-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Vinyl CAN sound better than a CD version if you got a good turntable, a very good cartridge, took the time to counterbalance and adjust the tonearm overhang, and have an LP that was mastered and pressed well.
Of course assuming that CD we’re talking about is not remastered, and optimized to full capacity :)
If everything is equal, Vinyl’s inherently lower dynamics and higher noise (even with proper setup) will put it a notch below CD in term of sound quality.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
Of course assuming that CD we’re talking about is not remastered, and optimized to full capacity :)
If everything is equal, Vinyl’s inherently lower dynamics and higher noise (even with proper setup) will put it a notch below CD in term of sound quality.
Nope. Not really. The Beatles remasters that came out in '87 were awful. I've been listening to my old man's vinyl up until this year. The new remasters are quite nice on CD. Remastered doesn't always mean:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
optimized to full capacity
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Nope. Not really. The Beatles remasters that came out in '87 were awful. I've been listening to my old man's vinyl up until this year. The new remasters are quite nice on CD. Remastered doesn't always mean: {optimized to full capacity}.
You're correct from what I hear about these Beatles remasters. They've have been criticized extensively for excessively high recording levels and compression.
Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the CD as a technical medium, only the way it is used. That's a point I've made for most of this decade that it's not the medium but the recording practice that is to blame. As a mainly a classical listen I haven't been nearly so afflicted by the abuse of the medium as people who listen to the more popular schlock but there are plenty of not-so-good classical recoridings too.
The same sort of argument applies to hi-rez. Is SACD or DVD-A techically better than CD? Maybe, but I can't hear it; (I'm deaf above 10kHz). However, do SACDs sound better on average? Yes, but it's because more care has typically been taken with the recording and mastering.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Hmmm, maybe it's just me but it seems you are making some pretty tall claims also my friend. I said that analog has a soul, you say The New Generation of Audiophiles, isn't that Prince's backing band? Oh wait a sec....
I'm not sure what you are referring to as tall claims... Could you be more specific...
Also Prince's Backup was called The New Power Generation... Prince and The NPG produced some great stuff (clearly that's just an opinion)....
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
I think we can re-visit the OP's article to find out that the new generation is looking past the predictable MP3 and portable route. The thing is, you are making some great points but you seem to have a hate on for analog. There's no room for it in your audiophile world or what? Not to be rude, but I am sensing that since you have not bothered to embrace vinyl or analog, you are rationalizing it out of the equation.
Nope, I have no hate for analog... And I have no issue with those who continue to use it OR even new persons who want to adopt it... While I personally have no interest in it, I don't see how someone else liking it affects me...
What you are reading as me hating analog is actually my disdain for the mentality that only Analtube Lovers are Audiophiles! I am certain that Tubes and Analog can sound brilliant, but I find it ridiculous how many audiophiles want to reject anything digital or Solid State as not being high end...
I constantly hear claims in audio that Magnepan Speakers sound better than any B&W Speaker, Totem/PSB is the best value for money and will "Destroy" any other brand at 3 times the price... Recently (in another thread) I've even seen the claim (from someone who really hates high powered SS amps) that a set of B&W 802D Speakers sounded better with the power off than using Bryston Amps... And the list goes on and on...
Audiophiles constantly claim that people have never heard X Speaker, Y Amp or Z Source and that's why they buy the "inferior" stuff that they do... So many of us refuse to accept that someone else may actually have heard the gear we rave about and just not liked it!
It is all about about our sonic preferences... I've heard some highly regarded brands in the Audiophile community, and thought they sounded like nothing special to me (in fact one even sounded downright awful to me)... I also know that there are Audiophiles who have heard/owned the Equipment that I rave about, and didn't like the sound at all... This fact is true of both us Audiophile Consumers and Reviewers at the Major Mags... Take Stereophile for example, some of the Reviewers preach every month about Low powered Tubes and Vinyl... Others only go for Multichannel Sound... some love Digital and Solid State with traditional cone speakers... etc... These reviewers have different sonic priorities... It's clearly not the case that John Atkinson and Kalman Robinson have never heard Tubes, Vinyl and High Efficiency Speakers... yet they both still review, rave about and own a load of high powered solid state, digital and Low Efficiency speakers... So clearly they just like the way the gear sounds...
So to summarize this sermon:
IMO, anyone interested in better quality sound is an audiophile... Regardless of whether you love, low powered SET Tubes and Horn Speakers, Massive Panel Speakers that like to be dominated by a big brute of an amp, Rocking the Turntable or tape deck, Using a standalone CD Player, have gone discless (whether by computer, USB DAC or iPod Dock) or are listening to a multichannel mix with a SACD/DVDA/BuRay Source....
There is NO universally acknowledged "Superior" format... All this disagreement exists because we all have different sonic preferences (not because the other person has never heard our setup and would therefore immediately toss all their existing gear if they did)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
I indeed love my turntable more than my CDP, but I still acknowledge the benefits and reality of digital.
There's nothing wrong with that... If you enjoy that sound coming from the turntable then that's all that matters!!!
-
Ok, who let the worms out?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
...
Nope, I have no hate for analog... And I have no issue with those who continue to use it OR even new persons who want to adopt it... While I personally have no interest in it, I don't see how someone else liking it affects me...
What you are reading as me hating analog is actually my disdain for the mentality that only Analtube Lovers are Audiophiles! I am certain that Tubes and Analog can sound brilliant, but I find it ridiculous how many audiophiles want to reject anything digital or Solid State as not being high end...
...
Know what? ... either do I -- whatever the impression I might have given.
I find the sound of vinyl agreeable. But I have the sort of mind that detests irrationality. The superiority of the LP format today -- such as it might be -- lies entirely in the production choices, not the medium. The popularity of LP -- such as some would like to believe -- is entirely based on trendiness and the appeal of gimickery. If the supposed "audiophiles" who are supposedly flocking to the format really wanted better sound, they would instead insist on better produced CD or hi-rez downloads. But if vinyl makes people happy, why not, eh? The same for religion.
BTW, Poppachubby, I hope you're not including me amongst the people who reject vinyl because they haven't tried. I hope you caught to fact that I was listening to vinyl for years before you were born and a quite few afterwards on a much more than decent analog setup, viz. ERA belt drive turntable, Grace 707 tonearm, Sonus Blue cartridge, Apt Holman preamp.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the CD as a technical medium, only the way it is used. That's a point I've made for most of this decade that it's not the medium but the recording practice that is to blame. As a mainly a classical listen I haven't been nearly so afflicted by the abuse of the medium as people who listen to the more popular schlock but there are plenty of not-so-good classical recoridings too.
Everything but your own choice of music is schlock. Typical.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02audionoob
Everything but your own choice of music is schlock. Typical.
Pardon me: typical of what?
Chacun à son goût. Your entitled feel the same about my choices: I won't be offended.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Pardon me: typical of what?
Chacun à son goût. Your entitled feel the same about my choices: I won't be offended.
Typical choice of words for you. You make it point to offend.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
Ok, who let the worms out?
Let the Worms eat the rotting flesh of the ******** Lovers!!!!
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
OK, I've officially banned that word.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
OK, I've officially banned that word.
:cryin:
I never get to have any fun....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
OK, I've officially banned that word.
Can we guess what it was?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Let the Worms eat the rotting flesh of the ******** Lovers!!!!
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
wow cowboy, calm down there.......
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
OK, I've officially banned that word.
That's good, but I'm quitting this thread anyway. Same old anyway.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
wow cowboy, calm down there.......
I will not Calm Down!!! The only way to achieve lasting peace among all audiophiles is to eradicate anyone whose opinions differ from mine...
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
OK, Terrence. That was an earful. You are a passionate guy, I like that. I know you're a man of audio science, and I am not. I only know what I hear. Digital has a harshness about it that at least to my ears, analog does not.
If this comment was posted 15 years ago, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The harshness you hear comes from ringing from anti aliasing filters at the analog to digital conversion stage and reconstruction filters at the digital to analog stage, the lack of proper dither, and that problem has been tackled years ago. First came oversampling which pushed the filter response upward and away from our hearing so as to keep it from ringing. Some oversampling algorithms did an excellent job, and other sucked the detail out of the highs.
As this decade came along, we engineers learned to record at higher sample rates which eliminated the need for brickwall anti aliasing and reconstruction filters. The filter response was more gradual, which led to a lack of ringing, and a smoother better sounding recording and reproduction chain. Then we started recording with higher sampling and bitrates and downcoverting to the Redbook standard without the proper dither. This caused a digital hardness and glare that is also an early characteristic of digital audio. Once the proper dither was applied, these characteristic disappeared.
Now with DXD and Bluray disc, the filter response is so far beyond the capabilities of our hearing, that its impact is a none issue. No need for dither for downconversion because the sample frequencies are so high it is no longer needed. The thing about analog vinyl is it is loaded full of complimentary second order distortion that our ears find pleasing, but it is nevertheless distortion. The effect is very tube like, and another reason that audiophiles like tubes as well. CD's also have distortion, but it is MUCH less than vinyl, and pretty much third order which is not complimentary to the ears.
Quote:
You could very well be right. I very well may be living in an audio fantasy land of my own creation. But what can I tell you? It's what I enjoy. I also LOVE the interaction with the discs and tables. It's a big point of pride for me knowing my LP's are in top shape, and my tables are set up correctly. I don't think that pride exists for CD lovers, but I could be wrong about that.
You are not alone in living in this particular audio fantasy, there are millions on your side on this.
You hit the mark on this set of comments. Audiophiles love vinyl for reasons beyond just listening. When you think about it vinyl has poorer separation, higher noise levels, and inferior dynamic range, yet audiophiles just love the experience of dealing with vinyl on many levels beyond just listening to it. Just like audio codecs, it is a matter of preference which you choose. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. I choose digital because as higher sampling and bit rates have come into fruition a lot of the drawbacks of digital audio have largely disappeared. Over the years I have learned to appreciate analog and digital for different recordings. I love vinyl with smaller jazz and classical ensembles because there is not enough build up of second order harmonics to destroy the detail from individual instruments. With large classical works and large big band music, the second order harmonic distortion builds up to the point where individual tonal textures are destroyed. This is where digital excels, and why I prefer it for this type of music.
Quote:
I also haven't heard the greatest offerings of digital format. I am familiar with studio work, as I am a musician and have been in a few studios. Realistically, digital will lead audio into the future. I'm sure the Blu-Ray sounds great. What makes it better than CD? Less compression? School me daddy-o, in layman's terms please.
What makes Bluray disc better than CD is the flexibility of the format. The CD redbook standard is 16/44.1khz for two channels. That is it! Bluray can come in any form from two channels to eight, from 48khz to 192khz, from 16 bits to 24 bits. A choice of PCM, DTS Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD or its lossy variants. That means that you can use DXD at floating 32 bit and a 352.4kHz sample rate, and lose nothing in the downconversion to 24/192khz. It is indistinguishable from the master at that level. You have a choice of anything from stereo to multichannel 7.1, a choice of codecs to efficiently pack the disc without loss of fidelity. We have never had a disc with that much flexibility, and the ability to transparently reproduce audio at such high resolution over so many channels. DVD-A was only able to transmit two channels at 24/192khz, and SACD had performance levels closer to 20 bit and had filters to reduce its frequency response to 50khz to keep amplifiers stable. Bluray disc format is not hampered by either of these two issues.
-
Sir T, Wooch, Geoffcin, Ajani, Chubdaddy,Feanor...some great comments guys. Just made my wait at the airport far less boring that it usually is.
Sir T...I hope you start using your Terrible Terrencely powers to push BluRay audio on the market some more...can you make any immediate recommendations of great music that is widely, commercially available in that format?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio amateur
What was the word?
I can't say what the word was, but it involved blending the words analog and tubes... So it was a very cute shortname for audiophiles who like Tubes and Vinyl...
Unfortunately, my creativity has been silenced by "The Man"....
Seriously though, I sort of agree with Geoffcin, the word sounded kinda nasty...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
I can't say what the word was, but it involved blending the words analog and tubes... So it was a very cute shortname for audiophiles who like Tubes and Vinyl...
Unfortunately, my creativity has been silenced by "The Man"....
Seriously though, I sort of agree with Geoffcin, the word sounded kinda nasty...
Is it lube that goes in a certain place that expels waste? Cause if it is, copyright it right away, it is a perfect word for the application. (no pun intended)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
I can't say what the word was, but it involved blending the words analog and tubes... So it was a very cute shortname for audiophiles who like Tubes and Vinyl...
Unfortunately, my creativity has been silenced by "The Man"....
Seriously though, I sort of agree with Geoffcin, the word sounded kinda nasty...
hmmm ok
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Nope. Not really. The Beatles remasters that came out in '87 were awful.
Not the best examle what remaster CD can offer in term of sound quality.
Better example would be Rykodisc's reissue of David Bowie albums on CD as one isn't likely to hear better remastering.
And Rykodisc's Bowie's LP reissues are legendary as they used transparent green vinyl instead of traditional black for the disc. I have a copy :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
Not the best examle what remaster CD can offer in term of sound quality.
Better example would be Rykodisc's reissue of David Bowie albums on CD as one isn't likely to hear better remastering.
And Rykodisc's Bowie's LP reissues are legendary as they used transparent green vinyl instead of traditional black for the disc. I have a copy :)
Sounds like something I need , which one do you have?
And how many did they come out with?
and whats the website?:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Sounds like something I need , which one do you have?
And how many did they come out with?
and whats the website?:1:
I have Changesbowie (2 disc greatest hits) on green LP, but CD versions will be much easier to find on Amazon and Ebay as Rykodisc's Bowie cataloge is out of print at this moment.
-
quote from sir terrence the terrible:
As this decade came along, we engineers learned to record at higher sample rates which eliminated the need for brickwall anti aliasing and reconstruction filters. The filter response was more gradual, which led to a lack of ringing, and a smoother better sounding recording and reproduction chain. Then we started recording with higher sampling and bitrates and downcoverting to the Redbook standard without the proper dither. This caused a digital hardness and glare that is also an early characteristic of digital audio. Once the proper dither was applied, these characteristic disappeared.
This is what I meant when I said the future is going to be a digital file based format and not a physical one. I think lossless audio files on a music server computer or server component like many high end companies are already starting to make now are going to be where the newest media will most likely be at. There are websites out there now that specialize in lossless high quality audio downloads for purchase and they are promising to offer the best audio quality that can be had out there today. I believe if these formats are put through the right equipment they could sound better than any analog format ever dreamed of sounding.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley .guy07
quote from sir terrence the terrible:
As this decade came along, we engineers learned to record at higher sample rates which eliminated the need for brickwall anti aliasing and reconstruction filters. The filter response was more gradual, which led to a lack of ringing, and a smoother better sounding recording and reproduction chain. Then we started recording with higher sampling and bitrates and downcoverting to the Redbook standard without the proper dither. This caused a digital hardness and glare that is also an early characteristic of digital audio. Once the proper dither was applied, these characteristic disappeared.
This is what I meant when I said the future is going to be a digital file based format and not a physical one. I think lossless audio files on a music server computer or server component like many high end companies are already starting to make now are going to be where the newest media will most likely be at. There are websites out there now that specialize in lossless high quality audio downloads for purchase and they are promising to offer the best audio quality that can be had out there today. I believe if these formats are put through the right equipment they could sound better than any analog format ever dreamed of sounding.
I agree that music downloads are definately the trend, and the direction the industry is headed. As far as music goes the disc is dead EXCEPT for more specialized classical and jazz music. However, if a server is where their going to get stored, the price of those things MUST come down. Servers are WAY too expensive for what they do, and it is very difficult to justify its purchase at the price levels they currently are.
I think downloads and music are a perfect match if there is some sort of bit checker or error correction system in the chain. There is too many chances along the pipline where a bit can get lost, and when too many are, the system faults. Without some sort of bit checker that makes sure all the bits arrive intact and in their proper order, the reliability of the entire system is compromised. Ones that happens a few times, the consumer is soured on the whole server thing.
If I want something, the price of it is never a consideration to me. I however cannot justify spending $5k on a music storage system when I can go into my media library and just pick the disc I want, and play it for a total charge of between $12-16 dollars.
-
The pressing process (even with a totally digital recording) adds a sonic character to the music that some people just prefer vinyl.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentsteel
The pressing process (even with a totally digital recording) adds a sonic character to the music that some people just prefer vinyl.
That is part of the problem. As a audio engineer, I do not want that sonic character imprinted over my mix.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
That is part of the problem. As a audio engineer, I do not want that sonic character imprinted over my mix.
Well most engineers and musicians are usually (if they did a good job at the plant) happy with it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentsteel
Well most engineers and musicians are usually (if they did a good job at the plant) happy with it.
Bernie Grundman who is probably the best there is at cutting vinyl has publicly said that if you are looking for accuracy, stay away from vinyl. I have been a member of AES for close to 20 years, and most engineers I have spoke to on the subject have not stated any opinion, so I am not sure you can say they are happy with it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentsteel
The pressing process (even with a totally digital recording) adds a sonic character to the music that some people just prefer vinyl.
That's been my suspicion for a long time. I.e., that vinyl imparts a euphonic distortion.
With some qualification, I suspect the same can be said for vacuum tubes.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
That's been my suspicion for a long time. I.e., that vinyl imparts a euphonic distortion.
With some qualification, I suspect the same can be said for vacuum tubes.
I wouldn't say it's the vinyls fault. I remember reading a spec sheet on the old Shure V15 type IV cartridge (one of the best MM carts ever) and it stated on the order of several % harmonic distortion from the stylus. In fact they were touting that the new geometry was able to get the distortion down to only 2.5%!?
http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups...o_v15iv_ug.pdf
-
Whether Vinyl, Tubes and/or the cartridges add distortion, probably matters more to the engineers than to consumers...
If I was an Engineer, I'd be annoyed to see anything other than an accurate representation of my work being released...
However, if I was a consumer, and found that the harmonic distortion (or whatever) added "soul" as PoppaC (and many other Vinyl/Tube Users find) then why would I want to convert to a "more accurate" format that steals the life from the music???
It may be an objective science for the engineer, but It's all subjective art for the end user....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Whether Vinyl, Tubes and/or the cartridges add distortion, probably matters more to the engineers than to consumers...
If I was an Engineer, I'd be annoyed to see anything other than an accurate representation of my work being released...
And I can say without reservation that is exactly what most engineers want.
Quote:
However, if I was a consumer, and found that the harmonic distortion (or whatever) added "soul" as PoppaC (and many other Vinyl/Tube Users find) then why would I want to convert to a "more accurate" format that steals the life from the music???
The steal the life out of the music is an old myth from the early days of CD. It was because the anti-alising filters back in the 80's were brickwall, and they rang inducing jitter into the signal. This has long been conquered using oversampling filters, and higher resolution recording and playback chains. Since most recordings are of digital nature, a CD cannot steal the life out of any music. Digital cannot steal the life out of digital unless there is jitter present, or bits dropping.
Quote:
It may be an objective science for the engineer, but It's all subjective art for the end user....
Which is why I like to produce accurate recordings of which the end user can pass through any sonic altering device they choose like tubes.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
And I can say without reservation that is exactly what most engineers want.
The steal the life out of the music is an old myth from the early days of CD. It was because the anti-alising filters back in the 80's were brickwall, and they rang inducing jitter into the signal. This has long been conquered using oversampling filters, and higher resolution recording and playback chains. Since most recordings are of digital nature, a CD cannot steal the life out of any music. Digital cannot steal the life out of digital unless there is jitter present, or bits dropping.
Which is why I like to produce accurate recordings of which the end user can pass through any sonic altering device they choose like tubes.
Yep... we're in agreement... I probably should have put "steal the life out of the music" in quotes though, to make it clear that it is not my opinion of digital (as should be clear from the lack of tubes and vinyl in my sig)...
|