Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    171

    good laymans explanation of recording quality..


  2. #2
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    The question is, who mastered the CD version and where is he buried. Can I give the LP engineer a prize?
    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

  3. #3
    test the blind blindly emorphien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    919
    That's the first time I've seen anything about that written so clearly. That is truly nice to see someone take the time.

    This problem isn't usually present or as bad if you stumble away from the big labels and bands.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    I admittedly don't have a copy of the CD in question... But I have never seen a CD with a waveform that flat. I have to suspect that this experiment may be slightly flawed somehow.

    Here's the most compressed part I could find on an MP3 of disc 1. MP3 should look worse if anything, right?

    http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/r...5/rhcpcopy.jpg

    ...And this "average" section where the waveform looks heavily clipped / compressed on the wide view, looks like this when zoomed in.

    http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/r...345/rhcp22.jpg

    Think it's just a limitation of the software's "wide view" showing in the experiment and the fact that this recording seems to have some serious dynamics happening. Not evidence of heavy clipping / compression on the recording. They may have been able to make a better sounding recording if they lowered the levels just a bit. Although, there would have been the tradeoff of lower resolution on the quieter passages.
    Last edited by royphil345; 06-29-2006 at 09:37 AM.

  5. #5
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    his final words pretty sum up my experiences exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbagump
    "A CD CAN SOUND AS GOOD, IF NOT BETTER THAN VINYL. IT IS THE QUALITY OF THE MASTER THAT IS KEY TO GOOD SOUND"

    Although I'd say the engineers, and their goals, have a hand in the overall process. I.e. they can make a recording as dynamic as they choose or as flat as they choose, depending on their target market.

    Is it possible that the recording companies are realizing that people who buy vinyl just might actually WANT better sound than those who buy CD's and download?

  6. #6
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    And Mark...

    This is just another fine example of people on the internet saying that the folks who make CDs for a living don't know what they're doing. Or that the manufacturers of high-end speaker cables don't know what they're doing through statements like... " speaker cables with dangerously low inductance, which seem to be all the rage lately."...

    The fact is... These people DO know what they're doing. You people don't even have enough understanding of the subjects to argue with them. Only faulty evidence, links to internet garbage... and in your case... even a "tall tale".
    Last edited by royphil345; 06-29-2006 at 09:18 AM.

  7. #7
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    "A CD CAN SOUND AS GOOD, IF NOT BETTER THAN VINYL. IT IS THE QUALITY OF THE MASTER THAT IS KEY TO GOOD SOUND"

    Although I'd say the engineers, and their goals, have a hand in the overall process. I.e. they can make a recording as dynamic as they choose or as flat as they choose, depending on their target market.

    Is it possible that the recording companies are realizing that people who buy vinyl just might actually WANT better sound than those who buy CD's and download?
    Mark,
    That is not really why they master CD so high. It all boils down to airplay of which the LP is no longer used for. The CD has to be mastered to playback on a variety of playback systems (mono, stereo etc)and radio and television. The LP is specifically for DJ and vinyl lovers and can be more "normally" mastered for better sound quality.

    In spite of what the marketing departments of the record companies think, pushing volumes up does not give a CD more pop when played over the radio. It does the exactly the opposite. All radio station have compressors and limiters of their own to keep signals from over modulating over the air. Mostly all radio stations have equipment that is designed to make the volume of all CD exactly the same, the FCC requires it. So there is absolutely no advantage to raising overall levels in the first place. All raising the level does is make the product sound really bad, that is it.
    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

  8. #8
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Mark,
    That is not really why they master CD so high. It all boils down to airplay of which the LP is no longer used for. The CD has to be mastered to playback on a variety of playback systems (mono, stereo etc)and radio and television. The LP is specifically for DJ and vinyl lovers and can be more "normally" mastered for better sound quality.
    That's what I think I said here, although not in as much detail as you did.

    "I'd say the engineers, and their goals, have a hand in the overall process. I.e. they can make a recording as dynamic as they choose or as flat as they choose, depending on their target market."

    And, for most people, louder equates to better. And, to most people, a constant level is louder. Not us here, but Joe Sixpack and his kids, who make up the bulk of $$ spent on CD's, think so. Vinyl is still a niche market and will continue as such, if we're lucky.
    Last edited by markw; 06-29-2006 at 11:12 AM.

  9. #9
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    And, your point is???

    Quote Originally Posted by royphil345
    And Mark...

    This is just another fine example of people on the internet saying that the folks who make CDs for a living don't know what they're doing. Or that the manufacturers of high-end speaker cables don't know what they're doing through statements like... " speaker cables with dangerously low inductance, which seem to be all the rage lately."...

    The fact is... These people DO know what they're doing. You people don't even have enough understanding of the subjects to argue with them. Only faulty evidence, links to internet garbage... and in your case... even a "tall tale".
    Exactly just how does this fit in with what I said here? Where did I ever say they don't know what theyare doing?

