View Full Version : Describe differences in LP playback vs CD playback
magiccarpetride
21-03-2017, 16:59
I have yet to meet a person who, upon listening to the same track on LP and then on CD, would exclaim: "These two playbacks sound EXACTLY the same!" (providing, of course, that the LP is in tip top shape, no pops and clicks, minimal surface noise). I would venture out to say that pretty much anyone can easily hear the difference in sound quality between LP and CD playbacks (all other things being the equal, of course).
This being the case, I now wish to ask you to provide a description of how does LP playback sound to you when compared to CD playback. I'm not aiming at ascertaining which format is better or worse, or which format is more realistic etc., merely trying to get a feel for how people experience two formats, in terms of attributes. What I'm looking for is descriptions such as "LP sounds like eating a messy burrito, CD sounds like eating a bucket of caviar."
OK, let me go first:
- LP sounds like driving a speedboat, CD sounds like enjoying a cruise ship
Your turn...
Audio Al
21-03-2017, 17:12
LP sound like proper engaging music
CD ( Compromised Discs ) sound thin and lifeless :)
Stratmangler
21-03-2017, 17:36
LP v CD - it's like comparing apples with oranges
walpurgis
21-03-2017, 17:41
Cucumbers with bananas surely?
I have to get off my arse at least twice as often when playing LPs compared to CD.
My CD player cost about £300. My cartridge alone cost more than this.
Bigman80
21-03-2017, 17:55
CD - lifeless.
LP - natural.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Sherwood
21-03-2017, 17:59
LP "fluffy bunnies"
CD "furry hamsters"
:)
walpurgis
21-03-2017, 18:00
CD: This sounds great!
LP: This sounds just as great!
LP - The guts and glory of a V8 engine on full chat
CD- The clinical sterility of an IBM clean room
paulf-2007
21-03-2017, 18:35
Well, there you have it, totally.........inconclusive
Haselsh1
21-03-2017, 18:54
I cannot say that one sounds better than the other, they both sound quite different to each other. I always have a preference for one over the other but that is totally dependent on my mood. They both sound stunning in the dark. Today I prefer vinyl but tomorrow I may not. To answer the question though, I don't care how they sound different I am just pleased that they do as it opens up even more possibilities.
Vinyl: Crunchy peanut butter
CD: Smooth peanut butter
This is the silliest cd vs vinyl thread yet. Are there more to come?
Bigman80
21-03-2017, 19:52
Vinyl: Crunchy peanut butter
CD: Smooth peanut butter
This is the silliest cd vs vinyl thread yet. Are there more to come?
I like crunchy peanut butter the best. Lol
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
CD: the wife
LP: the mistress
CDs reach the head
Records reach the heart
Vinyl: Star Wars Episode Four: A New Hope
CD: Star Wars Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back
Vinyl: Citroen 2cv
CD: Renault 4
Let's do British Leyland
Vinyl: Morris Marina
CD: Morris Ital
Dynamics
21-03-2017, 20:30
Having a deck and vinyl is like being sentimental and buying an old classic car at quite a cost but possibly not having the tools and parts when they become obsolete (akin to a possible downturn in vinyl sales) with the opposite of cd (with downloads and streaming in conjunction) is like buying a better performing modern new car for less money and where you can get the parts and future ancillaries for it and where you know it won't become obsolete quickly.
That's why I don't quite get the advantage of vinyl and record decks as being seen by some as crucial to enjoyment of audiophile music, particularly when there are only so many old releases of music you can get on vinyl and new ones too of course, but where primarily my choice around owning an album is for the sake of the music where CDs and downloads and streaming more than tick that box. In addition to all the convenience features and playlists of digital music.
I appreciate this won't probably be popular but rather than spending money on a deck, cables, phono stage, I'd rather add that to other upgrades, be in the modern world, and listen to digital hugely available content.
RobbieGong
21-03-2017, 20:52
CD has made me go 'Wow! I like that'
Vinyl has made my jaw drop and think this is just awesome!
paulf-2007
21-03-2017, 20:58
Having a deck and vinyl is like being sentimental and buying an old classic car at quite a cost but possibly not having the tools and parts when they become obsolete (akin to a possible downturn in vinyl sales) with the opposite of cd (with downloads and streaming in conjunction) is like buying a better performing modern new car for less money and where you can get the parts and future ancillaries for it and where you know it won't become obsolete quickly.
That's why I don't quite get the advantage of vinyl and record decks as being seen by some as crucial to enjoyment of audiophile music, particularly when there are only so many old releases of music you can get on vinyl and new ones too of course, but where primarily my choice around owning an album is for the sake of the music where CDs and downloads and streaming more than tick that box. In addition to all the convenience features and playlists of digital music.
I appreciate this won't probably be popular but rather than spending money on a deck, cables, phono stage, I'd rather add that to other upgrades, be in the modern world, and listen to digital hugely available content.
Streaming and downloads have no soul. Other upgrades? Like cables?:lol:
magiccarpetride
21-03-2017, 21:08
Having a deck and vinyl is like being sentimental and buying an old classic car at quite a cost but possibly not having the tools and parts when they become obsolete (akin to a possible downturn in vinyl sales) with the opposite of cd (with downloads and streaming in conjunction) is like buying a better performing modern new car for less money and where you can get the parts and future ancillaries for it and where you know it won't become obsolete quickly.
That's why I don't quite get the advantage of vinyl and record decks as being seen by some as crucial to enjoyment of audiophile music, particularly when there are only so many old releases of music you can get on vinyl and new ones too of course, but where primarily my choice around owning an album is for the sake of the music where CDs and downloads and streaming more than tick that box. In addition to all the convenience features and playlists of digital music.
I appreciate this won't probably be popular but rather than spending money on a deck, cables, phono stage, I'd rather add that to other upgrades, be in the modern world, and listen to digital hugely available content.
My problem with CDs (and other digital artefacts) is that they are being marketed/sold to the populace as the final frontier. Sort of like 'finally, now we all have access to the entire content, to our entire cultural heritage! It's just a two, maximum three google clicks away."
Well, I'm calling baloney on that. The way I see it, digitized content is merely a tip of the iceberg. There is an enormous body of content invisible to google. This content has never been digitized (nor will it ever be). The only time publishing houses choose to digitize some heritage content is if the digitization/packaging/marketing and distribution can be proven to be commercially viable.
That leaves a huge bottom of the pyramid in the digital darkness.
I go to my local record stores and I find tons of amazing LPs that are virtually unobtainable on google. They will never become obtainable for the above mentioned reasons.
Furthermore, even the ones that are obtainable, have been mostly extremely poorly digitized. To the point of 'why bother?' Incompetent people have proven to be phenomenally good at delivering botched CDs, hi rez formats, etc. Just because it's a no brainer to push a button and transfer analog signal to digital, doesn't mean the job is done and you can now go home. But that's how they treat it, and are allowed to get away with murder.
That's why I made a comeback to LPs -- realized that most of the precious, fulfilling content still remains buried in the pile of old used LPs.
Dynamics
21-03-2017, 21:10
Streaming and downloads have no soul. Other upgrades? Like cables?:lol:
It depends what the dacs are like as no two systems are comparable digitally. I'd rather put the money towards new speakers or amps rather than spending on vinyl. It's expensive as a format too and I can get all the music I ever want on a streaming service.
Dynamics
21-03-2017, 21:22
My problem with CDs (and other digital artefacts) is that they are being marketed/sold to the populace as the final frontier. Sort of like 'finally, now we all have access to the entire content, to our entire cultural heritage! It's just a two, maximum three google clicks away."
Well, I'm calling baloney on that. The way I see it, digitized content is merely a tip of the iceberg. There is an enormous body of content invisible to google. This content has never been digitized (nor will it ever be). The only time publishing houses choose to digitize some heritage content is if the digitization/packaging/marketing and distribution can be proven to be commercially viable.
That leaves a huge bottom of the pyramid in the digital darkness.
I go to my local record stores and I find tons of amazing LPs that are virtually unobtainable on google. They will never become obtainable for the above mentioned reasons.
Furthermore, even the ones that are obtainable, have been mostly extremely poorly digitized. To the point of 'why bother?' Incompetent people have proven to be phenomenally good at delivering botched CDs, hi rez formats, etc. Just because it's a no brainer to push a button and transfer analog signal to digital, doesn't mean the job is done and you can now go home. But that's how they treat it, and are allowed to get away with murder.
That's why I made a comeback to LPs -- realized that most of the precious, fulfilling content still remains buried in the pile of old used LPs.
Nice line of argument but any darkness on a pyramid is hugely against vinyl content. And anyway if it's in darkness on vinyl, nobody is buying it or it's old hat. The way I see it, vinyl creates a kind of bridge between the people who want the music on vinyl as being some form of zenith of smooth reproduced analogue music of a source from a largely bygone era, against digital people who want and are after music now and readily available for most of almost all music , to the extent that for some audiophiles it possibly doesn't become so much about the music anymore, but it's analogue quality. Music and its availability is why we buy hi fi in the first place, otherwise there is no point substantiating expense for formats where music isn't wholly available. My dacs handle streaming, CDs and downloads, but a phono stage only a record which isn't widely available on that source.
I can get all the music I ever want on a streaming service.
As Darth Vader once said, 'Don't be so proud of this technological terror you have created.'
If not enough people want uncompressed music streaming the providers will go broke. That could happen. Then you are stuck with MP3. If you own a physical copy then you always have it.
Also see 'The Machine Stops' by E M Forster.
Cucumbers with bananas surely?
I think this one is going bananas again.:)
Not all music is available on streaming. Classical is very poorly catered for, which is unfortunate as vinyl isn't always kind to classical.
CD has made me go 'Wow! I like that'
Vinyl has made my jaw drop and think this is just awesome!
Totally Rob!:thumbsup:
magiccarpetride
21-03-2017, 22:07
Nice line of argument but any darkness on a pyramid is hugely against vinyl content. And anyway if it's in darkness on vinyl, nobody is buying it or it's old hat. The way I see it, vinyl creates a kind of bridge between the people who want the music on vinyl as being some form of zenith of smooth reproduced analogue music of a source from a largely bygone era, against digital people who want and are after music now and readily available for most of almost all music , to the extent that for some audiophiles it possibly doesn't become so much about the music anymore, but it's analogue quality. Music and its availability is why we buy hi fi in the first place, otherwise there is no point substantiating expense for formats where music isn't wholly available. My dacs handle streaming, CDs and downloads, but a phono stage only a record which isn't widely available on that source.
