence regarding the sound of SACD (I don't own any DVD-A discs) in that they sound as good as anything I've heard that is easily available.

  15. #65
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
    So after lurking in these boards for the last year I'm finally putting in my 2 cents.

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

    1. The music industry sucks right now.
    2. I dig the vinyl ritual. Vinyl just looks cool, whether black virgin, colored (blue, red, white, clear, ect), or picture disks. I dig full sized sleaves and album inserts.
    3. I am not alone.
    4. Collecting. Lots of records are out of print and often rare. So... collect away.
    .
    It is always nice to hear (or read, actually) a new opinion. It should be made clear that there is room in high fidelity audio for LP fans. The joy of collecting is a valid reason for sticking with LPs. You certainly are NOT alone. And, there is a ritual with vinyl that simply isn't there with CDs (which is one reason why CDs are popular--many don't want the ritual).

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

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

    Thanks for you comments.

  16. #66
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Totally agree! I also agree with Terrence regarding the sound of SACD (I don't own any DVD-A discs) in that they sound as good as anything I've heard that is easily available.
    There is zero reason to think these bit-wasting formats have any audible advantage over redbook CD. The redbook CD format was chosen becuase further increases in specificantions are useless (i.e., inaudible) in a playback medium. The new formats were invented for reasons other than audio quality (like potential copy protection).

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

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

  17. #67
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    There is zero reason to think these bit-wasting formats have any audible advantage over redbook CD. The redbook CD format was chosen becuase further increases in specificantions are useless (i.e., inaudible) in a playback medium. The new formats were invented for reasons other than audio quality (like potential copy protection).
    No, it was chosen because that was the limitation of the technology that could be affordably offered to the buying public at the time that the CD specs were set in the late-70s.

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    While I don't doubt that some discs of those formats sound very very good, we simply cannot separate the recording quality from the playback medium quality (as with LP vs CD) so we cannot judge just by listening to them. A formal test you have to be done, but why bother we already know the results (see the paragraph above). We simply do not know what the "sound" of SACD or DVD-A is.
    Frankly, I could care less about "formal tests." Unless you have access to studio master sources or a SACD encoder, neither your or I are in any position to do these tests anyway, so you're forwarding a circular argument.

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

  18. #68
    AUTOBOT BRANDONH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    GRANBURY, TX
    Posts
    541

    Where The Vinyl Meets The Road

    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    Hard to play LP's in your car.
    They're so big.
    You can here some stuff really well,like nicks and scratches.
    Walk softly around a turntable.
    Making copies from LP's just dont sound as good{imo} as a cd copy.
    Once upon a time they made a record player for the car.
    http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    my system
    Technics SL-1210M5G
    OC9/MLII
    Marantz AV8003
    Oppo BD-83
    Yamaha C-70
    Crown MA-12000i
    Emotiva XPA-5

  19. #69
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    You've hit the nail on the head

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

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

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

  20. #70
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    No, it was chosen because that was the limitation of the technology that could be affordably offered to the buying public at the time that the CD specs were set in the late-70s.
    What evidence do you have to support this claim? I see no reason why the redbook specs could not have been set higher. I have never heard any support for your claim. There is plenty of support that people cannot hear better than Redbook sampling.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

  21. #71
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    [QUOTE=RobotCzar]
    If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".
    QUOTE]

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

  22. #72
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    [QUOTE=nobody]
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".
    QUOTE]

    Few of us have that access. In fact, all we do have would be the final media and our stereos. We listen and whichever we like best is best to us. Theoretical arguements go out the window. If you want to listen to CDs because they sound better to you fine, we just disagree. If you think everybody should prefer the sound of CDs because of some theoretical superiority, then that's just silly.
    While I can't blame people for making up straw men to attack when their logic fails, let's get something straight. Neither I, nor anybody I have ever read on AR with an objectivist viewpoint "wants" people to listen to CDs or not buy expensive cables, or do anything other than stop spreading misinformation.

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

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

  23. #73
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    OH...I see...you don't want to coinvince anyone of anything...you just want to say that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. OK...now I get it.

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

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

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

  24. #74
    It's just a hobby
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    808
    Recording is already happening at 5.6MHz for delta-sigma and 384KHz for PCM and so far there are no playback formats that support these sampling frequencies. Secondly, the issue of bit wasting seems somewhat illogical, why settle for good enough when better is widely availaible.
    Last edited by theaudiohobby; 03-16-2005 at 09:18 AM.