    Since you saw fit to try to respond to me here when what I said had nothing at all to do with whatever you said, I can only guess that you're still a little tender from out previous encounter. Relax, a little learning can do a lot to take the sting away.

    Oh, one other thing to consider... just because you read something on the internet doesn't mean you can automatically discount it as wrong if it presents new concepts and/or goes against what you believe. Investigation is usually called for, not simple denial.
    Last edited by markw; 06-29-2006 at 10:26 AM.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    Blah... blaah... blahh... again.

    OK, I've had enough of you... I quit...

    You can automatically discount something as wrong if if goes against the facts.

    What was your point here? They make vinyl with the best sound quality possible, but not CDs? I prefer the sound of vinyl, but I don't think the vinyl version would have the dynamic range of even the MP3 shown here. It's all about different. Not better or worse.
    Last edited by royphil345; 06-29-2006 at 10:35 AM.

  11. #11
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Again, what's your point, child?

    Quote Originally Posted by royphil345
    Blah... blaah... blahh... again.

    OK, I've had enough of you... I quit...

    You can automatically discount something as wrong if if goes against the facts.

    What was your point here? They make vinyl with the best sound quality possible, but not CDs? I prefer the sound of vinyl, but I don't think the vinyl version would have the dynamic range of even the MP3 shown here. It's all about different. Not better or worse.
    Don't be an idiot and try to put words in my mouth. It makes you look desperate. Either media can be made to sound better or worse than the other. All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD. And, to most people here, a wider dynamic ranges translates to "better" sound. Now, if you prefer the compressed sound well, then the CD would sound "better" to you.

    Boy, you do like to argue about nothing, don't you?

    And, unless you are the supreme being, there are always facts that are unknown to you. It's a wise person who, when presented with as yet unlearned facts, investigates them, weighs them and, when necessary, expands their repertoire of facts and becomes wiser.

    It's a fool who assumes they already know all the facts they need to know and disregards any possibilities of expanding their education.

    Now, unless you have something relevant to say, bug off, kid, you bother me.
    Last edited by markw; 06-29-2006 at 11:22 AM.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    "All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD."

    That's not what you said at all. Another lie. The proof is right here in this thread!!! Have you no control at all over the obvious crap that comes out of your (virtual) mouth?

    The statement you just made I have already proven false. The waveform they showed using the "wide" view on their software was not accurate. I do alot of recording and honestly don't think the vinyl version would show a dynamic range as wide as the one shown on the ACCURATE waveform.

    So... HELLO... Anybody home in there???
    Last edited by royphil345; 06-29-2006 at 11:47 AM.

  13. #13
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    whatever...

    Quote Originally Posted by royphil345
    "All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD."

    That's not what you said at all. Another lie. The proof is right here in this thread!!!

    The statement you just made I have already proven false. The waveform they showed using the "wide" view on their software was not accurate. I do alot of recording and honestly don't think the vinyl version would show a dynamic range as wide as the one shown on the ACCURATE waveform.

    So... HELLO... Anybody home in there???
    Boy, you really ARE desparate,aren't ya? What you "think" obviously has no relation to reality, as our conversations lately have shown. Really like that blue pill, eh?
    Last edited by markw; 06-29-2006 at 11:44 AM.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    "All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD."

    You want to talk about fantasy land... Where is there anything in this thread that supports your statement above?

    You would need an ACCURATE waveform of the CD and vinyl versions to compare side by side. Just not here!!! Did the voices tell you that the dynamic range appears to be better on the vinyl version? You really need to get that checked out. I'll be praying for you.

  15. #15
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    And, of course, the "little voices" told you those graphs were wrong, right?

  16. #16
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    No... I have PROVEN it. Have you been following the thread or just spouting trash?

    The "wide view" on their software and mine (top of the pic) is only a rough representation of the ACTUAL waveform (bottom of pic) which you can see in my link. Hardly anything that should be posted on the internet as "proof "of poor recording quality or the recording being heavily compressed!!! This experiment used inaccurate, meaningless data. Any conclusions drawn from this flawed experiment are, of course, inaccurate and meaningless also.

    http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/r...345/rhcp22.jpg

    Check out the awesome dynamic range on that recording. Heavy compression? Where?
    Last edited by royphil345; 06-29-2006 at 04:47 PM.

  17. #17
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    You've proven nothing.

    I assume you've heard and measured both of the examples he's working with, right? If not, then you're shooting blanks.

    Sorry, using different sources as examples to try and prove he's wrong is not valid. For you, maybe you see it as a victory but, again, in the real world, you've provren nothing except that you simply won't be a man and admit you'e got nothing except bravado on your side..

    And again, had you read his words, he says the vinyl will sound "better", or have more dynamics, than the CD. Do you disagree with that?