I'm not sure if you're ever spent an afternoon browsing through the used LPs bins. There is at least (in my unscientific opinion) 90% of the material available on LPs that stand little, or no chance of ever being digitized. Now you may say "I don't give a rat's ass about those LPs!", but you my friend are not the sole inhabitant of the planet earth. There are many of us who are quite interested in listening to music recorded during the bygone eras. From the Eastern Bloc LPs that somehow made their way from behind the iron curtain, to the LPs from all corners of the world, there is a veritable treasure trove of cultural wealth. Yeah, you may only care about listening to the latest Kanye West CD streaming on Spotify, but that's not the end of the story.
This line of reasoning, btw, doesn't end with recorded music. Many other cultural artefacts, such as comic books, magazines, books, etc. remain undigitized. They cannot be found online, and even if they could be found online, the digitized copies are typically inferior, often unusable. I have many out-of-print books, magazines, music scores etc. sitting in my basement. Every year I remind myself "I should probably set aside a few weeks to digitize this and offer it to the community under the Creative Commons license." But guess what -- years are passing by, and I always have something more pressing to do. Same applies to many others scattered around the globe.
Knowing this, I think we are kidding ourselves if we stick our heads in the sand and daydream about streaming music services that offer 'all' the music in the world at our fingertips.
There always has been an agenda other than supply of 'our needs', on the part of large organisations which provide media.
Much of my beloved music from the early 70s was heretical, and anti corporate, and this was not favoured by large organisations.
The BBC notoriously would not play some heretical stuff which later became iconically famous, but it used in the 70s to have at least some radical programmes; John Peel, and Sounds Interesting - Steve somebody, in the 80s - Radio London Breakthrough, Mike Sparrow, and more recently Late Junction R3, but that has gone all 'Smart arses with Samplers' now.
What is played on media tends to be IMO just banal trite self agrandising and self promoting junk; the reactionary forces are at play control by those in charge, and they want the populous to be in a continual state of unawareness and numbed daily routine, just consuming that which does not 'nutrify' them.
Infinitely Baffled
22-03-2017, 14:54
That's why I don't quite get the advantage of vinyl and record decks as being seen by some as crucial to enjoyment of audiophile music, particularly when there are only so many old releases of music you can get on vinyl and new ones too of course, but where primarily my choice around owning an album is for the sake of the music where CDs and downloads and streaming more than tick that box.
Digital is for music lovers. Analogue is for equipment lovers.
!!!
Obviously not true - at least, not as stated. But it's not hard to make the argument that if streaming a song, or downloading it, ticks enough boxes to keep you happy, then it's clear that all you want is to be able to hear the music - even if not at the ultimate quality. If, on the other hand, you love to be able to hold an album and read the its cover, if you love nosing around 2nd hand vinyl shops and people-watching all the other like-minded weirdos who work and browse in them, if you don't mind routinely checking your azimuth and VTA to ensure it is delivering, and if you enjoy browsing internet forums to read about cartridge compliance and effective mass, then it's clear you have bought into something much wider than just listening to music. The classic car analogy (previous page - maybe - depending on how fast I type) is apt here as well. The comparison between owning a classic car and a newer, faster, cheaper car is meaningless, because they are not delivering the same thing to their owners. One simply satisfies a need for transport, whilst the other delivers its owner into a world of sensations, recollections, historical and cultural references that go so much further than just transport.
What about non-downloading/non-streaming digital enthusiasts? Dunno - nearer to the analogue bunch maybe in that the love of artefacts and the desire to collect are still part of the pastime.
IB
Ones Marmite and the other is Vegimite
In this digital streaming age of lossey downloads it's easy to forget just how good a CD can be.
Personally I prefer Vinyl but still get a nice surprise when I play a CD rather than stream a digital file, even lossless files loose something.
What about non-downloading/non-streaming digital enthusiasts? Dunno - nearer to the analogue bunch maybe in that the love of artefacts and the desire to collect are still part of the pastime.
IB
Not for me. I can't sell my vinyl because they are artefacts to me. By comparison CDs are just things that do a job, I lose one or break one I just buy another. There is no emotional investment. But I'm not a collector of vinyl or CD in the true sense of the word. I do miss the crate digging with vinyl, though.
magiccarpetride
22-03-2017, 16:40
Digital is for music lovers. Analogue is for equipment lovers.
!!!
Obviously not true - at least, not as stated. But it's not hard to make the argument that if streaming a song, or downloading it, ticks enough boxes to keep you happy, then it's clear that all you want is to be able to hear the music - even if not at the ultimate quality. If, on the other hand, you love to be able to hold an album and read the its cover, if you love nosing around 2nd hand vinyl shops and people-watching all the other like-minded weirdos who work and browse in them, if you don't mind routinely checking your azimuth and VTA to ensure it is delivering, and if you enjoy browsing internet forums to read about cartridge compliance and effective mass, then it's clear you have bought into something much wider than just listening to music. The classic car analogy (previous page - maybe - depending on how fast I type) is apt here as well. The comparison between owning a classic car and a newer, faster, cheaper car is meaningless, because they are not delivering the same thing to their owners. One simply satisfies a need for transport, whilst the other delivers its owner into a world of sensations, recollections, historical and cultural references that go so much further than just transport.
What about non-downloading/non-streaming digital enthusiasts? Dunno - nearer to the analogue bunch maybe in that the love of artefacts and the desire to collect are still part of the pastime.
IB
Digital reminds me hypertext, as opposed to regular text. If I'm reading a regular book, I usually do it sequentially. On occasion, I may skip a chapter or two, or start from the middle, etc., but that's not typically how I experience and enjoy books.
If I'm reading a hypertext document, I am liable to start clicking on links. Those links magically transport me to other parts of the digital document/book, or even to completely different digital books. That's exhilarating, as I'm now in control of the sequence and the dosage of the content I'm consuming.
But you see, with digital, I lose the organic connection with what the author had actually intended to portray. So in the end, this fast and furious digital diet, where I keep streaming and downloading and skipping all over the place, leaves me hungry and ultimately dissatisfied. That's the reason I prefer the analog, more sequential diet.
Infinitely Baffled
22-03-2017, 17:09
Digital reminds me hypertext, as opposed to regular text. If I'm reading a regular book, I usually do it sequentially. On occasion, I may skip a chapter or two, or start from the middle, etc., but that's not typically how I experience and enjoy books.
If I'm reading a hypertext document, I am liable to start clicking on links. Those links magically transport me to other parts of the digital document/book, or even to completely different digital books. That's exhilarating, as I'm now in control of the sequence and the dosage of the content I'm consuming.
But you see, with digital, I lose the organic connection with what the author had actually intended to portray. So in the end, this fast and furious digital diet, where I keep streaming and downloading and skipping all over the place, leaves me hungry and ultimately dissatisfied. That's the reason I prefer the analog, more sequential diet.
Crikey! Have you seen anyone about this!?
IB
walpurgis
22-03-2017, 17:17
Crikey! Have you seen anyone about this!?
IB
:lol:
magiccarpetride
22-03-2017, 17:20
Crikey! Have you seen anyone about this!?
IB
Yes, my therapist claims that hypertext doesn't exist, and that it's all in my head. Still, I'm enjoying it immensely, even if we're all just a computer simulation.
RobbieGong
22-03-2017, 17:29
Digital reminds me hypertext, as opposed to regular text. If I'm reading a regular book, I usually do it sequentially. On occasion, I may skip a chapter or two, or start from the middle, etc., but that's not typically how I experience and enjoy books.
If I'm reading a hypertext document, I am liable to start clicking on links. Those links magically transport me to other parts of the digital document/book, or even to completely different digital books. That's exhilarating, as I'm now in control of the sequence and the dosage of the content I'm consuming.
But you see, with digital, I lose the organic connection with what the author had actually intended to portray. So in the end, this fast and furious digital diet, where I keep streaming and downloading and skipping all over the place, leaves me hungry and ultimately dissatisfied. That's the reason I prefer the analog, more sequential diet.
Deep but I get that :)
magiccarpetride
22-03-2017, 17:32
Deep but I get that :)
I was mostly referring to streaming and the 'monkey mind' that as soon as it grabs one branch (i.e. starts listening to one track), immediately lets go of that branch and grabs onto another. I'm finding myself hopping from one track to the next, unrelated track simply because I'm holding my phone with seemingly endless playlists. With LPs, I am forced to be more patient, I dive deeper into the music, I stay faithfully for the duration of the entire side of an LP, and in the end get a much more nutritious, steady diet of the wholesome musical content.
the best analogy i heard is vinyl is loaf of bread and digital is the same loaf but cut up into slices,when you put all the slices together it makes the same loaf again but its slightly smaller due to the cuts.
Worth a read if comparisons with wheat based produce are not enough:
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/exploring-digital-audio-myths-and-reality-part-1
Jac Hawk
22-03-2017, 21:21
What an absolutely pointless thread:scratch::scratch:
LP sound like proper engaging music
CD ( Compromised Discs ) sound thin and lifeless :)
Then you have a shit CD player, daftee, sorry (and same applies to anyone else who thinks the same)! ;)
Marco.
I cannot say that one sounds better than the other, they both sound quite different to each other.
Quite different to each other, in what way, Shaun?
You know I'm a vinyl nut, *but* my T/T and CD player sound very similar, in terms of their respective sonic presentations - and experience tells me that's exactly how it should be when you've optimised the playback, using good equipment, of both LPs and CDs :)
I'm sorry, and whilst I know which I ultimately prefer (vinyl), I don't buy the oft mentioned notion of CD and vinyl sounding markedly different. If they do, then for me it's down to the playback equipment used not properly optimising and/or colouring their respective music formats.
The other thing too (and I don't think this applies to you) is that if your experience of listening to vinyl has been restricted solely to the playback of less than pristine secondhand records, then quite frankly, you've yet to hear what vinyl can do on a good T/T! ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
24-03-2017, 19:39
Then you have a shit CD player, daftee, sorry (and same applies to anyone else who thinks the same)! ;)
Marco.
Yup! :D
Very happy with my CD sound and the sound from records.
I appreciate this won't probably be popular but rather than spending money on a deck, cables, phono stage, I'd rather add that to other upgrades, be in the modern world, and listen to digital hugely available content.
Lol... I take it then you haven't seen not only how many turntables exist now in the modern world, but how many records are being produced and sold now in the same modern world, with LPs currently being sold in places like supermarkets, and in greater quantities than ever, to both young and old, since they did in their heyday?
With respect, Simon, I suggest that you open your eyes and witness the reality of the modern world around you, rather than your somewhat shortsighted/prejudiced view of it. Digital is not automatically 'modern' just for the sake of it, you know! ;)
Marco.
Not all music is available on streaming. Classical is very poorly catered for, which is unfortunate as vinyl isn't always kind to classical.
In what way, Clive? :hmm:
Some of the finest sounding records I own feature classical music, either original Deccas/Mercury Living Presence, etc, from the 1950s, or modern audiophile reissues of such.
Perhaps you mean in terms of surface noise, during quiet passages? That shouldn't be an issue with clean records in good condition, together with a well-set up cartridge, arm and T/T :)
Marco.
Lol... I take it then you haven't seen not only how many turntables exist now in the modern world, but how many records are being produced and sold now in the same modern world, with LPs being sold in places like supermarkets, and in greater quantities than ever, to both young and old, since they did in their heyday?
.
They've still got a lot of catching-up to do.
Sales of LPs in the UK in 1969: 49.2 million
Sales of LPs in the UK in 2016: 3.2 million (compared to 47.3 million CDs)
Yes, Joe, I know. However, unless you've been living on the moon recently, you can't fail to have noticed the huge resurgence in the popularity of vinyl records and T/Ts - it's all around us these days, even on some TV adverts! ;)
I was at a show in Manchester last weekend that was totally devoted to vinyl replay, and indeed any hi-fi show you go to these days, turntables are better represented than ever.
Therefore, I'm afraid the irony is that it's only the out-of-touch fuddy-duddies who consider that T/Ts and LPs aren't a part (and a continually growing one) of the modern world. The likelihood is that CDs will become defunct long before vinyl, as streaming becomes the choice for most...
Marco.
Read any of the hi-fi mag reviews of shows from around the world and there is a massoive amount of vinyl replay kit
magiccarpetride
24-03-2017, 21:21
What an absolutely pointless thread:scratch::scratch:
Isn't it just grand when people go out of their way and call in just to let you know they don't want to talk?
new cd.....lots of years left.
new vinyl.....unless someone or some corporation starts making new cutting heads...not many years left.
vinyl will never die. they are actively making new cutting presses all the time.
new cd.....lots of years left.
That's not going to be the case, Nigel, if folks stop buying them, as more and more shun digital music, stored on a physical format, and replace it with streaming. Also, ask yourself what's being produced now in larger quantities: separates CD players or turntables?
Cars don't even have CD players in them now, as they're considered by manufacturers as obsolete - and when that happens in the hugely influential commercial market, you know that the writing is on the wall for CD...
The future is definitely streaming, along with vinyl, for however long it can continue to be produced. And for me, there's plenty of life in the old dog yet! ;)
Marco.
magiccarpetride
24-03-2017, 21:57
vinyl will never die. they are actively making ne cutting presses all the time.
I am hoping that 3D printing technology will advance to the point where we could print the exact replica of any LP in our collection, the same way we can today burn the exact replica of a CD.
i wouldnt hold my breath :)
To me,
LP is like riding an old school Harley Davidson, and
CD is like riding a Ducati sport bike.
I can ride either up an old curvy mountain road, full of twists and turns, and can enjoy the strong points of either! But the old Harley has torque, it pulls slow and strong, and has that wonderful exhaust note that I love so much, it's big and comfortable. And a lot of fun!
The Ducati is fast! It eats up the turns so easily! It picks up speed like wild! And the balance and power are contagious. To feel it down in those tight turns just pulling you into the next straight, is exhilarating!
Perhaps that's not exactly how I feel about Record and CD's, but it's similar. When I play a CD I can marvel at the performance! Such bass! Extended frequencies, jet black backgrounds, but with records its somehow lively, fun even! I feel that emotional connection when it sounds so right, like they exhaust note on the Harley, just brings a smile to my face!
About what magic was saying, it is true that much of the analog world is not being digitally catalogued, so much of my youth is not available today, not just music, but literature and video. The Little Rascals was deemed "Racist" by one man, and now they are gone, kids today have no idea who they were. Old cartoons that were also deemed radical or racist have been shuffled away, never to be seen again. Some of it was racist, but a lot wasn't. Even if it was, should we erase history? Rewrite it to be less offensive? Which is what is happening right now where I live. I recall old comic books that were somewhat sexual in content, I've searched on them and there is nothing, no sign they ever existed. And even present day stuff, during our recent election for president, any Google searches for info on suspicious deaths surrounding the Clinton Foundation were blocked. Of course this is outside of this discussion about the topic at hand, just wanted to add to what magic was saying.
Concerning digital copies of old vinyl, it is true that any vinyl record that did not have a certain sales record was not made into a CD, which counts for a lot of music. Especially classical. And CD sales have plummeted in recent times, way back 7 years ago I heard that CD sales had dropped from a high of 13 billion per year back in the 90's to less than 3 billion. 7 years later, what is that number today? Once it drops before a certain level, record companies will drop them all together, except for a few Audiophile labels that will buy the old machines and sell obscure jazz and classical titles, much like the LP market did for many years before the "resurgence" , the recording companies are very keen on the idea of them owning all the music, and you can only rent it from them, no hard copy to own for you to copy and use as you see fit. Streaming is the future, but they can never clean up the several hundred billion copies of records and CDs in the private sector, a hundred years from now eBay will still be selling used records and CD's.
One thing I loved about the music written before the CD was invented, was the theme album. Aqualung, 2112, The Wall! And a thousand others, bands were more creative, they made the best of the medium, but today, the ability to jump around, play only the songs you like, the theme album is a thing of the past, the medium has influenced the artist. Perhaps there are exceptions, but as a whole, it seems to hold true. I will aways be stuck in the 70's. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170325/7b4dedba55a33f855577a763f30edaa1.jpg
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Hi Shaun,
Fancy having a go at this:
I cannot say that one sounds better than the other, they both sound quite different to each other.
Quite different to each other, in what way, Shaun?
:popcorn: :)
Marco.
Dauntless
25-03-2017, 20:22
Top flight vinyl for me is like the Flying Scotsman Express speeding through Berwick on route to Edinburgh pulled by a Mallard Class locomotive. The record spinning equipment is so interesting! My dream deck would be the Kronus. I would kit it out with the finest tone arm and cartridge and I would smile to myself as I tightened the record clamp down on my black stuff at all those minions out there with their LP 12's and Girodecks and Regas who couldn't get anywhere close to my superior set up:)
Digital, emm, not as interesting is it? Maybe driving a Tesla Model S up the A9 perhaps? Or a ride on the TGV through the French countryside maybe.
Not so easy to pick a dream system either. CD player, Streamer maybe? What to pick; nothing stands out. All a bit bland compared to the Kronus. Just not as interesting.
Top flight vinyl for me is like the Flying Scotsman Express speeding through Berwick on route to Edinburgh pulled by a Mallard Class locomotive. The record spinning equipment is so interesting! My dream deck would be the Kronus. I would kit it out with the finest tone arm and cartridge and I would smile to myself as I tightened the record clamp down on my black stuff at all those minions out there with their LP 12's and Girodecks and Regas who couldn't get anywhere close to my superior set up:)
Digital, emm, not as interesting is it? Maybe driving a Tesla Model S up the A9 perhaps? Or a ride on the TGV through the French countryside maybe.
Not so easy to pick a dream system either. CD player, Streamer maybe? What to pick; nothing stands out. All a bit bland compared to the Kronus. Just not as interesting.
nice and Pacific ;)
Audio Al
26-03-2017, 05:19
Then you have a shit CD player, daftee, sorry (and same applies to anyone else who thinks the same)! ;)
Marco.
:nono:
I have several good quality CD units Including a ex BBC radio 2 Technics and several stable platter pioneers / Sony and Marantz
Haselsh1
26-03-2017, 07:37
Hi Shaun,
Fancy having a go at this:
:popcorn: :)
Marco.
OK, one has more depth to the bass and goes lower but one has more slam and solidity. One shows much more micro detail, one doesn't. One has a gloriously deep and wide midrange whereas the other produces a more detailed midrange. The high frequencies of one are very precise without offending but the other is way more realistic. In fact, one has an outstanding sense of realism whilst the other does not. If I had to force a choice between them my choice would be vinyl, then again...
Haselsh1
26-03-2017, 07:41
To reply to the comparison between motorcycles, I have owned around six different Ducati's over the years and I would agree with the statement made. If there ever could be a comparison it would be with digital sound ;)
:nono:
I have several good quality CD units Including a ex BBC radio 2 Technics and several stable platter pioneers / Sony and Marantz
Ok, let me rephrase that: then either they're broken, or yer lugs are! :ner:
Why? Because none of those (rather excellent) players you've mentioned make CD sound "thin and lifeless" [your words earlier].
I think you should just say that you prefer vinyl, which is cool, and leave it at that, rather than make gross statements of pishanto, which only serve to confirm your status as a super-daftee! :D
Marco.
OK, one has more depth to the bass and goes lower but one has more slam and solidity. One shows much more micro detail, one doesn't. One has a gloriously deep and wide midrange whereas the other produces a more detailed midrange. The high frequencies of one are very precise without offending but the other is way more realistic. In fact, one has an outstanding sense of realism whilst the other does not. If I had to force a choice between them my choice would be vinyl, then again...
Interesting, and I agree with much of that :)
However, what I wanted you to consider, after making your comment about them being quite different, is that as you improve either your CD player or turntable, and bring the performance of both closer together, the differences you've highlighted become much less apparent, until you get to the stage where, quite honestly, it's difficult to tell them apart, and without looking, you can forget if you're listening to a record or a CD....
That's where others and I are at, and what I discovered during my 'journey' to get there.
So what's my point? Well... Perhaps some of the areas you mentioned, where you claimed that CD or LP was superior to the other, may not be inherent in the format itself, but rather instead due to the present limitations of your respective playback equipment.
Just something for you to ponder, which you may discover for yourself on your own 'hi-fi journey', when over the course of time, improving both your CD and vinyl sources :cool:
Marco.
A lot of CD players are not very good but even a budget one should sound pretty capable. Not equal to a quality turntable set up but still good enough that you can listen to it for hours without any issues. The problem is that a lot of pre-amps are also not very good and kill the benefits of CD by adding noise and distortion to the signal. Obviously a better pre-amp will improve your vinyl sound too, but a weakness in the pre-amp will not render vinyl unlistenable in the way it does with CD.
That my experience, anyway.
Yeah sure, that can definitely be a contributory factor.
My belief too, is that much [but not all] of what many like about LP playback (vinyl) replay, which creates its, shall we say, 'easy-going sound', is down to established euphonic distortions, but which are gradually ameliorated as one improves a vinyl front end, to the point that it brings it closer to the sound of a well-sorted, quality CD player.
After which you're left with the areas where there *are* indeed advantages with both (analogue or digital), in terms of how embedded musical information is retrieved from their respective formats, but whilst significant, those are much more subtle, hence why the very best CD players and turntables can sound remarkably similar.
Marco.
Haselsh1
26-03-2017, 17:04
So what's my point? Well... Perhaps some of the areas you mentioned, where you claimed that CD or LP was superior to the other, may not be inherent in the format itself, but rather instead due to the present limitations of your respective playback equipment.
Marco.
What I certainly do think is that the differences I can clearly hear are due to the inherent characteristics of either my turntable or my DAC. My equipment is limited in the same way that everyone else's is limited so I think it is down to characteristics.
I absolutely agree, but my point is when you get further up the ladder (both in terms of CD players and T/Ts), and those limitations are minimised, so are the differences between good CD and good vinyl :)
Marco.
magiccarpetride
26-03-2017, 18:21
I absolutely agree, but my point is when you get further up the ladder (both in terms of CD players and T/Ts), and those limitations are minimised, so are the differences between good CD and good vinyl :)
Marco.
I'd say that would depend on the recording. Some recordings sound almost indistinguishable on a good TT/digital transport. Others sound very different when played back on the exact same configurations. Interesting conundrum.
Haselsh1
26-03-2017, 18:31
I absolutely agree, but my point is when you get further up the ladder (both in terms of CD players and T/Ts), and those limitations are minimised, so are the differences between good CD and good vinyl :)
Marco.
I disagree as all equipment is compromised no matter how far 'up the ladder' it is. The most expensive hi-fi money can buy is still highly compromised and those values will almost certainly influence its influence on the reproduced sound. I do though think that CD is a more 'accurate' reproduction.
blackstar
26-03-2017, 18:40
I think Shaun is probably far enough into the journey to make a good stab at discerning between one and the other. Judging by his equipment that is!
I disagree as all equipment is compromised no matter how far 'up the ladder' it is. The most expensive hi-fi money can buy is still highly compromised and those values will almost certainly influence its influence on the reproduced sound. I do though think that CD is a more 'accurate' reproduction.
Lol... You're not getting what I mean! :doh:
Yes, ALL equipment is compromised and has its limitations [mine, yours, Bobby next door's, and Santa Claus'), of that there is no doubt - *BUT* the better/more capable your CD player and turntable become, and thus their compromises/limitations are minimised, subsequently the closer the sound of CD and vinyl becomes.
Your contention earlier was that CDs and LPs sound "quite different". Well, in my experience that's not the case, when the above circumstances apply. That's when it becomes obvious that some of those differences were caused by limitations inherent in the respective replay equipment, not the formats themselves.
Got it now, or should I try it again in Swahili? :D;)
Marco.
To reply to the comparison between motorcycles, I have owned around six different Ducati's over the years and I would agree with the statement made. If there ever could be a comparison it would be with digital sound ;)
Thanks Shawn, I thought it made sense when I wrote it....?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Lol... You're not getting what I mean! :doh:
Yes, ALL equipment is compromised and has its limitations [mine, yours, Bobby next door's, and Santa Claus'), of that there is no doubt - *BUT* the better/more capable your CD player and turntable become, and thus their compromises/limitations are minimised, subsequently the closer the sound of CD and vinyl becomes.
Your contention earlier was that CDs and LPs sound "quite different". Well, in my experience that's not the case, when the above circumstances apply. That's when it becomes obvious some of those differences are caused by limitations inherent in the respective replay equipment, not the formats themselves.
Got it now, or should I try it again in Swahili? :D;)
Marco.
I can concur with that.....
While my analog/digital sounds different, it's not nearly as different as it was in the past, with lesser equipment.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I can concur with that.....
While my analog/digital sounds different, it's not nearly as different as it was in the past, with lesser equipment.
Hallelujah! By jove, Russell's got it :thumbsup:
Marco.
Ok, now that that's (hopefully) sunk in, consider this:
If analogue/digital (CDs and LPs) don't sound nearly as different as they did in the past, since the quality of your CD player and turntable have been brought closer together, then what previously considered differences between them, which you'd attributed to the formats themselves, were actually inherent in the playback equipment...?
:hmm: :hmm:
Marco.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 08:54
My belief here is quite simple in that your digital/analogue sound is so similar because you have subconsciously tailored your two parallel systems to sound identical. That easily explains what you are saying. I have not done that and so my two systems sound very different because that is how I want it to be. I simply do not want my digital side to sound like my analogue side, a conscious decision.
My belief here is quite simple in that your digital/analogue sound is so similar because you have subconsciously tailored your two parallel systems to sound identical. That easily explains what you are saying.
Good point, and also a valid one. I'm sure there's an element of that in it (satisfying one's preferences), and it's something we all subconsciously do to some extent, but that's different from tailoring to be identical.
However, as I've said, I also believe that much of what we've previously attributed as being the inherent characteristics of digital/analogue, were instead inherent in the playback equipment used, *not* in the formats themselves, otherwise how do you explain how those differences/characteristics disappear, or lessen, as both your CD player and turntable are improved?
Russell has also reported this phenomenon, and I'm sure countless others have experienced it on their 'hi-fi journeys'.
If it was simply a case, as you say, of subconsciously tailoring the sound, in the way you describe, then that 'identical sound' would remain the same throughout the process of upgrading the playback equipment, rather than highlighting differences, in the way I've described, and then later being removed/lessened when the equipment gets better.
Furthermore, the very fact I can hear those differences in the first place, must surely mean that I haven't tailored the sound of my turntable and CD player to be identical, as you've implied?
Marco.
P.S Also, what makes you so sure that your conscious decision not to want your digital side to sound like your analogue side, hasn't subsequently prevented you from hearing the genuine differences between both formats? ;)
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 09:56
Within the context of my own system there are genuine differences between the two types of reproduction and that is very definitely how I want it to be otherwise why would I have both systems...? There would be little point. For both my CD and vinyl to sound the same would be pointless. One of those systems may as well be disposed of. I do believe that there are genuine differences between the two however as I have heard differences in many systems not just my own. I still think though that compact disc is more 'accurate' when compared to vinyl. Of course though that could be that vinyl is more accurate than compact disc, only a true source would solve that one and that would have to be a 'live' performance without the aid of a PA system.
Think if i spend anywhere near my vinyl outlay on cd, the two would maybe be closer, but not sure i want them to be. I quite like the differences tbh. Gives me a choice of presentation.
Within the context of my own system there are genuine differences between the two types of reproduction and that is very definitely how I want it to be otherwise why would I have both systems...?
One to play CDs and the other to play records, perhaps? ;)
You're obviously different from me then, and seek to deliberately create two distinctly different sounds from your analogue and digital components, whereas all I want to do is listen to music on mine, as it's naturally reproduced by the respective playback equipment.
There would be little point. For both my CD and vinyl to sound the same would be pointless. One of those systems may as well be disposed of.
Why? The basic fact is you need one to play CDs, and the other to play records, but that doesn't mean that they *have* to sound markedly different. That's only happening because you want it to, and have set out specifically to achieve it :)
Marco.
blackstar
27-03-2017, 10:13
But what is to say that you haven't purposely developed both playback systems to present in the same way? I made CD sound 'vinyl-ly' by running a Rega planet through a valve pre-amp for relatively little outlay. Didn't like it!
No matter how much I would want CD to sound like vinyl, it never will for many reasons.
You may have the odd instance where a CD is mastered such that it sounds similar to vinyl but in general most CDs will sound different to the vinyl version in my experience.
I find ripping CD starts to improve things a little and bridges the gap. With the use of a very good DAC these differences can be reduced further although I would say digital can then move past vinyl to another level which again is different as digital can do so much more than vinyl at the extremes. Obviously you need to have a highly resolving system to hear these differences.
Vinyl and CD will not sound the same unless you have a quirky example of a recording on vinyl and one on CD that come across the same. If you are telling me you can get your CDs to same very close to all your vinyl copies I would be very surprised!
But what is to say that you haven't purposely developed both playback systems to present in the same way?
Because mine don't present in the same way; as I've said, they simply sound quite similar, for reasons previously explained. That's the point. The key word there, however, is "purposely".
Shaun, as he's admitted himself, *purposely* sets out to create two different sounds/presentations from his analogue and digital gear, which btw is absolutely fine if that's what he wants, whereas I simply 'take it as it comes', and report what I hear accordingly. That's the difference.
As I've said, whilst there will definitely be an element of subconsciously making my CD and vinyl sources suit my sonic preferences (as no-one can control that), I haven't *deliberately* [that key word again] set out to make them sound similar.
That was simply a 'happy accident', occurring most likely through striving for ALL my kit to have as little 'sound' of its own as possible, so that what's showcased, first and foremost, is the music, not the equipment's sonic signature, as for me that's what high-fidelity is all about - and why I'm in this game in the first place.
I trust you can appreciate the difference :)
Marco.
No matter how much I would want CD to sound like vinyl, it never will for many reasons.
So, I'm imagining it then in my system? ;)
Marco.
So, I'm imagining it then in my system? ;)
Marco.
Like I said you may have one or two recordings that sound similar on vinyl and CD but I would be surprised if most sounded the same.
