Describe differences in LP playback vs CD playback

[Marco]

Quality :thumbsup:

Marco.

[magiccarpetride]

Insert the word "audio" before the word "recording" in both sentences.

A friend of mine had a parrot who was able to record various sounds and replay them with a convincing fidelity. I don't think that parrot's ability to make audio recording were contrived by the human mind.

Nature has its ways and is capable of making analogue recordings of fleeting sounds.

[walpurgis]

Was it a digital parrot? :D

[tubehunter]

interesting


http://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html

[magiccarpetride]

Yes, and you see plenty of them walking the streets every day!! :D

If it were up to me, I'd ensure that they never 'happened' in the first place.

Marco.

Make sure you wear a condom, Marco ;)

[magiccarpetride]

Biggest difference to my ears is the bit depth. Jumping from 16 to 24 bits at 44.1K is quite noticeable esp on good headphones. Higher sample rates obviously increases the bandwidth above 22K but considering after 15K those higher frequencies can be very fatiguing I am not sure if its worth as much. Anything above 22K is harmonics that will affect the audible range but bit depth is more important. CD design did not have enough bits to start with imho. It should have been 20 bit at least making less space, i.e. 74 mins of 16 bit vs an LP length with 20 bits but a big seller was the extra space CD provided giving more music to the consumer.

Having said that, is CD a dying format ?

Interesting to hear that. I was never able to determine whether it is possible to accurately detect higher resolution digital formats. Whenever me and my audio maniacs buddies try to do a bit of a blindfold listening in trying to nail which is 16 bit/44.1 kHz and which is 24 bit/96 kHz, it's always a coin toss. Heck, even trying to detect whether 360 mp3 is playing can be a huge challenge.

I'd be interested in meeting a person whose betting average on this challenge is close to 100%.

[magiccarpetride]

I completely agree, as it's what I can clearly hear myself, all else being equal. So then, those claiming that there is no sonic advantage with hi-res downloads, in a revealing streaming system, are essentially deaf? ;)

Marco.

True. Me and my audio maniacs buddies are all essentially deaf. But that's not stopping us from enjoying the music :)

[magiccarpetride]

Was it a digital parrot? :D

I think it was a Japanese parrot, so the answer could be 'yes'.

[magiccarpetride]

interesting


http://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html

I like the opening line: "Even Steve Jobs listened to vinyl."

So now Steve Jobs is all of a sudden an authority on audio? Next -- we learn that Steve Jobs was a preeminent authority on breast feeding.

Please stop the insane madness of celebrating a hack that was Steve Jobs!

[Stratmangler]

A friend of mine had a parrot who was able to record various sounds and replay them with a convincing fidelity. I don't think that parrot's ability to make audio recording were contrived by the human mind.

Nature has its ways and is capable of making analogue recordings of fleeting sounds.

Could it recreate McCartney's vocal on Hey Jude, and how did it cope with the inordinately long fade out?

[magiccarpetride]

Could it recreate McCartney's vocal on Hey Jude, and how did it cope with the inordinately long fade out?

Sure. The way parrots cope with inordinately long fade outs is they fly south, and as they're flying away from the listeners, the sound is getting weaker and weaker.

[magiccarpetride]

I have had spent a lot of time listening very carefully to 16bit( ripped CD), 24bit and DSD (if available) and CD versions of the same album. Two albums in particular come to mind Dire Straits (Love Over Gold) and The Wall (Floyd).
Anyone who can at least get a 16bit rip and 24bit version of these and listen carefully via a revealing DAC will come to some conclusions and they may not be what you think!

Lets put it this way 24 bit Hi Rez does not necessary mean you are getting anything better at all!

Then compare them against vinyl.

Ok I will tell you what happens.

The Wall. 16 bit sounds way better than the 24 bit version. The vinyl version slaughters them both completely.

Dire straits. 16 bit good. 24 bit version - more air and very slightly better. Vinyl version on a par with the 24 bit release.

Make of that what you will.

I'm amazed that you could actually hear the differences between 16 bit and 24 bit hi rez tracks. I have personally been through the 'cargo cult' phase in my audio journey where I firmly believed that hi rez format was hugely superior to the red book format. I was always on a lookout for hi rez reissues of famous albums. I remember being head over heels when I downloaded Weather Report "Heavy Weather" in hi rez (and also SACD rip of Billy Cobham's "Spectrum"). I was marvelling at how smoother, less fatiguing, more musical those FLACs sounded.

Until one day a buddy of mine dropped by and listened to me raving about hi rez formats, and forcing him to listen to some tracks with me. In the end he said "why don't we do a little bit of experiment? I'll choose one track in red book format, and then the same track in hi rez. I'll choose them randomly from the remote, and you tell me which is which. We'll repeat the exercise as many times as you'd like."

Sure! I was excited to try that. And then -- flop! Much to my chagrin, I could never guess, with better than random probability, which format is which.

That was a wakeup call for me. It demonstrated to me that I'm mostly listening 'with my eyes'. In other words, if I know it's a hi rez format playing, then I'll read all kinds of virtues into the listening experience. And if I know it's a red book format, then I'll read all kinds of harshness and issues into my listening experience. But if I don't know which format is playing, then all these virtues and issues suddenly become moot.

Try the randomized test, see what you make of that. For 100% honesty, I wholeheartedly recommend you do that in the presence of other audio enthusiasts.

[Jimbo]

I'm amazed that you could actually hear the differences between 16 bit and 24 bit hi rez tracks. I have personally been through the 'cargo cult' phase in my audio journey where I firmly believed that hi rez format was hugely superior to the red book format. I was always on a lookout for hi rez reissues of famous albums. I remember being head over heels when I downloaded Weather Report "Heavy Weather" in hi rez (and also SACD rip of Billy Cobham's "Spectrum"). I was marvelling at how smoother, less fatiguing, more musical those FLACs sounded.

Until one day a buddy of mine dropped by and listened to me raving about hi rez formats, and forcing them to listen to some tracks with me. In the end he said "why don't we do a little bit of experiment? I'll choose one track in red book format, and then the same track in hi rez. I'll choose them randomly on the remote, and you tell me which is which."

Sure! I was excited to try that. And then -- flop! Much to my chagrin, I could never guess, with better than random probability, which format is which.

That was a wakeup call for me. It demonstrated to me that I'm mostly listening 'with my eyes'. In other words, if I know it's a hi rez format playing, then I'll read all kinds of virtues into the listening experience. And if I know it's a red book format, then I'll read all kinds of harshness and issues into my listening experience.

Try the randomized test, see what you make of that.

That would be an absolute way of assessing digital tracks and I agree blind listening is the best way. But I can assure you where I listened and the means of delivering the audio was so clear and unambiguous and at such a high level of resolution it would still be obvious.

As Marco alluded to earlier mastering in any format is everything but i would also add not all Hi Rez material is actually what it purports to be. Quite often it may be at lower bit rates and unless you have the means for checking you don't actually know unless you obtain Hi Rez material from a reputable source that checks and assures the validity of the provenance.

I have actually found ripped 16 bit actually more preferable on many occasions.

[swampy]

If 16 bit was good enough then no DAW would use 32 bits for all audio processing and manipulation internally. Similarly if 16 bits was good enough then no mastering engineer would demand 24 bits as minimum for processing. Everything would be 16 bits since its good enough. When I render a DAW track the 24 bit version sounds better. Not a million miles better but better. When you render 16 bits you need to worry about quantisation noise and what dithering method to use to avoid this, triangular or PoW-R2/R3 since they also make the track sound slightly different.

[magiccarpetride]

That would be an absolute way of assessing digital tracks and I agree blind listening is the best way. But I can assure you where I listened and the means of delivering the audio was so clear and unambiguous and at such a high level of resolution it would still be obvious.

As Marco alluded to earlier mastering in any format is everything but i would also add not all Hi Rez material is actually what it purports to be. Quite often it may be at lower bit rates and unless you have the means for checking you don't actually know unless you obtain Hi Rez material from a reputable source that checks and assures the validity of the provenance.

I have actually found ripped 16 bit actually more preferable on many occasions.

So what might be the case is that when we purchase a hi rez download of, say, Weather Report "Heavy Weather", the vendor could be offering this hi rez format as a mere up sampling of the good old ripped CD? Hmm, I can do that on my Macbook -- load an AIFF ripped from the CD, then upsample it to 24 bit/96 kHz. I don't think those acrobatics will result in any perceivable difference in the sound quality of the original AIFF file and the 'up sampled' FLAC file.

For most of the experiments we did during the blind testing between formats with different resolution, we were using Paul McCartney and Wings "Band On The Run" reissue. This reissue was offered on a CD as well as a hi rez download. I am assuming that the manufacturers didn't cheat and that they have honestly offered a true 24 bit/96 kHz digitized master tape. Can anyone confirm that?

I recall on an occasion preferring mp3 to ripped 16 bit CD. This can be explained (I think) with the fact that lossy formats tend to introduce certain type of distortion that may appear to listeners as 'enhanced details' (especially when the distortion results in boosted high frequencies). I think these exaggerated highs that may occur during the mp3 playback contribute to the initial fascination with the mp3 playback.

Of course, any prolonged exposition to this mp3 playback inevitably results in massive headache. Which is why we tend to prefer CDs/LPs.

[Rothchild]

If 16 bit was good enough then no DAW would use 32 bits for all audio processing and manipulation internally. Similarly if 16 bits was good enough then no mastering engineer would demand 24 bits as minimum for processing. Everything would be 16 bits since its good enough. When I render a DAW track the 24 bit version sounds better. Not a million miles better but better. When you render 16 bits you need to worry about quantisation noise and what dithering method to use to avoid this, triangular or PoW-R2/R3 since they also make the track sound slightly different.

Meh, recording in 24bit and mixing with floating point (most engines are now 64bit rather than 32 but the point remains the same) doesn't mean that 16 is not sufficient as a distribution format. We need headroom in our processing chains and floating point delivers that, but as long as the level at the master is kept below 0dBFS (which it has to be when you go back to fixed point regardless of whether that's 16 or 24) it's not an issue.

Mastering engineers may have preferences around deliverables but very few will 'insist'. If the choice is 16 or no work they'll take 16bit. Indeed I suspect that if the option was 'well mixed 16bit with a decent slice of headroom' vs 'crappy, too hot 24bit' any worth their salt would plump for the former.

Yes dither has a sound, but it's marginal stuff and mostly affects the quality of the noise floor and things like reverb tails (where they hang in to silence) it's not going to change the tone of a guitar (for instance)

[magiccarpetride]

Meh, recording in 24bit and mixing with floating point (most engines are now 64bit rather than 32 but the point remains the same) doesn't mean that 16 is not sufficient as a distribution format. We need headroom in our processing chains and floating point delivers that, but as long as the level at the master is kept below 0dBFS (which it has to be when you go back to fixed point regardless of whether that's 16 or 24) it's not an issue.

Mastering engineers may have preferences around deliverables but very few will 'insist'. If the choice is 16 or no work they'll take 16bit. Indeed I suspect that if the option was 'well mixed 16bit with a decent slice of headroom' vs 'crappy, too hot 24bit' any worth their salt would plump for the former.

Yes dither has a sound, but it's marginal stuff and mostly affects the quality of the noise floor and things like reverb tails (where they hang in to silence) it's not going to change the tone of a guitar (for instance)

This is similar to my conclusions. I used to religiously track all the instruments while recording in 24 bit/96 kHz resolution, but later on I've noticed that for the simplistic production I am doing, 16 bit/44.1 kHz cuts it just fine. In other words, no audible, discernible differences in the final master, regardless of the upstream resolution.

[swampy]

Meh, recording in 24bit and mixing with floating point (most engines are now 64bit rather than 32 but the point remains the same)

True, I switched from 32 bit to 64 bit daw recently. I guess nearly all pro audio interfaces are 24 bit these days so it does seem to be a standard. And yes a good 16 bit will better a poor 24 bit master but is a good 24 bit master better than the equally good 16 bit one ?

Not that it matters much as I said in an earlier post. Most listen via streaming services now in mp3 or on a smartphone with cheap ear buds and its usually only collectors or audiophiles want the CD or LP and DVD-A SACD are dead so the CD vs LP or 16 bit vs 24 bit matters little in the real world.

BTW, I like your last 2 EP's on bandcamp.

[Rothchild]

This is similar to my conclusions. I used to religiously track all the instruments while recording in 24 bit/96 kHz resolution, but later on I've noticed that for the simplistic production I am doing, 16 bit/44.1 kHz cuts it just fine. In other words, no audible, discernible differences in the final master, regardless of the upstream resolution.

Yeah, don't get me wrong though, I'm saying there are good and valid reasons for recording at 24 bit (and even better reasons for using high bit depth, floating point maths for mixing) just that when it comes down to it, for the great majority of music once it's (properly) dithered down to 16bits for distribution you're not actually causing any significant harm.

David, thanks for listening I'm glad you liked them - I hope they're a good demonstration of what love and attention can bring to a recording, in the absence of expensive recording studios and piles of equipment! Someone (with significant mastering experience) recently told me they sounded 'very analogue' but the truth is they only analogue stage in their production was the recording (ie they are real instruments recorded with microphones) everything else was done in a computer using free or bundled software plugins - it can be done.

Whether they'd sound better pressed to vinyl is a question I'd love to have answered, if anyone wants to fund us to find out please get in touch! ;-)

[swampy]

The section on bit depth is worth a read. http://tweakheadz.com/16-bit-vs-24-bit-audio/

[Rothchild]

The section on bit depth is worth a read. http://tweakheadz.com/16-bit-vs-24-bit-audio/

Yeah, a good general primer.

One aspect they've missed is that, for a studio tech, higher sample rates also mean lower roundtrip latency for the same buffer size (latency = buffer / samplerate) so if you're monitoring 'in the box' you can get lower (close to realtime) latency values in the cans for the talent by using higher sample rates (assuming a powerful enough computer) not an audio quality thing directly but it will impact on the performance aspect (monitor mixes matter!)

The bottom line is that a good song on a wax cylinder is worth more than a shit song on half speed mastered vinyl (or SACD or whatever..) .

[magiccarpetride]

Yeah, a good general primer.

One aspect they've missed is that, for a studio tech, higher sample rates also mean lower roundtrip latency for the same buffer size (latency = buffer / samplerate) so if you're monitoring 'in the box' you can get lower (close to realtime) latency values in the cans for the talent by using higher sample rates (assuming a powerful enough computer) not an audio quality thing directly but it will impact on the performance aspect (monitor mixes matter!)

The bottom line is that a good song on a wax cylinder is worth more than a shit song on half speed mastered vinyl (or SACD or whatever..) .

A good song digitized from a wax cylinder and converted to 96 Kbps mp3 and played back on a shitty no name phone with crappiest $2.00 earbuds is worth more than a shit song on half speed mastered vinyl.

[magiccarpetride]

Nature constantly makes mistakes, that's why we have evolution, to weed out the errors.

I see your point, and I tend to agree. However, I'm sticking to my point too, which is diametrically opposed to your point. So how can that be?

I think the bottom line question is -- who is the final arbiter here? Who is that instance posing as an authority which will point out, in full unwavering confidence, what is a mistake and what is not a mistake? Whose yardstick are we using here, and what's the justification for using that particular yardstick?

I know, heavy philosophical questions, but in this age of Trumpism I like to rattle the cage by adding philosophy to the proceedings ;)

[Jimbo]

The section on bit depth is worth a read. http://tweakheadz.com/16-bit-vs-24-bit-audio/

Good information and the words of caution regarding recording techniques is part of the reason digital recordings at any bit rate or sampling rate can be poor but he does not mention mastering as I believe once something has been captured at 24/192 say it can then be ruined in post recording production where the digital audio is manipulated to add or subtract effects ,instruments, more vocals etc?

[swampy]

https://members.cdbaby.com/mastering.aspx

What is peoples opinion on the 2 examples posted on cd baby site, bottom left. The first is not mastered, the 2nd is. Too me the mastered version just sounds much louder. I only tested on cheap earbuds at the time so maybe my hd800 would revival more. Singer is very nice and song is great but not too sure about the so called mastered version.

[RMutt]

What amazes me is that if you put a hundred audiophiles in a room with a recording of some Dire Straits something or other or Yello whatever they would all nod sagely and agree the mastering and sound is fantastic. Yet ask the same bunch about digital and analogue and they're nearly coming to blows arguing over their differing views on which sounds better. I wonder if peoples investment in their technology is perhaps doing one of a couple of things. One, they have carefully matched components to complement their chosen format, so if that is, say, LP, it then sounds better than when they plug in a CD player as a half hearted experiment? Or two, they have invested so much time, effort and money in said chosen format that for their own peace of mind they become blinkered ( or whatever the auditory version of that is) to the benefits of the alternative? I enjoy both, but for me it's digital that wins, but then I haven't invested massive amounts on either format, in particular I really couldn't afford the sorts of sums it appears you need to spend on analogue for it to give digital a run for its money. It is amazing that perceived differences in sound cause such disagreement. Do any of the photographers find a similar parallel on photography forums? Say one person claiming the colour of one format is more natural than the colour of another format?

[Bigman80]

What amazes me is that if you put a hundred audiophiles in a room with a recording of some Dire Straits something or other or Yello whatever they would all nod sagely and agree the mastering and sound is fantastic. Yet ask the same bunch about digital and analogue and they're nearly coming to blows arguing over their differing views on which sounds better. I wonder if peoples investment in their technology is perhaps doing one of a couple of things. One, they have carefully matched components to complement their chosen format, so if that is, say, LP, it then sounds better than when they plug in a CD player as a half hearted experiment? Or two, they have invested so much time, effort and money in said chosen format that for their own peace of mind they become blinkered ( or whatever the auditory version of that is) to the benefits of the alternative? I enjoy both, but for me it's digital that wins, but then I haven't invested massive amounts on either format, in particular I really couldn't afford the sorts of sums it appears you need to spend on analogue for it to give digital a run for its money. It is amazing that perceived differences in sound cause such disagreement. Do any of the photographers find a similar parallel on photography forums? Say one person claiming the colour of one format is more natural than the colour of another format?
I think you have a point about system tuning. My system definitely sounds better for vinyl which it should because that's where I've spent the most time researching and spending money. I threw a CD player (a very good one) and expected the same result. It wasn't what I'd hoped so I've binned the idea. Maybe i gave up easily but i haven't been prepared to invest. You've made a great point actually lol.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Barry]

What amazes me is that if you put a hundred audiophiles in a room with a recording of some Dire Straits something or other or Yello whatever they would all nod sagely and agree the mastering and sound is fantastic. Yet ask the same bunch about digital and analogue and they're nearly coming to blows arguing over their differing views on which sounds better. I wonder if peoples investment in their technology is perhaps doing one of a couple of things. One, they have carefully matched components to complement their chosen format, so if that is, say, LP, it then sounds better than when they plug in a CD player as a half hearted experiment? Or two, they have invested so much time, effort and money in said chosen format that for their own peace of mind they become blinkered ( or whatever the auditory version of that is) to the benefits of the alternative? I enjoy both, but for me it's digital that wins, but then I haven't invested massive amounts on either format, in particular I really couldn't afford the sorts of sums it appears you need to spend on analogue for it to give digital a run for its money. It is amazing that perceived differences in sound cause such disagreement. Do any of the photographers find a similar parallel on photography forums? Say one person claiming the colour of one format is more natural than the colour of another format?

I've easily spent ten times the money on vinyl replay gear than I have on CD replay, yet I enjoy the two equally, though I tend to go for digital for convenience. The last time I bought a new record was probably about twenty years ago!

Apropos film - I've always preferred Kodachrome 64 to Ektachrome for slide film: the colours are more natural IMO with Kodachrome. Sadly it's no longer made, so I use Fuji Velvia. Likewise, I prefer Ilford FP4 to Kodak Tri-X for B&W photography.

[magiccarpetride]

I've easily spent ten times the money on vinyl replay gear than I have on CD replay, yet I enjoy the two equally, though I tend to go for digital for convenience. The last time I bought a new record was probably about twenty years ago!

Apropos film - I've always preferred Kodachrome 64 to Ektachrome for slide film: the colours are more natural IMO with Kodachrome. Sadly it's no longer made, so I use Fuji Velvia. Likewise, I prefer Ilford FP4 to Kodak Tri-X for B&W photography.

I've spent much more time and effort building my digital system. For the analog I just bought the turntable, the tonearm, the cartridge and the phono, put them all together and that was it. At this point it's sitting on the floor, waiting for more free time when I'll be able to address the isolation from vibrations and the levelling. Most of the LPs in my collection are old, most of them still awaiting some free time to be thoroughly cleaned.

So my analog situation is far from being as fine tuned as my digital is. And yet, the analog sound I get from my rig outperforms anything I hear coming out of my digital chain.

[RMutt]

It seems to be accepted wisdom that you need to spend more on vinyl systems than digital to get close results Barry. I suppose if the argument was about sound for pound then digital would come out on top. But as the debate is about ultimate sound that point is irrelevant I suppose. As to the photography, I wondered if there was more consensus on visual formats? Do you find others favour the other film types you mentioned? Are there digital versus film arguments raging across photography forums?

[Jimbo]

I've spent much more time and effort building my digital system. For the analog I just bought the turntable, the tonearm, the cartridge and the phono, put them all together and that was it. At this point it's sitting on the floor, waiting for more free time when I'll be able to address the isolation from vibrations and the levelling. Most of the LPs in my collection are old, most of them still awaiting some free time to be thoroughly cleaned.

So my analog situation is far from being as fine tuned as my digital is. And yet, the analog sound I get from my rig outperforms anything I hear coming out of my digital chain.

Can you post a pic or description of your systems both analog and digital, would be good to know what you are using.:)

[RMutt]

Ha ha, you've proved me wrong whilst I was posting magiccarpetride!

[magiccarpetride]

It seems to be accepted wisdom that you need to spend more on vinyl systems than digital to get close results Barry. I suppose if the argument was about sound for pound then digital would come out on top. But as the debate is about ultimate sound that point is irrelevant I suppose. As to the photography, I wondered if there was more consensus on visual formats? Do you find others favour the other film types you mentioned? Are there digital versus film arguments raging across photography forums?

A friend of mine who is an avid film photography aficionado finally threw the towel in and admitted that digital has finally arrived as a worthy rival to analog photography: https://www.phaseone.com/

[magiccarpetride]

Can you post a pic or description of your systems both analog and digital, would be good to know what you are using.:)

Description is on my profile page. I'll try to post some photos as well.

[Haselsh1]

I've easily spent ten times the money on vinyl replay gear than I have on CD replay, yet I enjoy the two equally, though I tend to go for digital for convenience. The last time I bought a new record was probably about twenty years ago!

Apropos film - I've always preferred Kodachrome 64 to Ektachrome for slide film: the colours are more natural IMO with Kodachrome. Sadly it's no longer made, so I use Fuji Velvia. Likewise, I prefer Ilford FP4 to Kodak Tri-X for B&W photography.

Ah, but are you comparing the 'newer' Tri-X with old FP4 or are you comparing old Tri-X with old FP4...?

[Haselsh1]

A friend of mine who is an avid film photography aficionado finally threw the towel in and admitted that digital has finally arrived as a worthy rival to analog photography: https://www.phaseone.com/

Digital photography is totally different to silver halide photography. The two are in no way comparable.

[Pharos]

Instinctually/subjectively, surely the high rate of growth of digital technology points to it conquering everything, and beating it all with time.

There is a massive amount of turnover; this occurred with cars from the 80s onwards, look at their improvements in everything.

[Haselsh1]

It seems to be accepted wisdom that you need to spend more on vinyl systems than digital to get close results Barry. I suppose if the argument was about sound for pound then digital would come out on top. But as the debate is about ultimate sound that point is irrelevant I suppose. As to the photography, I wondered if there was more consensus on visual formats? Do you find others favour the other film types you mentioned? Are there digital versus film arguments raging across photography forums?

Yes there certainly are arguments raging across the bounds of photography.

[Haselsh1]

Instinctually/subjectively, surely the high rate of growth of digital technology points to it conquering everything, and beating it all with time.

There is a massive amount of turnover; this occurred with cars from the 80s onwards, look at their improvements in everything.

There has been a massive increase in use of digital photography as indeed there was with digital audio. Silver halide photography though has a similar following to vinyl. Film is still readily available in almost all formats.

[Haselsh1]

Instinctually/subjectively, surely the high rate of growth of digital technology points to it conquering everything, and beating it all with time.

Didn't most people once say that about CD versus vinyl...?

[Stratmangler]

Likewise, I prefer Ilford FP4 to Kodak Tri-X for B&W photography.

Although it's possible to push FP4 quite a few stops by development, you'll never get it to replicate the gritty granularity of Tri-X, which is why Tri-X was a favourite of war photographers.

[alphaGT]

Took me a while to catch up on the last 15 pages of this thread! And I swoop in and try to make a few words on all that's been said.

Yes, my most recent LP and CD setups are more alike than they have been in the past, but now it's apples and pears, instead of apples and oranges. Still not the same. It's very strange, my experience is that if I play anyone who stepped into the room a song on vinyl and the same song on CD, everyone, including myself, would declare the CD was far better! But it's only after extended listening that the CD becomes less involving. And the vinyl becomes more and more compelling to pick the next album, and continue. I cannot explain this. It just is.

The difference between digital and analog is that true analog is a reflection of the actual event, like the fossil, it is an actual imprint of what happened, every nuance and harmonic preserved. While digital chops it all into pieces, and puts it back together. And to cover up the distortion of the staircase steps, it has averaging filters that smooth those steps off, making the waveform round again, simulating the analog, but is not. It is a close approximation of analog. But much of the detail we hear never happened, it was created in the smoothing of the jagged steps. Of course this is all academic, as both vinyl and digital are made from digital masters now days.

Perhaps some of the differences we hear, or don't hear when comparing 24 bit, to 16 bit, depends on the resolution of the original material? Just because we are making a new copy of old analog tape with a 24 bit system doesn't mean there is sufficient resolution in the original to make use of the extra resolution of the extra 8 bits. Analog recordings do not have infinite resolution. The density of the magnetic tape, number of times it was bounced down, so many things could reduce its original resolution from the mic feed. This could explain the reason some remasters sound better on 24/96 downloads and others do not? It's got to be there in the first place to hear the difference. And maybe even why some songs sound just fine on MP3?.

But back to the original post, I will bring up an analogy I've used before on this forum, if you went to 5 different members homes, and listened to their systems, each would sound vastly different, while assuming all would sound great! These differences are far greater than the difference between LP and CD playback on the same system. Would anyone disagree?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Haselsh1]

Although it's possible to push FP4 quite a few stops by development, you'll never get it to replicate the gritty granularity of Tri-X, which is why Tri-X was a favourite of war photographers.

Ah but that was original Tri-X and not the current Tri-X. This film was totally reformulated just over twenty years ago and the current film is nowhere near the same as the original. If you seriously want to push process for speed and effect then you need to use HP5 as this can be processed in so many ways for so many effects unlike digital where you have what you have.

[swampy]

I think a few here are missing an important issue. 9 times out of 10 an album today is recorded digital in a DAW (digital audio workstation, cubase, protools, ableton etc) which allows corrections to made and further recording plus processing digitally. Some sources are digital to start with (some keyboards).

Are you getting better sound on LP because you think you are getting a pure analog experience? I'd put money on that it is not pure analogue from start to finish unless it is some earlier recordings when multi-track tape was used. Digital recording and mixing desks have been around for quite sometime.

So really you are most likely listening to a digital version exported for LP pressing. Now why does it sound better / different ?

[anthonyTD]

:)


Are you getting better sound on LP because you think you are getting a pure analog experience? I'd put money on that it is not pure analogue from start to finish unless it is some earlier recordings when multi-track tape was used. Digital recording and mixing desks have been around for quite sometime.

So really you are most likely listening to a digital version exported for LP pressing. Now why does it sound better / different ?

[Marco]

Are you getting better sound on LP because you think you are getting a pure analog experience? I'd put money on that it is not pure analogue from start to finish unless it is some earlier recordings when multi-track tape was used. Digital recording and mixing desks have been around for quite sometime.

So really you are most likely listening to a digital version exported for LP pressing. Now why does it sound better / different ?

I answered that question earlier, David:


...a well-produced vinyl version of the same will generally 'iron out' any digital nasties, resulting as a by-product of aspects of digital recording, at the final stage of the process [I'm referring here to 'DDA' recordings, to use old parlance], which ears are sensitive to, whilst preserving most other aspects of fidelity.


'Digitally produced vinyl', can still sound different (and in many ways better) to an all-digital recording on CD (or a digital file) of the SAME music, simply because that final transfer to analogue removes aspects of digital distortion [as after all *everything* in audio imparts its own sonic signature, to varying degrees, on the music signal], which our ears are particularly sensitive to.

Also, vinyl as a recording medium, can't be 'brick-walled', to the same extent as CD, in terms of complying with 'loudness wars' - and that also makes a positive difference, sonically. It's one of the reasons why, when I rip modern recordings on vinyl to CD, and I'm essentially in control of the recording levels, I can 'dial out' any saturation present on the original recording, and the end result simply sounds much better than a commercially produced CD of the same album :)

That's what I think anyway, and its borne out in considerable listening experience, as 9 times out of 10, where identical albums are available on both CD and (modern) vinyl, the vinyl version sounds considerably better and less compressed.

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

No you cant,:D
Anything that is on the original recording is always going to be there to a greater or lesser degree, no matter how you re-record it.
But I understand that you can lessen the sonic affect of certain unwanted artifacts in recordings by altering the level of record etc.:)
I answered that question earlier, David:





when I rip modern recordings on vinyl to CD, and I'm essentially in control of the recording levels, I can 'dial out' any saturation present on the original recording, and the end result simply sounds much better than a commercially produced CD of the same album :)



Marco.

[Marco]

But I understand that you can lessen the sonic affect of certain unwanted artifacts in recordings by altering the level of record etc.:)

Yes, that's what I meant, and it's often enough to rather noticeably improve maters [by doing what the sound engineer in the studio should've done in the first place]! :)

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

:)
Yes, that's what I meant, and it's often enough to rather noticeably improve maters [by doing what the sound engineer in the studio should've done in the first place]! :)

Marco.

[swampy]

Well if the LP was produced from the original 24 bit master.. according to some 24 bit vs 16 bit makes no difference but I differ from that view, then the LP would have the 24 bit version of the master and it would not need any dithering noise added which CD needs for the bit reduction. So I think LP should be closer to the original master in sound on a very good setup. Maybe that is the difference in sound and preference ....

[magiccarpetride]

Took me a while to catch up on the last 15 pages of this thread! And I swoop in and try to make a few words on all that's been said.

Yes, my most recent LP and CD setups are more alike than they have been in the past, but now it's apples and pears, instead of apples and oranges. Still not the same. It's very strange, my experience is that if I play anyone who stepped into the room a song on vinyl and the same song on CD, everyone, including myself, would declare the CD was far better! But it's only after extended listening that the CD becomes less involving. And the vinyl becomes more and more compelling to pick the next album, and continue. I cannot explain this. It just is.

The difference between digital and analog is that true analog is a reflection of the actual event, like the fossil, it is an actual imprint of what happened, every nuance and harmonic preserved. While digital chops it all into pieces, and puts it back together. And to cover up the distortion of the staircase steps, it has averaging filters that smooth those steps off, making the waveform round again, simulating the analog, but is not. It is a close approximation of analog. But much of the detail we hear never happened, it was created in the smoothing of the jagged steps. Of course this is all academic, as both vinyl and digital are made from digital masters now days.

Perhaps some of the differences we hear, or don't hear when comparing 24 bit, to 16 bit, depends on the resolution of the original material? Just because we are making a new copy of old analog tape with a 24 bit system doesn't mean there is sufficient resolution in the original to make use of the extra resolution of the extra 8 bits. Analog recordings do not have infinite resolution. The density of the magnetic tape, number of times it was bounced down, so many things could reduce its original resolution from the mic feed. This could explain the reason some remasters sound better on 24/96 downloads and others do not? It's got to be there in the first place to hear the difference. And maybe even why some songs sound just fine on MP3?.

But back to the original post, I will bring up an analogy I've used before on this forum, if you went to 5 different members homes, and listened to their systems, each would sound vastly different, while assuming all would sound great! These differences are far greater than the difference between LP and CD playback on the same system. Would anyone disagree?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

While I agree that everyone's system sounds discernibly different, I still think that analog systems, across the board, have their own sonic signature which is shared between them. This sonic signature is unmistakeable, and easy to discern. Same, of course, goes for digital systems. (same also goes for tube vs solid state amplification)

My experiences differ from yours. I've repeatedly witnessed how people get swept away by a good analog sound, and often exclaim how that LP sounds more present, more natural than the digitized version.

But then, if I play the digital version right after the LP track has finished, nine out of ten times people change their minds and say how they were wrong, and how the digital actual beats LP. Interesting...

I personally find digital to be more convincing on a quick switch, the immediate listen. Somehow the details in digital playback seem harsher, giving off the impression that it is more precise, more 'there'. In comparison, LPs sound laid back, effortless, not even trying.

But those impressions are usually deceptive. On repeat listening it gradually becomes clear how superior LPs actually sound. To me, the difference is like kissing a girl with full bodied lips that have been botoxed vs kissing a girl with naturally plump lips. Yes, maybe the botoxed girl has larger, more plump, more juicy lips, but the finer details in the sensation one gets when kissing naturally plump lips is much more subtle, and much more deeply satisfying.

And no, I'm not going to now go to the second base analogies ;)

[alphaGT]

While I agree that everyone's system sounds discernibly different, I still think that analog systems, across the board, have their own sonic signature which is shared between them. This sonic signature is unmistakeable, and easy to discern. Same, of course, goes for digital systems. (same also goes for tube vs solid state amplification)

My experiences differ from yours. I've repeatedly witnessed how people get swept away by a good analog sound, and often exclaim how that LP sounds more present, more natural than the digitized version.

But then, if I play the digital version right after the LP track has finished, nine out of ten times people change their minds and say how they were wrong, and how the digital actual beats LP. Interesting...

I personally find digital to be more convincing on a quick switch, the immediate listen. Somehow the details in digital playback seem harsher, giving off the impression that it is more precise, more 'there'. In comparison, LPs sound laid back, effortless, not even trying.

But those impressions are usually deceptive. On repeat listening it gradually becomes clear how superior LPs actually sound. To me, the difference is like kissing a girl with full bodied lips that have been botoxed vs kissing a girl with naturally plump lips. Yes, maybe the botoxed girl has larger, more plump, more juicy lips, but the finer details in the sensation one gets when kissing naturally plump lips is much more subtle, and much more deeply satisfying.

And no, I'm not going to now go to the second base analogies ;)

Yes I will say that my experience is just the differences between my analog and digital setups, strangely, with used prices I've got more in my analog setup, but new prices my digital cost more, so they are not an even distribution of money. I'm shopping for a new LOMC that may tip the tables again?

If we took a digital recorder and a single large diaphragm studio mic, and went to each of those 5 member's homes, and recorded from the listening seat either the digital or analog system in play, and then came home and played them back, I doubt without knowing you could tell which were digital and which were analog from that recording. The differences in the sounds of their systems would be far too great to make any comparison. But if you only heard the recording of both analog and digital from a single system, you may be able to detect the properties of each.

But I like the analogy of kissing full lipped women, I think we need more research into this. And possibly add some wine to the study? For lubrication, of course.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[magiccarpetride]

But I like the analogy of kissing full lipped women, I think we need more research into this. And possibly add some wine to the study? For lubrication, of course.

OK, I feel a strong urge now to enlarge and embellish on the analogy, but my lips remain sealed!

[r100]

No, wrong slang.

:D