View Full Version : What's the point of vinyl rips above 16/44.1KHz
StanleyB
06-01-2012, 07:55
Whenever I play vinyl rips, especially the high bitrate versions, I can't help noticing two major problems with them. They are:
1. Turntable rumble
For those of us who are of have been into vinyl, that heavy low frequency rumble is not an unknown quantity. In the old days amps had a rumble filter. On stand alone phone preamps that facility has not been an option. So when vinyl records are ripped that rumble is also captured. Unfortunately, there is no way of removing that rumble on a modern day digital setup. The rumble is not so noticeable on the average system, but once you have a highly resolving DAC and speakers that go very low in frequency (or subwoofers), the rumble is clear and loud.
2. Frequency response
The ripped audio is highly dependent on the frequency response of the TT cartridge that was used. The majority of rips that I have heard sound as if they were done with MM carts. The extra detail that a MC cartridge can dig out is often lacking in these high frequency rips.
For comparison, I have compared many of these rips to the CD version. The difference in sound from the ripped audio is plainly down to the TT cartridge response and the phonopreamp used. The most common problem that I notice in the playback frequency is the softer bass and distorted upper treble.
That brings me back to my initial question: what's the point of these vinyl rips?
Hi Stan,
Rumble - what rumble?? :eyebrows:
As a fellow owner of a suitably high-resolution system, I can assure you that there is no rumble whatsoever from my T/T.
On mint records (of which I have many), which have been thoroughly cleaned on an RCM, the audible playback noise is virtually identical to CD, the only difference being the extremely low-level 'roar' from the stylus tracing the grooves, which is only noticeable in the most minute way (although this is naturally more noticeable through headphones) when putting your ears right up against the speaker, with the volume full on.
Perhaps if you're talking about some Garrards, or TD124s or Lencos, where idler wheel noise may be a problem, or some basically crap old T/T, then rumble may most certainly be a problem, but definately not otherwise! ;)
Marco.
morris_minor
06-01-2012, 10:18
Hi Stan,
Rumble - what rumble?? :eyebrows:
As a fellow owner of a suitably high-resolution system, I can assure you that there is no rumble whatsoever from my T/T.
On mint records (of which I have many), which have been thoroughly cleaned on an RCM, the audible playback noise is virtually identical to CD, the only difference being the extremely low-level 'roar' from the stylus tracing the grooves, which is only noticeable in the most minute way (although this is naturally more noticeable through headphones) when putting your ears right up against the speaker, with the volume full on.
Perhaps if you're talking about some Garrards, or TD124s or Lencos, where idler wheel noise may be a problem, or some basically crap old T/T, then rumble may most certainly be a problem, but definitely not otherwise! ;)
Marco.
Indeed! I don't have what I consider a high-end system but rumble is no problem for me either. Even listening on 'phones (HD650s) via a chain that only includes phono stage and headphone amp.
As far ripping to higher than red-book specs goes, I rip to 96/24 so any click removal process or normalisation is done at higher resolution. Most rips I resample to 48/24 for use - though I do keep some rips of real quality LPs at the higher rate. Whether this is audible or not is a moot point. :eyebrows:.
StanleyB
06-01-2012, 11:23
That's OK then if you have a TT that doesn't exhibit any rumble problems. But most of the vinyl rips floating about for download have clearly not been done with such high quality turntable set ups.
I would have liked to post a link to a reference site where such vinyl rips are mentioned and catalogued in fine detail, but I reckon we could all end up in trouble if that site was used for more than casual browsing ;).
A thread on needledrop and rumble over at the Hoffman forum:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=113952
Those dudes love to discuss needledrops: :)
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/search.php?searchid=12353520
That's OK then if you have a TT that doesn't exhibit any rumble problems.
Agreed. I think you should've made that fact clear in your original post, rather than insinuating that it was an inherent problem in all T/Ts ;)
Marco.
StanleyB
06-01-2012, 12:33
I am making no such insinuation about TT rumble. My thread is about the capture of rumble during a vinyl rip, and the playback there after.
I am wiling to consider any amendments if you can supply me with a couple of 96KHz vinyl rips made on your TT, and that I can listen to. Whilst I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the normal day to day playback of your vinyl, the ripping process might not be so kind ;).
Jac Hawk
06-01-2012, 13:02
Personally i've never ripped any of my vinyl into digital, but i've heard some 96khz rips, some were good and some just awful, i think because there are more possibilities for things to go wrong or just not sound right, not only do you have issues with TT's carts arms etc, but also the quality of the vinyl and it's condition, then there's the transfer to digital on top of all that. At the end of the day unless you know for sure all the variables, vinyl rips are a bit of a lottery in my opinion.
StanleyB
06-01-2012, 13:12
A lottery indeed, but the high resolution audio catalogue is extremely limited. Taking into account how many DAC buyers look for 96KHz and 192KHz ability from the DAC, I wonder how many high res files are played afterwards through those DACs.
kininigin
06-01-2012, 13:46
I am making no such insinuation about TT rumble. My thread is about the capture of rumble during a vinyl rip, and the playback there after.
I am wiling to consider any amendments if you can supply me with a couple of 96KHz vinyl rips made on your TT, and that I can listen to. Whilst I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the normal day to day playback of your vinyl, the ripping process might not be so kind ;).
I've got some spare time and im bored,so if you like i can do a couple of rips.
I'd be interested in your opinions.
morris_minor
06-01-2012, 14:40
. . . . Whilst I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the normal day to day playback of your vinyl, the ripping process might not be so kind ;).
Are you suggesting that rumble is introduced by digitising the analogue signal? If there's no rumble apparent on playback, why would there be some in the digital file? Or are you using the term "rumble" to include various digital artefacts introduced during a less than perfect rip?
StanleyB
06-01-2012, 15:14
Yes I am suggesting that. What you hear on analogue playback is not necessarily the same thing that you hear on digital playback ;). A TT has an SNR of 70 to 80dB. A DAC has an SNR of 96dB or better. In other words, on an analogue system you can hear the flight of the bumble bee. On a digital system you can count the number of wing flaps.
morris_minor
06-01-2012, 15:21
But you can only count the wing flaps if the bee's there in the first place. :eyebrows:
Maybe it's Schrodinger's Bee that's causing all the confusion. :lol:
Techies don't rumble - period! I shall say no more on the matter ;)
Also, Dave, you're quite right to notice how remarkably 'digital' a good SL-1200/1210 sounds; and that's 'digital' in a good way! It's testament to how fundamentally sonically accurate the Technics is, which is why so many of us here own them.
Marco.
Vincent Kars
07-01-2012, 20:45
Whether you feed the output of a phono stage into an amp or into an ADC it remains the same signal of course.
An ADC cannot ‘hear’ more than we can.
Vincent Kars
07-01-2012, 20:49
A lot of debates about bit depth and sample rate can be found on many audio forums.
According to Shannon-Nyquist your sample rate should be the double of the highest frequency.
Vinyl can contain signals up to 25 kHz (but higher values are reported) so 44.1 kHz (Nyquist=22) is probably a bit at the low site.
When doing the AD conversion any signal in excess of half the sample rate generates an error.
The input should therefore be band limited.
Low sample rates like 44.1 kHz forces you to use the same steep filtering (brick wall) as in the first generation CD players.
Higher sample rates allow to use a smoother filter.
Vinyl can have a dynamic range of 70 dB (but often limited to 50 dB) so 70/6=12 bits should do. But you need some headroom and in case of post-processing it is beneficial to have a 24 bit format.
Ripping vinyl is a hell of a lot of work.
Even if 24/96 is overkill I rather would go for the overkill.
Excellent post, Vincent, especially the last paragraph :)
Marco.
Techies don't rumble - period! I shall say no more on the matter ;)
Also, Dave, you're quite right to notice how remarkably 'digital' a good SL-1200/1210 sounds; and that's 'digital' in a good way! It's testament to how fundamentally sonically accurate the Technics is, which is why so many of us here own them.
Marco.
Well Marco's Techie doesn't rumble anyway. I'm still using your SRV needle drop to test out certain audio qualities in my server ;)
Do some more.
WOStantonCS100
07-01-2012, 22:11
I always thought the point of high resolution audio (and video, for that matter) recording was to retain as much of the original analog signal as possible, as opposed to retaining a lesser amount of original material from which one will later create a likeness of the original event. It seems that when it comes to video there isn't such a conundrum; yet, when it comes to audio, there's an issue? :scratch: If capturing rumble, is a consequence of recording more of the nuances of a vinyl recording (throughout the entire frequency spectrum presented to the ADC from the front end cart/table/pressing); I'd rather use such a system (bit/sample rate) than not. Surely, there must be software filters capable of substantially squelching rumble if that's a problem. If it is, it's most likely a good idea to fettle the TT.
Having said that, I've noticed no rumble (on any of my Techies) or woofer pumping when I've made 24/96 recordings. I have noticed that the results of 24/96 vinyl rips over 16/44.1 are rather apparent, in a pleasing way, IMHO. Then again, I've largely abandoned digital vinyl ripping in favor of 7.5 ips / 1/2 track / 1/4" reel, portability be damned. :D
morris_minor
08-01-2012, 10:11
A lot of debates about bit depth and sample rate can be found on many audio forums.
According to Shannon-Nyquist your sample rate should be the double of the highest frequency.
Vinyl can contain signals up to 25 kHz (but higher values are reported) so 44.1 kHz (Nyquist=22) is probably a bit at the low site.
When doing the AD conversion any signal in excess of half the sample rate generates an error.
The input should therefore be band limited.
Low sample rates like 44.1 kHz forces you to use the same steep filtering (brick wall) as in the first generation CD players.
Higher sample rates allow to use a smoother filter.
Vinyl can have a dynamic range of 70 dB (but often limited to 50 dB) so 70/6=12 bits should do. But you need some headroom and in case of post-processing it is beneficial to have a 24 bit format.
Ripping vinyl is a hell of a lot of work.
Even if 24/96 is overkill I rather would go for the overkill.
Very eloquently put Vincent! With hard disc space so cheap these days it doesn't make sense to rip at less than 24/96 - and IMO the only time saved by ripping at lower rates is the shorter save times for the smaller files, which is inconsequential in terms of the whole ripping process.
Well Marco's Techie doesn't rumble anyway. I'm still using your SRV needle drop to test out certain audio qualities in my server ;)
Do some more.
Thanks, John. I fully intend to, especially since after the addition of my new Ortofon arm and cartridge, SR7EHD PSU and Funk Firm platter, the quality of my T/T is, erm, a 'wee bit better' than that which was used for the SRV rip... :eyebrows: ;)
Marco.
kininigin
08-01-2012, 15:44
However, the backing brass instruments and the cymbals don't sound right to me. The cymbals and hi-hats "'splash" in a way which real ones don't, and the brass - well - it's just not right.
This is something i noticed as well.It maybe a little more care with the setup is needed.I'll have a play and try to do another recording and see what i get.
I think the brass section,has had some effects added tp them.
This is something i noticed as well.It maybe a little more care with the setup is needed.I'll have a play and try to do another recording and see what i get.
I think the brass section,has had some effects added tp them.
I never heard the track before, but highly enjoyed it. I'm not able to wax as lyrical and as critical as some, but to me , it was a pleasing sound, it was certainly something I could live with:) So thank you very much for the experiment , it was much appreciated.
The analogue rip definitely retained some of the characteristics that I remember vinyl having, and there was no rumble whatsoever. I think some of the CD rips at 44.1 I've done have more depth tho.....
Another interesting thing I read regarding rumble, which I hadn't previously considered, was this, in the Stereophile review of the GP Audio Monaco:
http://www.stereophile.com/turntables/1107gp
Measuring rumble is difficult: cutting lathes typically exhibit higher rumble figures than today's premium turntables and it's impossible to separate the rumble generated by a playback turntable from that generated by the cutting lathe and already recorded on an LP.
Precisely! Therefore, any so-called 'rumble' heard from needle-drops of T/Ts, could have come originally from the lathe, and not the playback T/T ;)
Marco.
Indeed, Marco, I can sometimes hear cutting lathe rumble between tracks on an LP but it is not inherent to the Techie as quickly evidenced by listening to the HFS69 test record rumble track.
Given that the human ear can only hear between 20-20HZ, given that double blind testing has proved inconclusive over any perceptible difference between a red book cd and sacd standard, can anytime tell me why there is any point in recording hi res please?
Maybe if Darren could do us the same recording he so kindly did but this time in 44.1?
Given that the human ear can only hear between 20-20HZ, given that double blind testing has proved inconclusive over any perceptible difference between a red book cd and sacd standard
And there's your mistake. Double-blind listening tests are a complete waste of time. There is no 'given' about no differences between red book and SACD standard, you just have to listen with your ears on a decent system and you will hear the differences quite clearly.
Providing, of course, that you're able to trust your ears in the first place ;)
<Runs for cover>
Marco.
morris_minor
12-01-2012, 10:22
Given that the human ear can only hear between 20-20HZ, given that double blind testing has proved inconclusive over any perceptible difference between a red book cd and sacd standard, can anytime tell me why there is any point in recording hi res please?
I may be talking bo**ocks here (frequently do :lol:), but sound perception is not solely about the audibly perceived frequency range. Before you think: :mental: . .
Instrumental harmonics extend upwards way past 20Khz. During my post-grad university days I did some research into musical perception and recorded some woodwind instruments (since I could get my hands on those) and then produced versions with varying filters cutting off the higher frequencies. To an (admittedly small) group I played these back asking which had used the best recording technique (no mention of high frequencies etc). To a man (and woman) everyone preferred the unfiltered recording.
Higher resolution recordings all help resolve micro dynamic details within the audible spectrum. For instance, the attack portion of any musical note is key in helping the brain decide which instrument is playing. If you cut off the beginning of an attack transient, important clues are missing: eg. a clarinet can sound like a pipe organ. It's the very beginning of the reed beginning to vibrate, and the micro-seconds afterwards that add the character to the steady state tone of the sustained note. Further through the note, the release portion can change the sound as the excitation of the air column stops and the note enters the decay phase. Put the decay phase into a complex acoustic environment and you need all the resolving power you can muster to approach the live sound.
Obviously, all the above would go for stringed instruments, brass and percussion too.
Didn't mean this to sound like an excerpt from a thesis, sorry. :eek:
Oh - though there are benefits too, of recording and processing at high resolution to maintain quality before mastering (for CD or SACD).
Rather than take other people's word for it...
<runs with you>
bobbasrah
12-01-2012, 11:21
Having said all that Bob, it is quite apparent that methods and filtering at the original recording, transcription to CD, and playback stages can also impact. The range differences between a Chesky test album on my old CD, DVD/SACD, and from HDD are quite subtly but audibly different.
There was also a very nice piece appeared recently, possibly regarding the resurgence of vinyl in the states, where the 20-20k hearing model was debunked, iting that other perceptions kicked in, such as physical sensation below 20, and other(?) sensing above 20k. Traditional science is still locked into "hearing" as the sole mechanism.
All this from a bit of a rumble.......
morris_minor
12-01-2012, 11:53
Agreed, Bob. Low frequencies are felt as well as heard!
There's a lot we don't understand :scratch:
As you say - all from a bit of rumble-in-the-jungle . . . :lol:
Edit: mind you this leaves the field wide open for the snake oil merchants.
As you say , the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It would be interesting to see if there was a difference between 44.1 and 96 recorded using the same track with the same kit.
That wouldn't end the debate, but it would add some meat to it. I have heard lots of sacd/vinyl 96 rips, some of which sound fantastic, but I've yet to be able to compare the 44.1 version of the same mix of that track for SACD against CD.
For vinyl against a cd of the same mix of the same track, I'm afraid(much to my disappointment) the CD has won for me, with my ears, every time.
I wonder what an 'SACD rip' is, considering the data is encrypted and only a very few DACs can even decode the DSD, let alone PCs. Much more likely is that the SACD has had its CD layer ripped, which is then merely 16/44 red book.
Stratmangler
12-01-2012, 15:46
I wonder what an 'SACD rip' is, considering the data is encrypted and only a very few DACs can even decode the DSD, let alone PCs. Much more likely is that the SACD has had its CD layer ripped, which is then merely 16/44 red book.
There is a DSD plugin for Foobar.
bobbasrah
12-01-2012, 15:54
As you say , the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It would be interesting to see if there was a difference between 44.1 and 96 recorded using the same track with the same kit.
That wouldn't end the debate, but it would add some meat to it. I have heard lots of sacd/vinyl 96 rips, some of which sound fantastic, but I've yet to be able to compare the 44.1 version of the same mix of that track for SACD against CD.
For vinyl against a cd of the same mix of the same track, I'm afraid(much to my disappointment) the CD has won for me, with my ears, every time.
I got close, but stupidly omitted the 16/44, as I wanted the comparison for an entirely different purpose, to test any difference between 24/96 and 24/192 (None obvious on my present lugs and equipment). It is unfair perhaps to quote the CD I have as distinctly lacking in atmospherics and drive by comparison as it is not the same source, but there you go.
In any instance, just like mp3, you cannot put back what you've taken away or omitted, and if it is not well recorded and mastered in the first place, the rest is academic.
if it is not well recorded and mastered in the first place, the rest is academic.
OMG! Don't write that ffs!
90% of what i listen to was recorded by a recording engineer and you know what they're like.:lol:
bobbasrah
12-01-2012, 16:20
OMG! Don't write that ffs!
90% of what i listen to was recorded by a recording engineer and you know what they're like.:lol:
:doh:
Sorry Guv, it was Chesky, honest....:eek:
Reid Malenfant
12-01-2012, 16:22
I wonder what an 'SACD rip' is, considering the data is encrypted and only a very few DACs can even decode the DSD, let alone PCs. Much more likely is that the SACD has had its CD layer ripped, which is then merely 16/44 red book.
Apparently an early PS3 with no updating will output the DSD stream so it can be put on a HDD :) I'm not sure who's doing it but someone on here I think may well be as it was discussed a good while back :scratch:
It's the fact that a recording engineer got hold of your music before you get it anywhere near your Hi Fi that seems to be often overlooked in these Vinyl v Digital/Hi resolution/Valve v Solid State debates.
The chances are no matter what medium you use you're listening to Digital barring some older recordings.
That means the probability that re-sampling and compression have already been applied.
All the discussion regarding frequencies above 20Khz is nonsense because they aren't there to start with; not on your CD and not on your record and certainly not coming out of your speakers.
As for any modern recording sounding like a Vinyl; well if that's true all i can say is "yer kits broke".:eyebrows:
As for any modern recording sounding like a Vinyl; well if that's true all i can say is "yer kits broke".:eyebrows:
It's a bit like asking for directions. They vary according to your starting point!
When I say that redbook sounds like vinyl what I mean is that it has ambiance and images well. When jitter plagues the sound these elements are often AWOL.
Any FWIW, that's my take on it
I understand (I think) what people mean when they write that Clive.:scratch:
I think its misleading though.
As I've mentioned before, often, if people spent as much money and time on sorting out their file based systems as they do setting up their record decks and spending a few hundred quid on this or that cartridge all this Vinyl v digital stuff ought to go away.
The more I delve into computer based audio the less convinced I am that jitter is the evil many believe it to be.
What I am coming to accept is re-sampling is more of a problem. In a file based system it is quite easy to have 4 or more re-sampling processes carried out.
The re-sampling algorithms used in many music players for example aren't the best available.
Jitter on the other hand should be dealt with adequately by any decent Dac
It's not the straight through pipeline some people seem to imagine. All the data gets repeatedly buffered at various points along the pipeline, often re-sampled and then sent on to the next process.
It's hard to see how the relatively small timing errors can be passed on from one stage to another when the data flow is stopped and stacked at various points.
Just my thoughts on this.
Hi John,
As for any modern recording sounding like a Vinyl; well if that's true all i can say is "yer kits broke".:eyebrows:
Not sure what you mean by that remark... Could you expand, please? :)
Marco.
I thought I had Marco.
The majority of modern recordings are digital; be they on Vinyl or CD.
Even recordings that were originally recorded using analogue equipment are often digitally manipulated before being pressed onto Vinyl ( not all)
So, in theory at least, given the data you are listening to is digital in the first place then any differences one hears can be attributed to the playback equipment.
So, (tongue in cheek) what I associate with Vinyl replay is wow and flutter, tracking errors, cartridge misalignment, bearing and cutting lathe rumble, pops and clicks even on the best kept records.
If you hear these things on a digital set-up, its broke.
Only teasing. ;)
Thanks for the clarification :)
So, (tongue in cheek) what I associate with Vinyl replay is wow and flutter, tracking errors, cartridge misalignment, bearing and cutting lathe rumble, pops and clicks even on the best kept records.
Tongue in cheekiness aside, why associate anything in audio with anything other than the best example of it? You know from personal experience, for example, that a rip from my turntable sounds nothing like you have described.
I wouldn't dream of referring to digital as sounding thin, bright and in-yer-face, as I know that's not intrinsically how it sounds, when done well, so please don't paint a similarly inaccurate picture of vinyl...
Jeez, it's like saying all pasta sauce tastes like Dolmio! :doh:
If you hear these things on a digital set-up, its broke.
Well, me old son, if you hear the things you've described above about vinyl, then the turntable (and records) you used must've been "broke"!!! :ner:
Only teasing ;)
Marco.
Chunky70
12-01-2012, 18:44
Just picked up the latest Classic FM mag today and this month it's a Tchaikovsky double cd.
What makes it interesting though is the fact that all of the recordings are taken from the vinyl originals (presumably from 50's or 60's).
Sound quality is very good with not a pop or click (or even rumble) to be heard.
If your into classical check this one out, it's only a fiver!
All accepted Marco. :)
I'm just a bit weary of people holding up Vinyl as THE standard when unless they have a really exceptional turntable set up (maybe Clive's might qualify for example) and have heard an exceptional file based system their comments must be based on myth.
I personally don't give a toss what kit people listen to music on; I still think reel to reel tape takes some beating. :eyebrows:
I find particularly irritating people describing a good digital set-up as sounding like a good Vinyl set-up as if this is a good thing.
Digital and analogue can have a different sound and if my digital set-up sounds like the average/good Vinyl set-up I've done something wrong. If I wanted and analogue sound I would buy a record player.
I prefer digital replay and often digital recording because it does sound different to analogue and the last thing I want is to bend a digital system so that it exhibits what I find as the shortfalls in a Vinyl system.
None of this means that both cant sound excellent but why bother with digital at all if you like what Vinyl does, let alone compare one to the other?
I find virtually no tonal differences between vinyl and CD replay of the same recordings, whether they were originated as analogue or digital. To me, there is no 'vinyl' or 'digital' sound, only differences of soundstage size, dynamics and micro-detail between the two.
All accepted Marco. :)
Nice one.
I'm just a bit weary of people holding up Vinyl as THE standard when unless they have a really exceptional turntable set up (maybe Clive's might qualify for example)
No doubt Clive's is, but not mine, too? :eyebrows:
I'm just a bit weary of people referring to vinyl as you did earlier, as if that's the way it has to be, which of course is complete bollocks.... I think you can see where I'm going with this! ;)
As for your other point, let's look at it the other way.
I often refer to my T/T as sounding like 'digital done well', as it exhibits little of the 'warm & cuddly' colorations some associate, and even desire, from vinyl. I value faithfulness and accuracy, as far as possible, not romantic euphony. The same, incidentally, goes for the sonic presentation of my valve amps.
So how do you feel about digital being associated with vinyl in that way, i.e. when vinyl is done well that it sounds very much like digital, done well?
I have a few identical recordings on both vinyl and CD, and when playing them on the relevant source equipment, through my system, it's difficult to tell the recordings apart. And I consider that a good thing!
Marco.
I find virtually no tonal differences between vinyl and CD replay of the same recordings, whether they were originated as analogue or digital. To me, there is no 'vinyl' or 'digital' sound, only differences of soundstage size, dynamics and micro-detail between the two.
Yer kits broke :eyebrows:
(Should i be heading for the hall now? :doh:)
I find virtually no tonal differences between vinyl and CD replay of the same recordings, whether they were originated as analogue or digital. To me, there is no 'vinyl' or 'digital' sound, only differences of soundstage size, dynamics and micro-detail between the two.
+1.
But you can only reach that conclusion when you own both top-notch digital and analogue sources, and when they are sonically on a par with each other.
In that scenario, the replay equipment and musical media used 'disappears', and all you are left with is the music itself, sounding as close as possible to the recording that left the studio.
That is precisely what high-end audio is all about!
Marco.
Yer kits broke :eyebrows:
(Should i be heading for the hall now? :doh:)
Nope!
See my last two posts, daftee.
Marco.
Okay, being serious for a moment.
I've never had an exceptional Vinyl set-up. The best I got to was a Modified Thorens TD160S, Hadcock 228 and Decca London Gold.
(I thought at the time it sounded pretty good and I was pretty fastidious with my set up)
Add to this I cant remember the sound of the better analogue set-ups I've heard and I'm probably not the best person to judge which sounds like what.
I do have a reel to reel tape recorder and there is a noticeable difference (not large by any means) between the sound of my file server and the reel to reel.
For example, that tape hiss is always there if I listen carefully through my Valve based headphone amp and headphones.
With most record players I've heard, listening through headphones there is always some surface noise as the needle travels the groove. It may not be intrusive but its there none the less.
Listening through headphones to my music server there is no tape hiss or surface noise.
So' in my experience at least there are differences between file based digital and analogue.
If those with top notch Vinyl systems say they cant tell the difference between listening to a record playing and a file or CD playing then I have to take there word for this despite finding it hard to believe.
My hearing is far from excellent but I believe not only can I hear the difference between the Vinyl set-ups I can get to listen to and a decent file based system regarding the transport method I think there are also other subtle differences in presentation,perhaps this is what Martin describes as tone.
And yes Marco, I'll stop poking Vinyl when people stop drivelling on about that unacceptable digital sound. :ner:
Well, John, you'll never hear that pish from me. I get very "acceptable" digital sound indeed, thank you very much!
As for the rest of your post, I think you summed it up rather succinctly in your 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs ;)
Marco.
It's good to see a pssionate debate going on here. And I'm not wishing to disrespect anyone's painstakingly constructed hi fi kit whether vinyl or digital, when they get to a certain stage either methods are going to put a great big smile on your face.
I am more interested in whether there is any audible difference in a 16 44.1 recording or a 24 96 recording of the same song or a red book version or an SACD version. I have no means of testing that, so I am unable to say. But I wonder , if I could test this out what I would find?
Would it be possible for this forum to, with our collective talents, generate such a test?
Or is it a waste of time in that vinyl sounds better on a TT, SACD sounds better on a dedicated, red book sounds better on a CD Player etc.
But, if so, forgive my ignorance , why should this be?
Is it something to do with the transferring it onto a unified(digital) media that would make the test unfair?
Again, I don't know the answers , I can only pose the questions.
And I pose the questions because I want to get at the truth; that I'm not wasting time and money worrying about HD DVD Blu RAy Audio DVD Audio SACD Hi Res etc. etc. etc. when this is all meaningless audibly compared with the red book format.
Just taking CD, SACD and DVD-A, it's very, very hard to make comparisons and be certain that your test environment is playing fairly. I can eliminate almost all variables by dint of my player (Ayre C-5xe MP) being able to play all three formats to a high capability - Stereophile didn't give it a class A+ grade for nothing.
Even so, how can I be sure that an SACD and CD were mastered by the same chap at the same time period? What tape was used - the real master or (most likely) a copy? Was the copy master made for vinyl or CD originally? Was a hi-res version created from the master or upsampled?
I have examples of absolutely stunning SACDs (Genesis: Selling England by the Pound) and stunning DVD-As (Yes: Fragile) that wipe the floor with the CD equivalent. I have others (Norah Jones: Come Away With Me) where the hi-res disc is barely discernible from the CD.
You could argue that I could switch between the hi-res and CD layers of an SACD, but some have accused the labels of deliberately compromising the CD layer to make the SACD layer sound better. How would you know?
I can only offer that the best crafted examples of each format (the above examples for hi-res and, say, Jennifer Warnes: Famous Blue Raincoat 20th Anniversary for CD) are all capable of superb sound, but SACD and DVD-A approach the master tape more closely with a wide open window and exhibit fewer compromises. All to my ears, of course.
What Martin said basically.
You'll be hard pressed to find the same piece of music on different formats that you can say with any certainty have not had one of those engineer chaps tweaking it about.....for better or worse.
I have some recordings done by one of the guys I parp and burp a saxophone with in both 24/96 and 16/44.1. Both recorded double mike at the same time into a Metric Halo and sent to tape.
I think I can hear a difference but not enough to warrant an outbreak of "wow" and "cor" posts on a Hi Fi forum.
Interesting, Martin...
Do you have any identical high-quality recordings on vinyl and, say, SACD? And if so, how close would you say the recordings were in terms of sound, when played on your respective SACD and vinyl sources? :)
Marco.
Thanks Martin, I think I might be getting somewhere here now
.[/QUOTE]Just taking CD, SACD and DVD-A, it's very, very hard to make comparisons and be certain that your test environment is playing fairly. I can eliminate almost all variables by dint of my player (Ayre C-5xe MP) being able to play all three formats to a high capability - Stereophile didn't give it a class A+ grade for nothing..[/QUOTE]
I'll bet that must be an absolutely stunning piece of equipment
.[/QUOTE]Even so, how can I be sure that an SACD and CD were mastered by the same chap at the same time period? What tape was used - the real master or (most likely) a copy? Was the copy master made for vinyl or CD originally? Was a hi-res version created from the master or upsampled?
I have examples of absolutely stunning SACDs (Genesis: Selling England by the Pound) and stunning DVD-As (Yes: Fragile) that wipe the floor with the CD equivalent. I have others (Norah Jones: Come Away With Me) where the hi-res disc is barely discernible from the CD..[/QUOTE]
So on the surface of it, a simply larger file size shouldn't make for a better sound quality, given the assumption that this being an sacd would be far more than the max 800 mb CD?
My preconceived notion before I started trying to find this elusive truth out was that the bigger the file size the less compressed the recording was from the original master, however large the file size of the master is, which, of course, I don't know enough about either:doh:
And therefore my logic has heretofor told me that the less compressed the music is, the more music I will hear.
But, now I have done some digging, I'm finding that much compression takes place in the recording studio, to smooth out the dynamic range of the recording, and the compression subsequently used in the cutting of your disc, whether it be lp or SACD or DVD CD, is being done beyond the range a human can hear at.
So should that compression at the end stage make any difference to what I'm hearing.
.[/QUOTE]You could argue that I could switch between the hi-res and CD layers of an SACD, but some have accused the labels of deliberately compromising the CD layer to make the SACD layer sound better. How would you know?.[/QUOTE]
Well, somebody somewhere out there that produced the discs must know and maybe I need to do further digging along those lines
.[/QUOTE]I can only offer that the best crafted examples of each format (the above examples for hi-res and, say, Jennifer Warnes: Famous Blue Raincoat 20th Anniversary for CD) are all capable of superb sound, but SACD and DVD-A approach the master tape more closely with a wide open window and exhibit fewer compromises. All to my ears, of course.[/QUOTE]
And I, like the rest of us who love good music, hate compromise. I want the music I love to be the best music it can be.
Which means tackling the source: the music itself.
And that's where the mystique is:)
Marco: I don't that I can think of, where the mastering for LP and SACD were done at the same time. I was going to quote the current huge EMI Pink Floyd project, but I'm fairly certain that the vinyl pressings are mastered from a digital mix, not the original analogue master.
Trev: be aware that analogue compression (performed in the studio) is very different from digital compression (possibly performed for storage or transmission). I think it's been proven by Hi-Fi News among others that file size and purported resolution do not describe the actual resolution of the digital source (e.g. some hi-res releases can be shown to have nothing above 22.05kHz, i.e. they are red book sourced and upsampled).
bobbasrah
13-01-2012, 06:26
I think it's been proven by Hi-Fi News among others that file size and purported resolution do not describe the actual resolution of the digital source (e.g. some hi-res releases can be shown to have nothing above 22.05kHz, i.e. they are red book sourced and upsampled).
And much to the embarrassment of some labels, this has spawned considerable negative publicity, further testing and dissemination of results on the forums, with the result that there are quite a number of rightly furious customers complaining. The punters could have upsampled their own CD at home, no additional purchase required (ok - maybe not quite).:D
Calling the labels and remastering engineers to account on what is a blatant rip-off, can only improve their attention to the product and better service to the customer, particularly at a time when you have a very astute Apple industry looking at distributing just such a service.:eyebrows:
I shall have a listen to the blu ray audio version of Dark Side and direct comparison with the CD from the same box. It might not prove anything universal but it'll show for me whether there is any audible difference between either version in this 100 pounds box set
I am expecting the difference to be obvious. And startling. In a good way. Any other result does not bear thinking about
Marco: I don't that I can think of, where the mastering for LP and SACD were done at the same time. I was going to quote the current huge EMI Pink Floyd project, but I'm fairly certain that the vinyl pressings are mastered from a digital mix, not the original analogue master.
No worries. What about identical albums on CD and vinyl? Basically, I'm curious to know if, like me, it's difficult to distinguish between the same music played on your T/T and digital sources (such is the near-identical awesome sound of both) :)
Marco.
I shall have a listen to the blu ray audio version of Dark Side
Is it discrete uncompressed channels? If it's Dolby or DTS then forgeddaboudit. Lossily compressed to hell. The SACD of Dark Side, on the other hand, is excellent.
Lol, did you miss the question I asked you above, daftee (post #65)? ;)
Marco.
Lol, did you miss the question I asked you above, daftee (post #65)? ;)
No, I'm still thinking about it ;)
Think I'll have to get some duplicate examples out and have a listen to be sure.
Reid Malenfant
13-01-2012, 17:44
Is it discrete uncompressed channels? If it's Dolby or DTS then forgeddaboudit. Lossily compressed to hell. The SACD of Dark Side, on the other hand, is excellent.
I agree about the SACD :) If the BD has Dolby True HD or DTS MA then it'll be 24 bit & uncompressed. The same goes with multi channel PCM in that it'd be uncompressed :)
If the BD has Dolby True HD or DTS MA then it'll be 24 bit & uncompressed.
Thanks for that, Mark.
Reid Malenfant
13-01-2012, 18:24
You are most welcome Martin :) The thing is though you need something like this Oppo BD95 to fully decode them, or an external decoder that is also capable.
Manufacturers like Panasonic should be ashamed of themselves for saying that there BD players can decode it when they can clearly only decode a lossy portion of it :steam: :steam:
The difference is like 128Kbps MP3 to a top quality SACD.
No, I'm still thinking about it ;)
Think I'll have to get some duplicate examples out and have a listen to be sure.
H'okay dokey... I'll be interested in what you think. I've got about 25 albums which qualify for such comparisons. Every time I upgrade my T/T, I revisit them and carry out the test to see what happens :)
Marco.
Sam Brown - Stop!
Vinyl (A2/B2) sounds rich and dynamic with very good side-drum impact, good width and depth to the soundstage and well focussed voice.
The CD in comparison is not bad but a little limp in the dynamics department and a touch hard in the upper treble.
Vinyl wins.
Peter Gabriel - Peter Gabriel 4
Vinyl (no discernible plate numbers) sounds rich but somewhat congested. Rhythm of the Heat is an enormously challenging track and things get compressed towards the end when slamming drums and huge wafting bass mix it with other percussion and singing/wailing.
The SACD has better micro-detail and holds things together, giving massive slam to the drum beats while keeping better control of the soundstage.
SACD wins.
Jennifer Warnes - Famous Blue Raincoat
Vinyl (A1/B2) sounds wonderfully dynamic with powerful bass and good kick to the drumming. Voice is focussed. Lots of micro details and percussive effects in Bird on a Wire with chest-slamming side drum intro midway through the song.
Original CD sounds limp, lifeless and with very compressed dynamics. Unpleasant.
20th Anniversary CD is a Bernie Grundman so you know it's going to be good. Not half! The slamming drums are even more so, the percussive effects superbly vivid and every song sounds exciting and full of life. One of the very best CDs I have.
Remastered CD wins (just).
Steely Dan - Gaucho
Vinyl (A2/B1) sounds immense, stunning dynamics throughout and clean as a whistle, revealing all of their layered tracks with very tight bass and wonderful vocals and harmonies.
SACD sounds very close indeed, perhaps lacking that final chest impact in the drumming in the track Gaucho.
Vinyl wins (by a tiny margin).
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
EMI vinyl (A6/B4) is better sounding than I remember, my venerable and well beaten up copy sounding fairly good but a little muddy in the lower mid / upper bass where a lot of the percussion is happening. The intro to Money is the best test, sounding a little like a curtain is in the way of the performance.
Mobile Fidelity vinyl (A2/B2) sounds similar but with overblown bass that is woolly and no more detailed or textured than the original vinyl. A disappointing MF release that I have never really liked.
SACD - good grief, this is the one! Now that intro sounds stupendous with drums that are truly drums and not bananas against tea-trays. Loads of detail, amp hum discernible, multi-tracking obvious. A brilliant remaster.
SACD wins (by a large margin).
Genesis - Selling England by the Pound
Vinyl (A3/B2) sounds remarkably fresh, the intro to Dancing with the Moonlit Knight revealing the acoustic around Gabriel's voice. A touch harsh when things get busy, however, during Firth of Fifth.
SACD is superbly mastered with even more of the acoustic around Gabriel's voice and lots of tiny micro-details that I had not previously known about, despite listening to it for years.
SACD wins.
Are you spotting a pattern here? I'm not. This doesn't surprise me as we have all said at one time or another that the mastering is the key determinant of a good release. If only I could have Bernie Grundman remaster my favourite 100 albums I would be in audio heaven.
The only generalisation I will give is that, across my entire collection, I prefer vinyl slightly over SACD with CD being my least favourite format. However, the mastering is greatly more important to a successful album release so I remain reasonably format agnostic.
kininigin
13-01-2012, 21:36
Given that the human ear can only hear between 20-20HZ, given that double blind testing has proved inconclusive over any perceptible difference between a red book cd and sacd standard, can anytime tell me why there is any point in recording hi res please?
Maybe if Darren could do us the same recording he so kindly did but this time in 44.1?
I could do some more recordings if you like,bear in mind though,that im not sure how good the software is and im not sure how much 'noise' the pc adds.
Im using Spin it again software and a Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum edition Sound Card.
I have sunday off work,so I'll do a new recording of the same track in 16/44.1 and 24/96 and maybe stick a cd rip in there as well.
Im not sure if this is going to prove anything one way or the other but it will be interesting none the less.
bobbasrah
14-01-2012, 06:10
Are you spotting a pattern here? I'm not. This doesn't surprise me as we have all said at one time or another that the mastering is the key determinant of a good release. If only I could have Bernie Grundman remaster my favourite 100 albums I would be in audio heaven.
The only generalisation I will give is that, across my entire collection, I prefer vinyl slightly over SACD with CD being my least favourite format. However, the mastering is greatly more important to a successful album release so I remain reasonably format agnostic.
Excellent post and summary Martin :cool:
Key to this however is how well the recording is made in the first place. Some recordings I have are wonderful performances ruined by either poor acoustics or poor microphone placement, rendering the task of the mastering engineer a case of disaster recovery.:doh:
WOStantonCS100
14-01-2012, 07:45
Several pages of posts have gone by and this still hasn't turned into another "digital vs. analog" slap-fest. :fence: I am dang proud of the AOS community at present. :)
bobbasrah
14-01-2012, 09:08
Several pages of posts have gone by and this still hasn't turned into another "digital vs. analog" slap-fest. :fence: I am dang proud of the AOS community at present. :)
Steady old chap, it is just not the done thing, what? Nobody mentioned Bose.....yet.....:lol:
Key to this however is how well the recording is made in the first place. Some recordings I have are wonderful performances ruined by either poor acoustics or poor microphone placement, rendering the task of the mastering engineer a case of disaster recovery.:doh:
So true. I would dearly love to know whether the original recording of, say, Coldplay's X&Y (my personal example of towering incompetence) or many of the mid-1980s DG classical recordings are rescuable.
My son plays in a band and they have their own small recording studio. We've had many a discussion about over-compression and poor recording technique. He is firmly of the belief that all recordings must be mixed for the iPod generation and their insufferably poor earphones. I argue for 'a good recording is a good recording, no matter what it's played back on'. We remain firmly on our individual sides.
bobbasrah
14-01-2012, 10:08
So true. I would dearly love to know whether the original recording of, say, Coldplay's X&Y (my personal example of towering incompetence) or many of the mid-1980s DG classical recordings are rescuable.
My son plays in a band and they have their own small recording studio. We've had many a discussion about over-compression and poor recording technique. He is firmly of the belief that all recordings must be mixed for the iPod generation and their insufferably poor earphones. I argue for 'a good recording is a good recording, no matter what it's played back on'. We remain firmly on our individual sides.
I find it hard to believe that recording engineers would do such a poor job on purpose, but the way the labels dictate things, who knows. The D&G recordings are unlikely to be so dictated, and are stashed away someplace ripe for a remaster/resissue. Maybe your son should plan ahead and remaster the copy, leaving the original for when they achieve fame?:eyebrows:
The ipod generation business falls in line with much of the industry unfortunately, but perhaps this trend is a deliberate ploy, with an eye to later re-issue the remastered and obviously better 24bit version on future markets. This crosses over to the Apple 24 bit thread in some ways, as the current dumbing down on music quality can only go one way..... The resurgence of vinyl seems to point at there being demand...:mental:
My son plays in a band and they have their own small recording studio. We've had many a discussion about over-compression and poor recording technique. He is firmly of the belief that all recordings must be mixed for the iPod generation and their insufferably poor earphones. I argue for 'a good recording is a good recording, no matter what it's played back on'. We remain firmly on our individual sides.
An interesting issue. By mixing for use on an iPod, I assume that he means running a limiting compressor to squeeze dynamic range. FWIW, I think you are right and he is wrong, as that's the best way to ensure that an mp3 encoder works as badly as possible!. The more dynamic the input, the better SQ will come out of the encoder, which is ironic as one of the reasons for the loudness wars is to ensure that an artist's output sounds good/as loud on radio as all of the other crap, but the reverse is true once it has passed through the optimod processor used almost universally in the broadcast chain!.
Probably the main consideration is that you should be able to drown out background noise when on the tube etc., to which I say get better headphones!.
Back to the original subject, I do a lot of Vinyl rips to 24/96 as a 'master' copy, and then routinely apply a high-pass filter at 15hz to remove warp signatures and any rumble (not that my tt has any that I can tell). There isn't any real reason why this can't be applied as post processing to any rip. I record at 24/96 because hard disk space is cheap, and it allows more flexibility to work without encroaching on dynamic range where 'music' lives on Vinyl (all 12 or so bits of it);.
For non critical recordings, I tend to downsample to 16 bits, 48Khz with dithering. To be honest, it gives away very little in quality to the 24/96 source material.
Regards,
Alex
Cheers,
Alex
morris_minor
14-01-2012, 16:43
Back to the original subject, I do a lot of Vinyl rips to 24/96 as a 'master' copy, and then routinely apply a high-pass filter at 15hz to remove warp signatures and any rumble (not that my tt has any that I can tell). There isn't any real reason why this can't be applied as post processing to any rip. I record at 24/96 because hard disk space is cheap, and it allows more flexibility to work without encroaching on dynamic range where 'music' lives on Vinyl (all 12 or so bits of it);.
For non critical recordings, I tend to downsample to 16 bits, 48Khz with dithering. To be honest, it gives away very little in quality to the 24/96 source material.
This is very close to my approach to vinyl rips, Alex. I have to say I've never felt any need to filter out any low frequency components - but I'll do some tests and see if this is noticeable. Does it it help with those quiet low frequency thunks that some pressings have every revolution?
I tend to only downsample to 48/24 for non critical stuff, but you're right in that the perceived SQ is very close to 96/24 . .
Bob
No worries. What about identical albums on CD and vinyl? Basically, I'm curious to know if, like me, it's difficult to distinguish between the same music played on your T/T and digital sources (such is the near-identical awesome sound of both) :)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
I am pretty well certain that there are -no- recordings where the LP and CD versions are mastered the same. Ignoring the fact that most recent CDs are compressed to death and hammering up to the limiter, the capabilities of the media are different, so an experienced mastering engineer would be unlikely to use the same mix for the CD as he had used for the LP.
For a start the CD master must be bandwidth limited before digitising. Compression is unnecessary technically, with 16 bits available, but probably recommended so the music can be played on most domestic systems (the 96dB of 16 bits is pretty well un-exploitable domestically).
The LP master has to be mono at low frequency so the groove doesn't disappear, and the high frequency level limited to make it possible for the cutter head to cut the signal. Classical music, at least, also has to be compressed for LP so the quiet bits not to be too troubled by noise.
So I am pretty sure there is no such thing as the same recording on CD and LP, unless for a test record.
And further to that, whether the recording was made in analogue or digital originally, you are compromising the opposite format in comparisons.
H'okay dokey... I'll be interested in what you think.
What did you think of my post #73, Marco?
Excellent. Not had a chance to reply yet, dude, but will do! :)
Marco.
To me there's a big difference, the 24/96 has a lot more mid-range clarity. Actually the difference was more that I thought it would be, the balance of the instruments seems different somehow.
The bass IMO is not at all soft, it's incredibly powerful. Loads of rumble (not) :).
Here's the bass response on my speakers in my room....as I say the bass was very good.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/cmeakins/Neos.jpg
Yes I am suggesting that. What you hear on analogue playback is not necessarily the same thing that you hear on digital playback ;). A TT has an SNR of 70 to 80dB. A DAC has an SNR of 96dB or better. In other words, on an analogue system you can hear the flight of the bumble bee. On a digital system you can count the number of wing flaps.
The ADC won't be introducing something that isn't there already, neither the DAC.
You are forgetting the system; amp and speakers. What you are actually saying is that the SNR changes in the amp and speakers depending what source you listen too.. that's some odd amp and speakers!
If the noise of the rumble is hidden in a system then that's because the amp and speakers can't resolve it, implying the SNR of the system is lower than that you quote for a T/T. If you play digital through that crap system then that will also be masked and the rumble in the rip won't be heard either.
This is exactly the situation for the person doing the rip. Their system is so bad that a) their turntable is causing rumble and b) they can't hear it neither from the vinyl nor the rip. They probably play back on very small speakers too with a frequency response that cuts at 100Hz
The problem is that most people out there who are vinyl "collectors" and enthuse about vinyl and drive prices up for vinyl, who love to shout about how much better it is and then make vinyl rips for the world.. they are pretty clueless about it all and run shitty systems.
Most people make vinyl rips on cheap, poorly set-up t/ts on a thick DJ stylus with the counterweight set to 3-4g (because that's what DJs do to prevent skips in a club, so that's what they do at home thinking it's correct).
In the big scheme of things, audiophiles are few and far between.. vinyl lovers and collectors on the other hand outnumber audiophiles vastly. For example, take a look how collector record shops treat their vinyl - best you'll find is a knackered SL1200 with a worn stanton DJ cart. One in Soho for example you can see the cones flapping on their speakers, hear massive crackle from poorly set-up cheap plastic t/t on dirty vinyl (and then charge the earth because some scratched up disc is super rare). Meanwhile they're ruining all the vinyl for us with good systems who can actually appreciate the difference between mint and buggered.
A little rant there for you... ahem.
Think about it this way:
In SNR terms, digital is a super-clean, transparent sheet of glass and we are saying that vinyl on a good system is a clean transparent sheet of glass.
What you are saying is that when you look through the digital window, the vinyl window is suddenly muddy and dirty! Impossible.
The correct situation is that the vinyl windows you've been looking at were muddy in the first place.. regardless of the digital window.
(confusing analogy? lol ..)
oh.... looks like I'm late to this party.
Traditional science is still locked into "hearing" as the sole mechanism.
All this from a bit of a rumble.......
Scientists or lay people? (what is "traditional science" anyway - science is science, else it is not science at all...)
I think most of the arguments that arise about this kind of thing, those that branch into science is that it's lay people arguing, lay people who get their knowledge from handed down, accepted wisdom, knowledge that's repeated and repeated and so is accepted purely on the grounds that it's what they hear from different sources..
Unfortunately, you'll find the world is a small place and actually the original source of the accepted wisdom was once singular .... and wrong.
For example, no-one in neuroscience believes or accepts that there are two separate sides of the brain, the left and the right, that have different functions. It is all connected, all working as one with many parts, left and right, sharing functions.
The common wisdom of there being a left and right side of the brain was mis-construed and simplified from an excerpt from a book and taken and run with by press and media and pseudo-science writers.. Now this false idea has become ingrained in our thinking.
Same could be so for the 20-20KHz idea.
All the discussion regarding frequencies above 20Khz is nonsense because they aren't there to start with; not on your CD and not on your record and certainly not coming out of your speakers.
[/QUOTE]
Probably true actually, if for no other reason than the mics having limited frequency responses themselves, let alone any filters in the mic electronics and then mic pre-amps to control the in-range response as well as possible.
It's good to see a pssionate debate going on here. And I'm not wishing to disrespect anyone's painstakingly constructed hi fi kit whether vinyl or digital, when they get to a certain stage either methods are going to put a great big smile on your face.
I am more interested in whether there is any audible difference in a 16 44.1 recording or a 24 96 recording of the same song or a red book version or an SACD version. I have no means of testing that, so I am unable to say. But I wonder , if I could test this out what I would find?
Would it be possible for this forum to, with our collective talents, generate such a test?
I think you'd have to create your own recordings to control the variables.
It's worth looking on another forum (if I may suggest so, Marco..?) www.gearslutz.com for people's own recordings often comparing things like these. It's a studio forum, all about everything to do with recording studios and the like.
There's a section all about comparisons and people post up their own sound files - could be to compare a real EMT 140 plate reverb with various software emulations and let people guess which is which for example. I bet there will be some tests between formats too .. I'll have to have a search myself.
StanleyB
16-01-2012, 18:14
I can only tell the difference when I am comparing music that is rich in faintly noticeable content such as sound reflections or multi layered vocals, but not limited to just those. One of my favourite albums for this type of test is Hotel California. There are minute details in that album that are more apparent in the 24 bit files. However, I do not know for certain that both the 16 and 24 bit files were generated from the same original. So that's another spanner in the works.
bobbasrah
17-01-2012, 07:19
Whilst I agree that there are differences, intriguingly the question remains why. Given all the variables in the recording and playback chain, and human perception, it is a complex puzzle. I remain convinced however that hirez will become the the default future standard, not least because downloading will not place the same constraints as the physical medium does at present. Add in a fashion trend away from mp3, and you have a business model to capitalise on it all over again. Gone are the days when I could hear the sample step of CD, whether it is conditioning, better kit, or worse perception, I will not know until I get the analogue side finished.....zzzz
Audiophiles/audiophools are not the consumer on which which the mainstream industry has it's focus, but with the success of Linn, Chesky, B&W, etc., a small part of potential business has been inexorably drifting away. That these specialists successfully distribute top quality music on-line, will have been watched by the industry, and in all probabilty, the quality of recording and mastering will not register with them as important. And this is the nub of the problem, irrespective of the format.
I find it hard to believe that recording engineers do not do their damndest to get the best recording possible, it is how thereafter the "music" is altered in both quality and content due to input from the marketing and accountancy brigades that must change, and that will be a hard nut to crack without using a 4 by 2.
That is a rumble I could live with....
morris_minor
17-01-2012, 08:19
I find it hard to believe that recording engineers do not do their damndest to get the best recording possible, it is how thereafter the "music" is altered in both quality and content due to input from the marketing and accountancy brigades that must change, and that will be a hard nut to crack without using a 4 by 2.
Indeed, Bob. Music is a commodity once it leaves the studio, to be traded in any way found to be profitable. :(
bobbasrah
17-01-2012, 10:24
Indeed, Bob. Music is a commodity once it leaves the studio, to be traded in any way found to be profitable. :(
Sorry Bob, not what I was driving at. How it is traded post-production is entirely fair.;)
What the artist plays for recording, how it is recorded, how it is mastered, pretty much all the way to packaging and distribution, is generally dictated by the companies as it is at their expense. Accountancy and marketing rules the roost.:steam:
Artistic intereference aside, there are many modern albums which sound diabolical due to excessive processing. Having said that, there are also quite a few where processing is retrospectively stunning, in that when you hear them live, you realise they can't sing, can't play, and are the latest one hit wonders on the media production line....:rolleyes:
Chesky, Linn, etc, have an entirely different set of values.:cool:
morris_minor
17-01-2012, 14:05
Ok. Misunderstood. :doh:
The whole business would be helped if audiophiles stopped blathering on about "like live music" and just accepted they are listening to an engineered recording.
There are good ones and bad ones but they are not attempts to achieve the impossible; make your HI Fi sound like a live concert.
One doesn't get this with film. Most seem to be able to accept its a construction designed for entertainment. Like live when it comes to film for example would seem to necessitate taking a few bullets or getting assaulted by an alien.
Nope, a reconstruction for the purposes of entertainment is fine with me. I don't want Aliens and bullets flying around my living room and i don't want the London Philharmonic Orchestra here either; never mind some band with dubious musical ability.
morris_minor
17-01-2012, 14:37
The whole business would be helped if audiophiles stopped blathering on about "like live music" and just accepted they are listening to an engineered recording.
There are good ones and bad ones but they are not attempts to achieve the impossible; make your HI Fi sound like a live concert.
One doesn't get this with film. Most seem to be able to accept its a construction designed for entertainment. Like live when it comes to film for example would seem to necessitate taking a few bullets or getting assaulted by an alien.
Nope, a reconstruction for the purposes of entertainment is fine with me. I don't want Aliens and bullets flying around my living room and i don't want the London Philharmonic Orchestra here either; never mind some band with dubious musical ability.
+++1 Well said!
bobbasrah
17-01-2012, 14:49
You would need a bigger tea trolley for a start John, and think about an extension if you had the LSO round....
I agree wholeheartedly on the often cited live comparison, but I am currently listening to a wonderful 16bit track of a live event which has been exquisitely recorded and mastered, and conveys all the acoustics that convey the music and atmosphere of the occasion. I do not expect 100% replication nor would expect it.
It simply annoys that albums are so frequently often messed up by admin and perceived markets rather than presented as well as they can. Perhaps all this is a devious plot to make 24 bit seem like a huge leap in quality? I think they might be Rumbled.....
You would need a bigger tea trolley for a start John, and think about an extension if you had the LSO round....
I agree wholeheartedly on the often cited live comparison, but I am currently listening to a wonderful 16bit track of a live event which has been exquisitely recorded and mastered, and conveys all the acoustics that convey the music and atmosphere of the occasion. I do not expect 100% replication nor would expect it.
It simply annoys that albums are so frequently often messed up by admin and perceived markets rather than presented as well as they can. Perhaps all this is a devious plot to make 24 bit seem like a huge leap in quality? I think they might be Rumbled.....
Noooooo, how could you possibly believe this.:D
It's common knowledge the the Hi Fi business and recording companies are solely concerned with ensuring that not only do you get a fabulous audio experience but excellent value for money.
Also, the audiophile community comprises intelligent, well educated, rational people who would never fall for any bullshit from the Hi Fi and music trade!;)
bobbasrah
17-01-2012, 15:23
Also, the audiophile community comprises intelligent, well educated, rational people who would never fall for any bullshit from the Hi Fi and music trade!;)
:lol:
This started of as a question over rumble.......:eyebrows: Seems to have disappeared....:cool:
Don't do Rumble mate. I used to, but then I discovered that file audio doesn't do it, ;)
Reid Malenfant
17-01-2012, 15:40
Don't do Rumble mate. I used to, but then I discovered that file audio doesn't do it, ;)
That's where your wrong I'm afraid John, you just need the right files & you'll get some serious rumble 6029
:lol:
bobbasrah
17-01-2012, 15:54
With the earthquakes we get here, digital is a blessing, and saves on laundry.....
That's where your wrong I'm afraid John, you just need the right files & you'll get some serious rumble 6029
:lol:
You must be thinking of someone else's system Mark. I get deep tuneful bass.:eyebrows::D
Reid Malenfant
17-01-2012, 16:18
Every time I spin the SACD of Depeche Mode - Music For The Masses I always end up wondering what the hell is going on :scratch:
Took me an age to work it out & I still never remember what the hell it is until I hear it a few times, but thare are some humungous subsonics on one of the tracks. I think it's track 1 actually...
When I first heard it I thought I was going potty as they happen quite randomly, but I guess the nearest thing I could equate the sound to is a heavy footfall on a stage :mental:
It's not there on the CD, so somebody wasn't listening or simply couldn't hear of feel it when producing the SACD ;)
Are you sure it's not one of those plastic cogs used to drive the SACD round and round that's got a broken tooth you're hearing Mark :D
Reid Malenfant
17-01-2012, 16:38
Are you sure it's not one of those plastic cogs used to drive the SACD round and round that's got a broken tooth you're hearing Mark :D
:rfl: It'd need to weigh a bit to get the door shaking & me feeling it I reckon :D
I did get to listen to a SACD setup through a decent stereo a while ago and I must admit it did sound good.
I get a bit confused when people talk about an improvement in a SACD rip over redbook because afaik they've just ripped the 16/48 audio layer.
Not enough material on SACD for me to consider it unfortunately.
I'm confused over lots of things , particularly with whether I'm receiving a true 24 96 or 192 or whether it's being upsampled.
But that's immaterial to me. One thing is important. Does it sound good?
The HD versions of Rumours, Tusk, Billy Joel's Turnstiles I can without reservation say yes , they say sound good.
Reid Malenfant
17-01-2012, 17:18
I get a bit confused when people talk about an improvement in a SACD rip over redbook because afaik they've just ripped the 16/48 audio layer.
:scratch: All the SACDs I own were taken from 24/96 master tapes... While there may well be a standard CD layer on the SACD as well, there is a 5.1 channel SACD layer which can be downmixed to SACD stereo.
In fact the second disc in Music For The Masses is a DVD with 24/96 multichannel audio on a good many of the tracks along with the video or at the worst 24/48.
http://www.discogs.com/Depeche-Mode-Music-For-The-Masses-Collectors-Edition/release/709256
I have heard there are some naughty goings on with some discs, but these are so superior to the CD it's gobsmacking :eyebrows:
Sam Brown - Stop!
Vinyl (A2/B2) sounds rich and dynamic with very good side-drum impact, good width and depth to the soundstage and well focussed voice.
The CD in comparison is not bad but a little limp in the dynamics department and a touch hard in the upper treble.
Vinyl wins.
Peter Gabriel - Peter Gabriel 4
Vinyl (no discernible plate numbers) sounds rich but somewhat congested. Rhythm of the Heat is an enormously challenging track and things get compressed towards the end when slamming drums and huge wafting bass mix it with other percussion and singing/wailing.
The SACD has better micro-detail and holds things together, giving massive slam to the drum beats while keeping better control of the soundstage.
SACD wins.
Jennifer Warnes - Famous Blue Raincoat
Vinyl (A1/B2) sounds wonderfully dynamic with powerful bass and good kick to the drumming. Voice is focussed. Lots of micro details and percussive effects in Bird on a Wire with chest-slamming side drum intro midway through the song.
Original CD sounds limp, lifeless and with very compressed dynamics. Unpleasant.
20th Anniversary CD is a Bernie Grundman so you know it's going to be good. Not half! The slamming drums are even more so, the percussive effects superbly vivid and every song sounds exciting and full of life. One of the very best CDs I have.
Remastered CD wins (just).
Steely Dan - Gaucho
Vinyl (A2/B1) sounds immense, stunning dynamics throughout and clean as a whistle, revealing all of their layered tracks with very tight bass and wonderful vocals and harmonies.
SACD sounds very close indeed, perhaps lacking that final chest impact in the drumming in the track Gaucho.
Vinyl wins (by a tiny margin).
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
EMI vinyl (A6/B4) is better sounding than I remember, my venerable and well beaten up copy sounding fairly good but a little muddy in the lower mid / upper bass where a lot of the percussion is happening. The intro to Money is the best test, sounding a little like a curtain is in the way of the performance.
Mobile Fidelity vinyl (A2/B2) sounds similar but with overblown bass that is woolly and no more detailed or textured than the original vinyl. A disappointing MF release that I have never really liked.
SACD - good grief, this is the one! Now that intro sounds stupendous with drums that are truly drums and not bananas against tea-trays. Loads of detail, amp hum discernible, multi-tracking obvious. A brilliant remaster.
SACD wins (by a large margin).
Genesis - Selling England by the Pound
Vinyl (A3/B2) sounds remarkably fresh, the intro to Dancing with the Moonlit Knight revealing the acoustic around Gabriel's voice. A touch harsh when things get busy, however, during Firth of Fifth.
SACD is superbly mastered with even more of the acoustic around Gabriel's voice and lots of tiny micro-details that I had not previously known about, despite listening to it for years.
SACD wins.
Are you spotting a pattern here? I'm not. This doesn't surprise me as we have all said at one time or another that the mastering is the key determinant of a good release. If only I could have Bernie Grundman remaster my favourite 100 albums I would be in audio heaven.
However, the mastering is greatly more important to a successful album release so I remain reasonably format agnostic.
Sorry for taking so long to reply to this, Martin, and thanks for taking the time to listen and post your thoughts, which are most interesting :)
The important bit to glean from your comments is that the best recording on any musical format, providing that the replay equipment is up to the task of revealing all recordings in their true glory, is always that which intrinsically sounds superior, regardless of what equipment is used, be it digital or analogue-derived.
I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in your last paragraph, as I think that when your playback equipment (in this case, sources) reaches a certain standard of sonic reproduction, it matters not whether one is listening to CD or vinyl; one is left simply with the music itself, and the only defining characteristic between the formats is the quality of the recording.
That, for me, is it in a nutshell.
Therefore, whether you're listening to CD or vinyl becomes an almost irrelevant consideration. I care not a jot, as with the right recordings, my CDP sounds near identical to my T/T, and vice versa. I believe that the best analogue equipment should sound as close as possible to its digital counterpart, much as is the case, as we both know, with valve and transistor audio equipment. That's certainly the stage I've now reached with my system.
I wondered if now that your T/T has been so heavily upgraded, you felt the same way as I do about what I've described above? :cool:
Marco.
I wondered if now that your T/T has been so heavily upgraded, you felt the same way as I do about what I've described above?
Any thoughts on this, Martin? :)
Marco.
Sorry, I missed the question. I've already stated that I'm pretty much format agnostic, however that doesn't tell the whole story. Now that my turntable outperforms my SACD/CD player, I do have a preference for the sound of vinyl - but not enough to worry over what format the music is in, and it's the music and the mastering that matters a whole lot more than the format.
There's also the make-up of my collection: much of my early rock is on vinyl and later rock/pop on CD & SACD. The same goes for classical. The difference is that my rock/pop collection on vinyl has much classic material that I love. However, my classical collection favours the more thoughtful later purchases I made in later years on CD and SACD.
In the final analysis, the format doesn't matter. The performance followed by the recording and mastering do.
In the final analysis, the format doesn't matter. The performance followed by the recording and mastering do.
My thoughts exactly... :clapclapclap:
As long as whatever you are listening to puts a huge grin on your face I say to hell with the format :eyebrows: This subject can become a tad anal if left unchecked :ner: :D
dave2010
22-01-2012, 06:35
My thoughts exactly... :clapclapclap:
As long as whatever you are listening to puts a huge grin on your face I say to hell with the format :eyebrows: This subject can become a tad anal if left unchecked :ner: :DCurrently listening to Fedoseyev conducting Glazunov Symphonies. These are a terrific bargain on MP3 from Amazon.
However, the recordings in this format are horrible, and there''s currently no obvious way to get better recordings. Symphony 5 is particularly bad, but if you listen "through" the MP3 the sound might not be so bad. I found that there are some LP copies from the 1970s (EMI and Melodiya) and I've now bid for and ordered an LP of Symphony 5, which I hope to digitise. Normally I'd say that CDs could be better than LPs, but here there is only a poor MP3 and by going this route it should be possible to do a lot better.
it seems that there's a firm in the USA with similr ideas, but they're pricey- http://www.vinylrevolution.com/album_B421992/Fedoseyev/Glazunov_Symphony_No_6.htm
Currenty they have Glazunov 6. For these pieces I think getting a good sound from whatever format is still available is the wqy to go. Rumour has it that the master tapes are now terminally ill, so LP copies may be the best option.
If they exist as mp3s there must be at least a digital rip of the original master tape in existence. Perhaps in time they will release it as a full digital file or FLAC?
Have you tried ArkivMusic?
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp
No Fedoseyev, but here are all their Glazunov reissues on CD-R. I've used them and they are good - CD-R burned disc and reproduction of the sleeve.
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Namedrill?album_group=8&name_id=4479&name_role=1
Jac Hawk
22-01-2012, 19:49
This has been a long read guys, interesting though, and i think i would agree with what Martin says, that basically there isn't a "best" format, and it's more to do with the original master which the cd, lp etc. has been made from, I've personally found this to be true with CD and Vinyl copies of the same music.
Overall I prefer vinyl, partly because I like the way it sounds, but mostly I feel it's a more tactile medium, I like the ritual 'if that's the best word' of looking after it, plus the artwork is much bigger, and finally it takes me back to a time when quality and not convenience was the word.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.