  25. #75
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    What evidence do you have to support this claim? I see no reason why the redbook specs could not have been set higher. I have never heard any support for your claim. There is plenty of support that people cannot hear better than Redbook sampling.
    It is widely known that Sony/Philips knew that storage space at the time was very expensive. It was not economically feasible at the time to try and store audio at a higher bit and sampling rate, and still have a respectable playback time. The standard was not set for ultimate sound quality even though it was marketed that way. It is short sighted to think that higher resolution audio is chosen for what can be heard above the range of human hearing. It is chosen because there are more samples taken within the range of human hearing, and that better represents the analog signal.


    Isn't is obvious that they want to sell you an new format, that---and several other reasons like copy protection--are why they want you to "upgrade".
    If you were locked into a conspiracy theory, you may be right. But if the new formats didn't actually sound better, then its a no sell. Fortunately SACD and DVD-A actually sound better than CD, so copy protection for the record companies is not the only reason for high rez audio.

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


    There is some reason to record at slightly higher sampling rates, for example for increased headroom (this makes recording errors less likely) and also because many recordings are mixed and processed. The mixing process can benefit from the increased sample size. I don't think it is "obvious" that "professionals" are all think a ridiculously high sampling rate is a good idea, and I don't trust those who say it does because they work for the companies that are trying to promote the new formats.
    I don't work for anyone but myself, and I am constantly promoting high rez. Many recording engineers don't work for record companies or pro gear manufacturers, but they promote high rez. I think your assumption maybe be a bit off base here.


    Note that the bit-wasting formats go way way beyond what is necessary for even recording purposes.
    How do you know this? Do you record audio? I haven't heard a single engineer say anything like this.


    Frankly, I don't care what recording engineers do--I will go with what physics says. And it says we can't hear anywhere near the new sampling rates, musical instruments cannot produce sounds to the new formats, and our equipment cannot reproduce at the theoretical levels of the new formats (no equipment can they would have to be submerged in liquid nitrogen).
    First, nobody chooses high rez for what you can't hear. They prefer it for what they can hear(improved imaging, improved bass clarity, cleaner highs, better soundstaging). A muted trumpet produces harmonics up to 70khz, string harmonic go as high as 40khz. Manufacturers are making wideband amps with responses to 100khz, and by way of an external super tweeter you can extend the response of any speaker to at least 50khz. So it looks like you are pretty much wrong on all points.


    What in the world do you mean by "much closer to the source"? The theoretical frequency response of those formats cannot be heard by dogs, the dynamic range cannot be generated by instruments and were certainly not intended by Beethoven. The dynamic range of the new formats greately exceeds the ability of room temperature electronics to reproduce. Who cares (or even knows) what the "resolution of the source" is, what matters is the resolution of what we can hear.
    You are looking at sample rates only in terms of frequency extension. But that is not why higher sample rates are used at all.

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

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

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


    You are making my point. If you do not have access to the original recordings, you cannot compare media or formats by simply listening and says "that one sounds better".
    I do have access to the original recordings, and can easily make that comparison. Can everyone? Maybe not.


    I agree in wanting to improve source material (which has to do with recording, not playback media).
    Why would I want to improve the recording technique if it was not possible to hear what I am doing? Doesn't make alot of sense does it.

    Using new formats for previously recorded material is a complete waste of time as you can never improve the recording beyond how it was originally recorded. You seem to fail to distinguish recording media from playback media. Imporving playback media will never improve a bad recording.
    I cannot disagree more profoundly. Some well kept older analog tapes have tremendous fidelity and dynamic range. Doing a DSD encoding of these older works does them justice, and takes nothing away from them.


    While I agree with your goal. I don't see the bit-wasting formats as making any difference in that goal (i.e., they offer zero avenues for improving recordings).
    What experience do you have in recording that you can draw from that makes you come up with these conclusions? You use of the words "bit wasting" shows that you have little or no knowledge of the recording process. No bits are wasted at all, they are all used. As a audio engineer I can plainly hear improvements(even while blind) that using both a higher bit rate and sampling rate can impart. I find it incredible that you can say the things that you do with absolutely no recording experience whatsoever.

    I think you are a reasonable person who has a lot of good things to contribute in a forum like this. I hope you carefully consider what I have to say (as I have considered what you said).
    If I was Wooch, I wouldn't. Why listen to a person who has no recording experience, cannot campare a master tape to the encoded afterproduct, has little or no studio experience, and limit knowledge of digital audio in general? If I were Wooch, I would listen to Chuck Ainley, Eliott Schneider, Tony Brown, Tom Jung, Jack Renner, or Michael Bishop. All of these guys have more experience in digital audio, recording, and mastering than just about anyone on this planet, not to mention they are all Grammy award winners.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Nuance thread
    By Mike H in forum Speakers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-06-2005, 03:45 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-05-2004, 02:26 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-21-2004, 11:26 AM
  4. Got a question about a small philips sound system
    By skitallz in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 06:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •