Will Vinyl Save The iPod Gen From Crappy Sound?

[Geoffcin]

OK, I've officially banned that word.

[Ajani]

OK, I've officially banned that word.

I never get to have any fun....

[bobsticks]

OK, I've officially banned that word.

Can we guess what it was?

[atomicAdam]

Let the Worms eat the rotting flesh of the ******** Lovers!!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

wow cowboy, calm down there.......

[Feanor]

OK, I've officially banned that word.

That's good, but I'm quitting this thread anyway. Same old anyway.

[Ajani]

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...

[audio amateur]

What was the word?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

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.

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.

[kexodusc]

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?

[Ajani]

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...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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)

[audio amateur]

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

[Smokey]

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

[pixelthis]

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?

[Smokey]

Sounds like something I need , which one do you have?
And how many did they come out with?
and whats the website?

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.

[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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[agentsteel]

The pressing process (even with a totally digital recording) adds a sonic character to the music that some people just prefer vinyl.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[agentsteel]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[Feanor]

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.

[Geoffcin]

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

[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...

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....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

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.

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.