So now it *can* happen? A minute ago you were saying "never".... :ner:;)
For reasons I've just told Milo, I honestly wouldn't want it any other way - but it's taken me a LONG time to get there! :cool:
When you visit, we'll do an unsighted test, which will hopefully prove my point, and there'll be no need for any lab coats or blindfolds.
With me piping the sound of my system, upstairs, down into the lounge, where the Celestions are, and you sat down there, without having a clue what I'm doing upstairs, I can be putting on either a CD or LP of a specific piece of music, and you can tell me which you think is which.....
I'm confident that minus any visual stimulus [and your established preconceptions], you'll struggle to tell the difference. I'll do my best to minimise any surface noise and only use pristine clean, brand new records for the purpose.
Could be a valuable learning curve? :)
Marco.
Ok mate and doing a comparison blind would be good. But it cannot be done with one recording, I would need to hear a number of examples where your CD and vinyl sound exactly the same :):cool:
Not a problem (as there are numerous recordings I could use for the purpose). Also, remember that I said *similar*, not exactly the same. There is a difference! ;)
My contention is that vinyl and CD don't inherently sound *markedly different* [the key words here], as others and you are claiming, not that it sounds the same. It's very important that we stick rigidly to the facts.
The purpose of the exercise, therefore, will be to try and prove that point, and that when the playback equipment is of a similar sonic standard, many of those so-called marked differences 'miraculously disappear'...
Once the test is done, we'll report the results on here, for everyone's perusal.
Marco.
If both methods are error free, they would have to sound the same.
Yes, but they aren't, and they don't. See my last post, Dennis. In hi-fi, there's no such a thing as 'error free' anything. Something always leaves a 'footprint'.
Marco.
Within the context of my own system there are genuine differences between the two types of reproduction and that is very definitely how I want it to be otherwise why would I have both systems...? There would be little point. For both my CD and vinyl to sound the same would be pointless. One of those systems may as well be disposed of. I do believe that there are genuine differences between the two however as I have heard differences in many systems not just my own. I still think though that compact disc is more 'accurate' when compared to vinyl. Of course though that could be that vinyl is more accurate than compact disc, only a true source would solve that one and that would have to be a 'live' performance without the aid of a PA system.
So when you buy a new recording, do you deliberately choose a CD or an LP, and if you do, how do you decide which one?
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 12:19
So when you buy a new recording, do you deliberately choose a CD or an LP, and if you do, how do you decide which one?
Indeed I do Barry and it is usually based on the type of music in the recording. I do not usually listen to aggressive forms of rock music on vinyl, however I do have some King Crimson on vinyl. I do listen to some mild rock music on vinyl but generally speaking artists like Agnes Obel I would buy on vinyl, or maybe Laura Marling etc. Again, as already stated, a great deal depends on my then mood.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 12:23
One to play CDs and the other to play records, perhaps? ;)
Why? The basic fact is you need one to play CDs, and the other to play records, but that doesn't mean that they *have* to sound markedly different. That's only happening because you want it to, and have set out specifically to achieve it :)
Marco.
Totally daft statements for if they both sounded the same one would immediately be redundant. CD would rule and vinyl would be obsolete or vice versa.
I specifically want my two parallel systems to sound totally different thus justifying the need for both of them.
Unless of course one takes into account the human need for nostalgia ;)
I do not usually listen to aggressive forms of rock music on vinyl...
Interesting, Shaun, may I ask why, if it's not simply a case of disliking "aggressive forms of rock music"? In which case, I presume you wouldn't listen to it on CD either?
Or are you saying that you only play music that sounds 'non-aggressive' on your turntable, and keep CD for everything else? Just trying to get a handle on your thinking process, that's all :)
Marco.
Totally daft statements for if they both sounded the same one would immediately be redundant. CD would rule and vinyl would be obsolete or vice versa.
The statements I made weren't daft at all, but simply factual. Sorry, I don't understand the above. Surely it's ultimately the MUSIC that matters, on either format, not the sound being different?
As I've said, CD and vinyl sound quite similar in my system, yet neither are 'redundant'. I'm sorry, but for me that concept is preposterous.
I specifically want my two parallel systems to sound totally different thus justifying the need for both of them.
Why, though? That's what I just don't get :scratch:
I want my "two parallel systems" to 'sound' the least like anything at all. All I want to hear is the music they make. It's called 'hi-fi'.
Marco.
jandl100
27-03-2017, 12:39
.... if they both sounded the same one would immediately be redundant. CD would rule and vinyl would be obsolete or vice versa.
Yup, that pretty much is my view with digital being in the ascendant.
Unless you deliberately wish to introduce colourations, which LP playback hardware options are more than capable of delivering, far more so than digital.
I specifically want my two parallel systems to sound totally different thus justifying the need for both of them.
Ah, yes, so that'll be it then! Your turntable is a colouration machine.
Which is fine if that's what you want.
Unless you deliberately wish to introduce colourations, which LP playback hardware options are more than capable of delivering, far more so than digital.
It's not a case of "deliberately"; stuff does what it does.
If you want to play records, Jerry, then you need a turntable - and the best ones (properly set up), along with pristine vinyl, reduce that coloration to the status of virtual insignificance.
Unfortunately, you gave up on them before you ever found that out! ;)
Marco.
jandl100
27-03-2017, 12:49
Actually, I've had some pretty nifty tt systems in my time. ;)
And it is a 'deliberate' choice, coloured sources are chosen because they are preferred.
They don't need to be accurate, just preferred.
And in my experience, even high cost cartridges differ markedly in sound - they can't all be correct! Cartridge colourations abound at all price levels.
The same goes for turntables and arms.
And it is a 'deliberate' choice, coloured sources are chosen because they are preferred.
They don't need to be accurate, just preferred.
I'm sure it is for some, but I can assure you, that's not why I own a turntable or play records.
And in my experience, even high cost cartridges differ markedly in sound - they can't all be correct! Cartridge colourations abound at all price levels.
Absolutely, and no-one's saying that they're all "correct".
However, the level of 'correctness' heard varies considerably, depending on how well set-up and partnered they've been (which in reality has a HUGE bearing on the sound of any cartridge), and also in terms of the tonearm chosen and phono stage.
I could demonstrate the same cartridge in two identical systems, and deliberately skew it so that in one you wouldn't think you were listening to the same cartridge!
Also, at the end of the day, it all goes through the most coloured sounding thing of all, the speakers, the distortions in which make those in cartridges pale into insignificance.
How flat do your MBLs measure? ;)
Oh, and I won't even mention the graphic equalisers you love!! :lol:
Marco.
Audio Al
27-03-2017, 13:01
Its official
Click on the images and they get BIGGER
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 13:01
Marco, please do not misunderstand, I love all forms of music except: Opera, 50's R&R and Country. Those I just cannot get on with. Aggressive rock music I am OK with and love the latest Royal Blood CD which to me is aggressive rock. Note though, I said CD. My system is tailored a specific way and because of that I do not like playing certain music on vinyl. I just think that certain things complement certain things and I am very aware of my system's traits.
Marco, please do not misunderstand, I love all forms of music except: Opera, 50's R&R and Country. Those I just cannot get on with. Aggressive rock music I am OK with and love the latest Royal Blood CD which to me is aggressive rock. Note though, I said CD. My system is tailored a specific way and because of that I do not like playing certain music on vinyl. I just think that certain things complement certain things and I am very aware of my system's traits.
Ok, no worries. Can't argue with that :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 13:04
Yup, that pretty much is my view with digital being in the ascendant.
Unless you deliberately wish to introduce colourations, which LP playback hardware options are more than capable of delivering, far more so than digital.
Ah, yes, so that'll be it then! Your turntable is a colouration machine.
Which is fine if that's what you want.
It is indeed fine and it is what I accept. What I want may be something totally different.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 13:06
Actually, I've had some pretty nifty tt systems in my time. ;)
And it is a 'deliberate' choice, coloured sources are chosen because they are preferred.
They don't need to be accurate, just preferred.
And in my experience, even high cost cartridges differ markedly in sound - they can't all be correct! Cartridge colourations abound at all price levels.
The same goes for turntables and arms.
I agree but so do DAC's differ widely and they too can't all be correct either.
I bet those MBLs have lower distortion than a cartridge. Speaker distortion is mainly in the bass anyway, we are not that sensitive to bass distortion.
Otherwise folks, Marco is correct, you can get your TT and digital to do very similar things, the mistake is to assume it is all about the quality of the sources and that the rest of the system isn't relevant to this.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 13:10
I bet those MBLs have lower distortion than a cartridge. Speaker distortion is mainly in the bass anyway, we are not that sensitive to bass distortion.
Otherwise folks, Marco is correct, you can get your TT and digital to do very similar things, the mistake is to assume it is all about the quality of the sources and that the rest of the system isn't relevant to this.
But again, if your turntable and CD sources are that close why bother with both...?
I agree but so do DAC's differ widely and they too can't all be correct either.
That's because a lot of DACS are tuned to give a certain presentation, because that is what folk want nowadays. Very few people are chasing hi-fidelity it would seem.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 13:12
That's because a lot of DACS are tuned to give a certain presentation, because that is what folk want nowadays. Very few people are chasing hi-fidelity it would seem.
So that must also be true of cartridges...?
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 13:14
Please note, I use different interconnects on CD and vinyl because the cables sound markedly different. This is a great example of how I am tailoring the sound of my system; through trial and error and time.
I bet those MBLs have lower distortion than a cartridge. Speaker distortion is mainly in the bass anyway, we are not that sensitive to bass distortion.
Well, let's see some figures then and decide... Plus, you need to consider their in-room response, which is ultimately what matters ;)
And Jerry's putting everything through a graphic equaliser! :eek: Unless he's weaned himself off that particular form of nonsense, lol....
The point I'm making though, is that it's a waste of time fretting over what's coloured, when at the end of the day, the most coloured thing of all belongs in the room you listen in!
*Everything* is coloured, to a greater or lesser degree, folks, so simply choose your favourite kind, and be done with it :exactly:
Marco.
jandl100
27-03-2017, 13:20
I agree but so do DAC's differ widely and they too can't all be correct either.
Definitely. I very much have my preferred DAC having sampled many.
The colourations do seem to have different underlying characters, though, between digital and analogue.
Digital "colourations", to me, seem to be about variations in imaging, transparency and dynamic tracking. Analogue colourations seem to have a far higher tonal aberration ingredient.
A bit of a generalisation, but generally true, ime.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 13:24
Definitely. I very much have my preferred DAC having sampled many.
The colourations do seem to have different underlying characters, though, between digital and analogue.
Digital "colourations", to me, seem to be about variations in imaging, transparency and dynamic tracking. Analogue colourations seem to have a far higher tonal aberration ingredient.
A bit of a generalisation, but generally true, ime.
LOL... I agree ;)
Otherwise folks, Marco is correct, you can get your TT and digital to do very similar things, the mistake is to assume it is all about the quality of the sources and that the rest of the system isn't relevant to this.
And, based on experience, it seems many folks don't have the slightest clue how to set up a turntable properly! This happens at shows too, with supposed 'professionals'!! :doh:
Perhaps that's because there's no 'black and white' manual one can follow to get it right, the most, and so much of it is simply down to experience and/or the discernment of your ears....
Marco
And, based on experience, it seems many folks don't have the slightest clue how to set up a turntable properly! This happens at shows too, with supposed 'professionals'!! :doh:
Perhaps that's because there's no 'black and white' manual one can follow to get it right, the most, and so much of it is simply down to experience and/or the discernment of your ears....
Marco
So true.. in fact i still need to check mine since its move. Bound to be slightly out, although it sounds ok. Its more a routine thing or ought to be and its not especially difficult
Trouble is, folks like easy 'ready-made solutions', where you don't have to work too much ;)
Digital is a bit like that....
[Runs for cover] :door: :wave:
:hotrod:
Marco.
Damn straight. A lot less arsing about. And cheaper!
I agree with Jerry re the difference in digital and vinyl colourations btw, even if he is ploughing his own furrow with spotify and graphic equalisers ;)
I also do to an extent. Remember though the effect it had on your T/T, when I came down and, erm [sorry], set it up properly for you, when beforehand you were happy it was 'fine'....? ;)
Marco.
jandl100
27-03-2017, 14:18
Trouble is, folks like easy 'ready-made solutions', where you don't have to work too much ;)
Digital is a bit like that....
[Runs for cover] :door: :wave:
:hotrod:
Marco.
I agree with that.
I'd much rather listen to music than faff around trying to get a decent sound out of vinyl.
Yesh, but it would appear that some of us can get away with 'faffing' a little less than others... :eyebrows:
These days, my T/T just sits there and plays music!
Admit it, darling, you gave up T/Ts because you were crap at setting them up, and didn't really know how to get the best out of them, so thought: 'Fuck this, I'm getting nowhere', so cut your losses and spent the money saved on ducks! :lol:
;)
Marco.
I also do to an extent. Remember though the effect it had on your T/T, when I came down and, erm [sorry], set it up properly for you, when beforehand you were happy it was 'fine'....? ;)
Marco.
I didn't have particularly high expectations of it, that's true. It is 'only' a stock SL1200 after all. I'm just not prepared to spend the money required to get it to the standard that I want because I hardly ever use it, mainly out of laziness but also because I have none of the problems with digital that beset other folks.
I could happily spend 12 hours listening to CDs on my system, no harshness, no fatigue, but you can still hear right into the recording. What more do you want?
Maybe when I retire I'll have time to get back into the whole vinyl thing.
I could happily spend 12 hours listening to CDs on my system, no harshness, no fatigue, but you can still hear right into the recording. What more do you want?
Same here, and indeed have being doing, as I've been posting here today. The steaming system has been constantly playing a variety of music since 9.30am, and still is now, as I'm typing! :)
Maybe when I retire I'll have time to get back into the whole vinyl thing.
There's not really a major "thing" to get into. The most important consideration is knowing what you want from vinyl and *how* to achieve it. Once that's done, you just buy the bits you need, set it all up and enjoy! :cool:
Marco.
Trouble is, folks like easy 'ready-made solutions', where you don't have to work too much ;)
Well, yeah. If I wanted to work, I'd get a job.
jandl100
27-03-2017, 16:09
Admit it, darling, you gave up T/Ts because you were crap and setting them up, and didn't really know how to get the best out of them, so thought: 'Fuck this, I'm getting nowhere', so cut your losses and spent the money saved on ducks! :lol:
;)
Marco.
Ducks are always money well spent. :exactly:
As for setting up turntables, I'd not go near a Linn, for a variety of reasons, including the ongoing setup ritual - virgins are so hard to come by these days :eyebrows:, and I had a Michell Gyro which was a right pain in the fundament to set up - cor, the hours I spent getting the fooking platter to bounce properly :doh:.
I had a Voyd Point 5 with a silver wired SME V - probably the best tt I have owned. Very nice machine and little in the way of setup as well. But noise issues with the LPs were still a pain in the arse for a classical music lover like me. I had a pukka Moth record cleaner, but what a pallaver! It really pissed me off.
When digital came of age about 20 years ago I pretty much gave up on vinyl with a huge sigh of relief.
As I get older, I really cannot be arsed with all the vinyl faff (including record cleaning) when digital sounds great and is far nearer plug & play and has no noise issues.
The streaming revolution set the seal on the death of vinyl for me, there is just so much music to explore in an instantly available form.
LPs - knock yerself out if you want, I am no longer interested. :nono: :lol:
But again, if your turntable and CD sources are that close why bother with both...?
Because I have a lot of American Blues, Jazz and R&B on record which are not available on CD. Likewise, I have more recent recordings which are only available on CD and unavailable on LP. And if they were, I baulk at paying £25 - £35 for a modern vinyl version (regardless of it being a 'super-cut', 45 rpm, half speed master, DMM, direct cut or whatever.)
Audio Al
27-03-2017, 16:20
Post 102 :confused:
Because I have a lot of American Blues, Jazz and R&B on record which are not available on CD. Likewise, I have more recent recordings which are only available on CD and unavailable on LP. And if they were, I baulk at paying £25 - £35 for a modern vinyl version (regardless of it being a 'super-cut', 45 rpm, half speed master, DMM, direct cut or whatever.)
There are some decent cds of blues but the good ones were often small print numbers relatively. Ive a few that are out of print now and are now fairly valuable, which is a rarity for cds.
Original vinyl is the way to listen to that genre though without doubt. It sounds so right :)
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 16:47
Trouble is, folks like easy 'ready-made solutions', where you don't have to work too much ;)
Digital is a bit like that....
[Runs for cover] :door: :wave:
:hotrod:
Marco.
:lol:
Perfection; CD that sounds exactly like vinyl.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 16:53
Because I have a lot of American Blues, Jazz and R&B on record which are not available on CD. Likewise, I have more recent recordings which are only available on CD and unavailable on LP. And if they were, I baulk at paying £25 - £35 for a modern vinyl version (regardless of it being a 'super-cut', 45 rpm, half speed master, DMM, direct cut or whatever.)
Barry I so agree regarding the pricing of modern vinyl. The record companies made their money forty years ago and now they want it all over again. A case for me recently, Rogers Waters 'Amused to Death'. Thirty six quid on vinyl...! Yes, I bought it, yes it was stunning compared to the original 1980-something recording. Let's frisk all of the young uns like we did the old uns.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 16:55
In fact, there's the answer; why bother with vinyl when CD is so much cheaper and if there is no sonic difference in your system then indeed, what would be the point. A tenner versus twenty six quid....?
:eyebrows:
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 16:56
Bloody lovin this thread :eyebrows:
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 16:57
And, a thousand quid cleaning machine versus Mister Sheen... no brainer
:eyebrows:
I'm on a roll, where's me medication ;)
Post 102 :confused:
Read it but it's cobblers.
walpurgis
27-03-2017, 17:08
Read it but it's cobblers.
True.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 17:08
Read it but it's cobblers.
LOL, you have such subtle tact ;)
LOL, you have such subtle tact ;)
That was me being tactful, you should have seen the post I did write but deleted. I will add it to my growing pile of nutty reasons people prefer vinyl, though. A published list will soon be available in the foyer.
LOL, you have such subtle tact ;)
Well, Martin's the caring sort... Did you not know he had a job with the Samaritans?
Unfortunately, he was sacked because he got a call from a man saying he was about to kill himself, by lying in front of an express train, due any minute.
And all he said to him was "stay on the line" !!!!! :D
Marco.
Haselsh1
27-03-2017, 17:27
Well, Martin's the caring sort... Did you not know he had a job with the Samaritans?
Unfortunately, he was sacked because he got a call from a man saying he was about to kill himself, by lying in front of an express train, due any minute.
And all he said to him was "stay on the line" !!!!! :D
Marco.
:lol: Brilliant...!
Don't worry folks they couldn't prove anything and had to let me walk.
Have to just say I am sat here now listening to AC/DC High Voltage on CD through a Sony XB930E QS UK SE that was £130 off of eBay and it is sounding superb. Yes I also have the vinyl LP. It's maybe a little more fun on the LP, a little less like listening to a recording and more like hearing them live. But I want it to sound like a recording of a band playing, not them playing live in my living room. I completely understand why some prefer the latter.
Don't worry folks they couldn't prove anything and had to let me walk.
Have to just say I am sat here now listening to AC/DC High Voltage on CD through a Sony XB930E QS UK SE that was £130 off of eBay and it is sounding superb. Yes I also have the vinyl LP. It's maybe a little more fun on the LP, a little less like listening to a recording and more like hearing them live. But I want it to sound like a recording of a band playing, not them playing live in my living room. I completely understand why some prefer the latter.
You want it to sound like a recording rather than playing live in you living room? I really don't understand where your coming from in that one. :scratch::rolleyes::eek:
You want it to sound like a recording rather than playing live in you living room? I really don't understand where your coming from in that one. :scratch::rolleyes::eek:
i do. I dont really want them playing live as most live performances are less than great(not all) I'd rather hear it as good as they can get it personally
You want it to sound like a recording rather than playing live in you living room? I really don't understand where your coming from in that one. :scratch::rolleyes::eek:
Simple, mate. It's a studio album, not a live album, so what you're listening to at home should reflect the studio sound. I suspect that's what Martin's getting at :)
Marco.
I haven't listened to a turntable for over 30 years and that one was a B&O jobbie that my step dad owned.
Simple, mate. It's a studio album, not a live album, so what you're listening to at home should reflect the studio sound. I suspect that's what Martin's getting at :)
Marco.
Comprendo. I certainly don't want to make studio recordings sound like live albums but I want to try and recreate a tangible prescence in my room where I feel the performers and get a connection with the instruments that make them sound as real as possible.
magiccarpetride
27-03-2017, 18:54
Don't worry folks they couldn't prove anything and had to let me walk.
Have to just say I am sat here now listening to AC/DC High Voltage on CD through a Sony XB930E QS UK SE that was £130 off of eBay and it is sounding superb. Yes I also have the vinyl LP. It's maybe a little more fun on the LP, a little less like listening to a recording and more like hearing them live. But I want it to sound like a recording of a band playing, not them playing live in my living room. I completely understand why some prefer the latter.
Shouldn't be surprising coming from a drunken moderator.
Simple, mate. It's a studio album, not a live album, so what you're listening to at home should reflect the studio sound. I suspect that's what Martin's getting at :)
Marco.
That's it exactly. Regardless of how the recording was made it is never going to be anything more than a recording. So it should sound like a recording - if it is a purist recording, say a band recorded playing live in a room, I want to hear them in that room, not my room.
magiccarpetride
27-03-2017, 18:58
In fact, there's the answer; why bother with vinyl when CD is so much cheaper and if there is no sonic difference in your system then indeed, what would be the point. A tenner versus twenty six quid....?
:eyebrows:
Hmm. Yesterday I came home with 21 LPs under my arm. I paid grand total of $15.00 for 21 LPs. How can you beat that price wise?
magiccarpetride
27-03-2017, 18:59
That's it exactly. Regardless of how the recording was made it is never going to be anything more than a recording. So it should sound like a recording - if it is a purist recording, say a band recorded playing live in a room, I want to hear them in that room, not my room.
I don't get this. Why discriminate like that? Why not just enjoy the realism that a good TT gives you? Who cares if it's live or studio or whatever?
I don't get this. Why discriminate like that? Why not just enjoy the realism that a good TT gives you? Who cares if it's live or studio or whatever?
Read post 122, he admits he is just too lazy to run a vinyl set up.:) I know quite a few people like that who prefer an iPad and run all their music remotely and then convince themselves digital sounds better just because they can't be arsed to set a turntable up correctly and turn an album over!:)
magiccarpetride
27-03-2017, 19:19
Read post 122, he admits he is just too lazy to run a vinyl set up.:) I know quite a few people like that who prefer an iPad and run all their music remotely and then convince themselves digital sounds better just because they can't be arsed to set a turntable up correctly and turn an album over!:)
Reminds me of people who could not be arsed to cook and prefer to shove crappy preprocessed packaged 'food' into microwave oven.
Lots of missing the point here, guys!
I don't get this. Why discriminate like that? Why not just enjoy the realism that a good TT gives you? Who cares if it's live or studio or whatever?
If your system successfully reproduces a studio album, so that it sounds like a studio album, I'd say that was "realism'... ;)
Marco.
magiccarpetride
27-03-2017, 19:24
Lots of missing the point here, guys!
If your system successfully reproduces a studio album, so that it sounds like a studio album, I'd say that was "realism'... ;)
Marco.
Fine. But my issue is that I have no idea how a studio album should sound like. I only go by how realistic the instruments/voices sound during the reproduction. I know how a guitar should sound, I know how drums should sound, so live or studio, that's what I'm hoping to hear when listening to a record.
Fine. But my issue is that I have no idea how a studio album should sound like...
Not like a live album, I guess! :D
Sorry, I'm being facetious.... Best get Martin to explain.
Marco.
magiccarpetride
27-03-2017, 19:49
Not like a live album, I guess! :D
Sorry, I'm being facetious.... Best get Martin to explain.
Marco.
To me, instruments are instruments. I know for a fact that even live recordings do get doctored to a certain degree in the studio, during the post-production stage. So the line is often blurred.
But a music lover knows what kind of sound to expect when a violin jumps in, live or not. And the more the music reproduction system can approach that special violin sound, the happier should the listener be. We should not waste our little grey cells thinking "oh shit, this studio album is awful, it sounds like a live recording!", or "crap, this live album sounds like a studio album. Something's wrong with my system!"
That's it exactly. Regardless of how the recording was made it is never going to be anything more than a recording. So it should sound like a recording - if it is a purist recording, say a band recorded playing live in a room, I want to hear them in that room, not my room.
Precisely!
Post 102 :confused:
Yes, I tried the hands 'cupping' the ears test for both vinyl replay and CD replay - and found the exact reverse. Regardless of source, the treble was accentuated and the mid and upper mid took on a nasal 'cuppy' quality (no surprise there) that rminded me of why I don't like horn loudspeakers.
For me it failed as a test to descriminate between vinyl and CD.
Firebottle
28-03-2017, 06:25
Same here, and indeed have being doing, as I've been posting here today. The steaming system has been constantly playing a variety of music since 9.30am, and still is now, as I'm typing! :)
Ah we've found your secret Marco .........
You're steam powered, that must be really retro.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3eSLgFB6YPM/U2Z569CqqlI/AAAAAAAABHY/XB77hP_tOtU/s1600/brassclose.jpg
:D
Precisely!
But they may not be in a room. Have any of you guys seen a recording studio or know how one works? They usually have people in separate booths all in headphones playing their individual parts which are then manipulated via a large mixing console. You are very rarely hearing a band playing in their room!
Haselsh1
28-03-2017, 07:03
Hmm. Yesterday I came home with 21 LPs under my arm. I paid grand total of $15.00 for 21 LPs. How can you beat that price wise?
Ah but are you comparing secondhand junk with brand new CD prices...? I was comparing like for like.
But they may not be in a room. Have any of you guys seen a recording studio or know how one works? They usually have people in separate booths all in headphones playing their individual parts which are then manipulated via a large mixing console. You are very rarely hearing a band playing in their room!
I did specifically state a 'purist' recording, just to save anyone having to make that point.
In any case all the studios I have been in did seem to comprise of rooms, I suppose there may be an outdoor studio somewhere (California?)but I doubt it. Even if you are making a typical multi-track recording you will still have a number of acoustic instruments, drums, vocal, piano, acoustic guitars, brass, woodwind, all of which will need to be recorded in a room whose acoustic you will hear on playback. Do you want the piano on Sympathy For The Devil to be in the acoustic it was recorded in or sound like it is in your living room? One is high fidelity, the other isn't.
Ah we've found your secret Marco .........
You're steam powered, that must be really retro.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3eSLgFB6YPM/U2Z569CqqlI/AAAAAAAABHY/XB77hP_tOtU/s1600/brassclose.jpg
:D
With me, it's more like fart gas! :lol:
Marco.
I did specifically state a 'purist' recording, just to save anyone having to make that point.
In any case all the studios I have been in did seem to comprise of rooms, I suppose there may be an outdoor studio somewhere (California?)but I doubt it. Even if you are making a typical multi-track recording you will still have a number of acoustic instruments, drums, vocal, piano, acoustic guitars, brass, woodwind, all of which will need to be recorded in a room whose acoustic you will hear on playback. Do you want the piano on Sympathy For The Devil to be in the acoustic it was recorded in or sound like it is in your living room? One is high fidelity, the other isn't.
But the acoustic it was recorded in may have been manipulated to sound different - reverb, acoustic effects, damping etc?
I want it *so* real I can smell the armpits of the technicians...
Marco.
Yes, loads of things could have been done to it, doesn't change my basic point which is that if it wasn't recorded in your living room then it shouldn't sound like it was.
I want it *so* real I can smell the armpits of the technicians...
Marco.
Real! I cant handle real! Just give me good sounding
Haselsh1
28-03-2017, 08:01
You only have to listen to George Michael's 'Jesus to a Child' and the swathes of digital reverb all over the damn vocals to realise you're probably not going to get 'realistic' these days.
I want it *so* real I can smell the armpits of the technicians...
Marco.
:lol:
You only have to listen to George Michael's 'Jesus to a Child' and the swathes of digital reverb all over the damn vocals to realise you're probably not going to get 'realistic' these days.
'Realistic' as regards to the performance doesn't matter to us. We are not recording artists or engineers. All we need to worry about as hi-fi enthusiasts is being faithful to the recording. If the recording has swathes of digital reverb then the system should reproduce the swathes of digital reverb.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 11:19
Wow - Macca's on a roll these last couple of days!! :yay: :lol:
Are we agreeing again, Jerry? It just isn't natural, is it?
All we need to worry about as hi-fi enthusiasts is being faithful to the recording. If the recording has swathes of digital reverb then the system should reproduce the swathes of digital reverb.
Wow - Macca's on a roll these last couple of days!! :yay: :lol:
Spot on. Yet you want to mangle it all with a graphic equaliser !!! :lol::lol::mental:
:ner:;)
Marco.
Haselsh1
28-03-2017, 12:27
Yet you want to mangle it all with a graphic equaliser !!! :lol::lol::mental:
:ner:;)
Marco.
LMFAO - Graphic Equaliser...! I thought they went out with the seventies ;)
Apparently not, chez-Jerry... Although stuff in his system changes so often, he may have 'recovered' now from suffering from that particular affliction ;)
Marco.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 12:30
No, I don't use a graphic equaliser.
I might be desperate enough to do so if I listened to Tannoise, though. :D
Haselsh1
28-03-2017, 12:32
You'll be telling us next that people still listen to prog rock :eyebrows:
No, I don't use a graphic equaliser.
I might be desperate enough to do so if I listened to Tannoise, though. :D
Haha... Ok, so what made you revise that particular, to be polite, 'error of judgement'? You seemed so adamant at the time using one was necessary to make things, erm, [insert irony smiley here] 'more real'! :eek: :eyebrows:
Do you remember the 'little chats' we had about it in the past? ;)
Marco.
Nowt wrong with a graphic. Plenty of legitimate uses for them. Say you have to put your speakers closer to the wall than is good for them, use the graphic to correct the lower frequencies. Okay maybe you should get speakers that work better against a wall but that isn't always possible or a cost-effective solution.
The downside is maybe a bit of extra noise, depending on how good or poor a unit it is. But then everything is a trade off.
The downside is maybe a bit of extra noise...
And also a WHOLE LOAD of distortion, as a result of introducing more cables and significantly complicating the signal path! Graphic equalisers are completely unnecessary in a properly sorted hi-fi system. Well-executed amplifier tone controls are sometimes ok, but that's it.