    You're constant whining is starting to become tedious. Funny and a but pathetic, but tedious.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    I have absoulutely proven that the view of the waveform he showed as "proof" is NOT ACCURATE. FACT

    "he says the vinyl will sound "better", or have more dynamics, than the CD. Do you disagree with that?"

    By looking at what he was looking at... He really had nothing to base his statements on. FACT

    You have lost. Everything you say is just further BSing, wriggling and talking trash.

    You're a pretty good BSer. Just because you say something, just doesn't make it true though. Your entertainment value is short-lived.

    I'm out... Bye bye freak...

  19. #19
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Yep, you're more on top of it than Steve Hoffman, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by royphil345
    I have absoulutely proven that the view of the waveform he showed as "proof" is NOT ACCURATE. FACT

    "he says the vinyl will sound "better", or have more dynamics, than the CD. Do you disagree with that?"

    By looking at what he was looking at... He really had nothing to base his statements on. FACT

    You have lost. Everything you say is just further BSing, wriggling and talking trash.

    You're a pretty good BSer. Just because you say something, just doesn't make it true though.

    I'm out... Bye bye freak...
    Enjoy your "victory" id you see it as such.

    I'll see ya in a week or so. Tomorrow we're off to Memphis and Nashville for some fun in the "real" music world. That's one of the benefits of being a grown up and having a life.

    Enjoy your computer and waveforms, kid. You deserve each other. Hell, that's all you've got, geek.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    Yee Haww!!!... That should be (yawn) fun for you!!!

    Surprised you can even get up after stepping on your d'ck so much!!!

  21. #21
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    I bet you say that to all the boys

    Quote Originally Posted by royphil345
    Surprised you can even get up after stepping on your d'ck so much!!!
    Why, thank you for noticing, although guys staring at me there give me the creeps. Being blessed with such a wonderful piece, that's a problem I've learned to live with, usually by wrapping it around one of my legs. It's been a sore spot ever since women started noticing me. They just can't leave me alone! Of course I just couldn't help teasing them a little. I'd just sit in the corner licking my eyebrows and boy, would they go ca-ra-zee!

    Thank G_d the perfect woman saved me from this life of debauchery and married me and presented me with three great boys, all of whom have grown into fine men, and who, in turn, gave us five wunnerful grandkids. Life is good...

    Of course, that's something you'll never have to worry about. Your biggest problem is not wetting your fingers when urinating. Try tweezers.

    Now, what you tell your "partners", should you ever get so lucky, is another story. You could always try for sympathy and say you were a doner for a woman who wanted a sex change operation. If they buy what you sell here, they should have no problems buying that. If that works, break out the rubber coated tweezers. Your life is about to change.

    But, don't worry kid. By hiding behind the computer, nobody will notice. ...just keep both hands on the keyboard. The way you keep staring at me is creepin' me out.
    Last edited by markw; 06-29-2006 at 02:14 PM.

  22. #22
    test the blind blindly emorphien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    919
    I don't know a lot about mastering CDs, but this definitely makes sense when I think about a lot of the modern/pop CDs I've heard. That graph seems extreme, but I suspect the truth is somewhere between what he shows as the CD graph and the LP.

    I do equate preserved dynamics to having good sound, and from his description that CD sounds like it will sound similar to a lot of other modern pop CDs. Bad... congested, flat, loud and noisy.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    Some of my Chili Peppers CDs sound mighty fine...

  24. #24
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3
    Thanks for taking the time to check out my article and comment on it.

    First of all, I would like to clarify:

    The article was in no way, shape, or form a comparison between Vinyl and CD as a medium. I am comparing the master of the vinyl of the album Stadium Arcadium and the master of the CD of the same album.

    When I speak of "the vinyl" in the article, (mention its THE vinyl, not VINYL) I did not mean "ALL VINYL", and same with CD. I meant THIS PARTICULAR VINYL and THIS PARTICULAR CD.

    The only reason I used Vinyl and CD is because this was a perfect graphical representation of two different masters, one of which is compressed heavily. If the master of the upcoming Stadium Arcadium LP had been on a CD, I still would have written this article, but with all references to "the vinyl" replaced with "the new CD."

    I regret not making it clear that this was not a Vinyl VS CD comparison, and that I am not saying that Vinyl (in general) is better than CD.

    When I first authored it, it was merely for the intention of my friends. I decided to submit it to digg.com on a whim, I did not expect to get this many visitors.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular royphil345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    709
    Again, since the facts probably got lost in that mess...

    The "wide view" on your software and mine (top of the pic) is only a rough representation of the ACTUAL waveform (bottom of pic) which you can see in my link. Hardly anything that should be posted on the internet as "proof "of poor recording quality or the recording being heavily compressed!!! This experiment used inaccurate, meaningless data. Any conclusions drawn from this flawed experiment are, of course, inaccurate and meaningless also.

    http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/r...345/rhcp22.jpg

    Check out the awesome dynamic range on that recording. Heavy compression? Where?
    Last edited by royphil345; 06-29-2006 at 06:50 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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