In any case, how can you on one hand, champion purist approaches, such as enthusiasts [your quote] "being faithful to the recording", and on the other, justify the use of something that will do *precisely the opposite*?? :D
Come on, daftee, behave!
Marco.
Some small signal correction to account for room/speaker deficiencies is actually taking you closer to the recording - albeit with some trade off. I'm not talking about setting it in smiley face config to get some boom n tizz going.
Would you say using digital room correction was not purist? Or is that more purist than someone who does not use it and therefore has room effects tainting the bass response?
I have an equaliser but I don't use it on the main system, or DSP, since I don't think it needs it. If I thought it did then I would use it and would not consider it to be a move away from hi-fidelity. Same goes for tone controls.
Some small signal correction to account for room/speaker deficiencies is actually taking you closer to the recording - albeit with some trade off. I'm not talking about setting it in smiley face config to get some boom n tizz going.
FFS, it doesn't matter how small the adjustments are!! :doh:
Even if you defeat the controls, regardless, the signal is still passing through a whole load of unnecessary internal components (most likely of poor quality, plus the extra cables needed to make it work), and with it grossly distorting the music signal, which you claim to want to faithfully preserve!
And *that* is completely at odds with following the purist approach you were championing earlier. There is no disputing that fact. End of.
Marco.
The problem with graphic equalisers, especially those having many narrow-bandwith adjustments, each with a steep roll-off characteristic (18 or 24dB/octave), is the mess they make of the overall phase response. I would only consider using one as a last resort.
FFS, it doesn't matter how small the adjustments are!! :doh:
Even if you defeat the controls, regardless, the signal is still passing through a whole load of unnecessary internal components (most likely of poor quality, and including extra cables), and with it grossly distorting the music signal, which you claim to want to faithfully preserve!
And that is completely at odds with following the purist approach you were championing earlier. End of.
Marco.
No it isn't and I've explained why. Okay if the equalizer is crap and introduces loads of distortion then I agree but that depends on the equalizer. If they were all as distorted as you say how bad would studio recordings be since they will go through a shitload of them in there?
Agree with Barry it would be a last resort, why add anything that you don't need to?
Exactly - and even then it's questionable.
Graphic equalisers, quite simply, have no place in a well-sorted high-end hi-fi system. And anyone who thinks differently, certainly isn't someone who wants to hear recordings that qualify as faithful representations of the sound that left the studio.
Marco.
RobbieGong
28-03-2017, 13:22
Exactly - and even then it's questionable.
Graphic equalisers, quite simply, have no place in a well-sorted high-end hi-fi system. And anyone who thinks differently, certainly isn't someone who wants to hear recordings that qualify as faithful representations of the sound that left the studio.
Marco.
Agreed - been there done that :)
No it isn't and I've explained why.
Yes, but you're talking shite!! :lol:
Okay if the equalizer is crap and introduces loads of distortion then I agree but that depends on the equalizer.
The fact is, they ALL do it, to varying degrees, by very nature of their design.
If they were all as distorted as you say how bad would studio recordings be since they will go through a shitload of them in there?
Yes, but that's when it's still part of the the recording process. It's not up to us (as supposed hi-fi enthusiasts, keen to faithfully reproduce what's there and nothing more) to 'equalise' the sound again at our end... Certainly not if you consider yourself as a 'purist'!!!! :rolleyes:
You need to learn to admit when you're just plain wrong, Martin, instead of impossibly defending a factually wrong position, for the sake of arguing and not wanting to 'lose face', as it's a very bad habit of yours, and beginning to creep into many discussions you're involved in.
Others have noticed it too, trust me, and mate, it's not an endearing trait, neither is pigheaded obstinance.....
Marco.
Ive got a whack of tone controls now :ner:
Well-designed tone controls, hard-wired into the circuit of an existing quality amplifier, are a different thing from employing the use of an external graphic EQ.
Marco.
Tone controls can be useful, but only if they are used judiciously (producing no more than 1 - 2dB lift or cut over a wide frequency band). I always thought the 'Tilt' control of the Quad 44 and later preamps was a useful feature. With a particular 'thick - sounding' record (Shirley Collins 'For the Roses'), a 1dB upward tilt of the response, swinging around 1kHz, helped. But it not a panacea, nor is the use of a graphic equaliser.
These days the gear I use is devoid of any tone controls, and I don't miss them.
Mine has loads. Seem as you say to work ok with a single notch turn well on occasion
jandl100
28-03-2017, 13:54
Haha... Ok, so what made you revise that particular, to be polite, 'error of judgement'? You seemed so adamant at the time using one was necessary to make things, erm, [insert irony smiley here] 'more real'! :eek: :eyebrows:
Do you remember the 'little chats' we had about it in the past? ;)
Marco.
Yes, of course I remember!
And no, not an error of judgement by me.
Just a failure to comprehend on your part. :lol:
Whole long running AOS threads were devoted to it.
Pointless to go over that ground again as to whether the recording process is sacrosanct or if the music is more important.
We will just have to agree to disagree - ne'er the twain shall meet.
EDIT!
-- Ooo, I've just seen a whole bundle of posts since my last one (I've been out cycling on this lovely spring day)
Ne'er the twain shall meet!¬!!!
But they may not be in a room. Have any of you guys seen a recording studio or know how one works? They usually have people in separate booths all in headphones playing their individual parts which are then manipulated via a large mixing console. You are very rarely hearing a band playing in their room!
I don't want the Berlin Philharmonic sounding as though they are all squeezed into my listening room!
Yes, but you're talking shite!! :lol:
The fact is, they ALL do it, to varying degrees, by very nature of their design.
Yes, but that's when it's still part of the the recording process. It's not up to us (as supposed hi-fi enthusiasts, keen to faithfully reproduce what's there and nothing more) to 'equalise' the sound again at our end... Certainly not if you consider yourself as a 'purist'!!!! :rolleyes:
You need to learn to admit when you're just plain wrong, Martin, instead of impossibly defending a factually wrong position, for the sake of arguing and not wanting to 'lose face', as it's a very bad habit of yours. It's beginning to creep into many discussions you're involved in.
Others have noticed it too, trust me, and mate, it's not an endearing trait.....
Marco.
It isn't a wrong or right situation it is a matter of opinion. And I give shit who is 'endeared' to me or not. Anyone who is a bit pissed off that I have shot their argument down can fuck off and grow up a bit as far as I am concerned.
I don't want the Berlin Philharmonic sounding as though they are all squeezed into my listening room!
Not sure what your getting at there Barry?
It isn't a wrong or right situation it is a matter of opinion.
In this instance, I'm afraid it isn't. Anyone who claims to champion a purist approach of faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio, cannot sensibly simultaneously advocate using a graphic equaliser, which tailors the sound, thus achieves precisely the opposite.
That's a fact, I'm afraid, whether you like it or not, and so continuing to deny it just makes you look silly.
Marco.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 15:01
In this instance, I'm afraid it isn't. Anyone who claims to champion a purist approach of faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio, cannot sensibly simultaneously advocate using a graphic equaliser, which tailors the sound, thus achieves precisely the opposite.
That's a fact, I'm afraid, whether you like it or not, and so continuing to deny it just makes you look silly.
Marco.
Ah, but therein lies your error.
To paraphrase your statement ... "faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio" ... I would amend to "faithfully reproducing the sound that was heard in the studio"
Most recordings, especially more modern ones, are pretty damn good. They don't need fooling around with.
(Remember here, that as a classical listener I have an "Abso!ute Sound" to compare with - that's where they got the name of the mag from, right!).
But many older / non-western recordings that capture fantastic performances are a right dogs dinner tonally - muffled, screechy, both.
A bit of equalising can turn an unlistenable mess into an acceptably listenable experience, which is actually much closer to the sound you would have heard in the concert hall.
That's it. Simple enough. And well worth doing, imo.
But they may not be in a room. Have any of you guys seen a recording studio or know how one works? They usually have people in separate booths all in headphones playing their individual parts which are then manipulated via a large mixing console. You are very rarely hearing a band playing in their room!
If I am listen to a recording of, say, the Berlin Philharmonic I want to hear the venue in which it was recorded, regardless of if that is a recording studio or a concert hall. I certainly don't want it to sound as though they are all squeezed into my listening room.
It was the late Peter Walker of Quad who said that "somewhere around and beyond the plane of your speakers, the walls of your listening room should 'disappear' and effectively be replaced by those of the recording venue."
That is what I meant by "precisely": I don't want things to sound as if the performers are playing in my room. I want to be transported to the venue where the recording was made and hear them there.
Ah, but therein lies your error.
To paraphrase your statement ... "faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio" ... I would amend to "faithfully reproducing the sound that was heard in the studio"
Fair enough, Jerry, but we're arguing over semantics. You know full well the point I'm making.
A bit of equalising can turn an unlistenable mess into an acceptably listenable experience, which is actually much closer to the sound you would have heard in the concert hall.
That's it. Simple enough. And well worth doing, imo.
That's all fair enough, and I have no argument about that, if that's what you want to do and consider improves matters and your enjoyment of the music.
However, you cannot, on one hand, champion faithfulness to the recording, and on the other, advocate the use of a graphic equaliser, which fundamentally changes it. It's as simple as that.
It's a total dichotomy, and the person guilty of stating it should have the gumption to admit that.
Marco.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 15:44
Fair enough, Jerry, but we're arguing over semantics. You know full well the point I'm making.
That's all fair enough, and I have no argument about that, if that's what you want to do and consider improves matters and your enjoyment of the music.
However, you cannot, on one hand, champion faithfulness to the recording, and on the other, advocate the use of a graphic equaliser, which fundamentally changes it. It's as simple as that.
It's a total dichotomy, and the person guilty of that should have the gumption to admit it.
Marco.
Errr... but I think I have made it quite plain that I don't "champion faithfulness to the recording" - my loyalty is to the music and the musicians, not the recording engineers and the processes they used.
As I said, though, most recordings are good enough and are best left untampered with. But some recordings simply do not do any sort of justice to the recorded event.
I am not, though, advocating changing the recordings themselves - I agree they should remain sacrosanct - but once input into your audio system I think the worst "recording culprits" are fair game to be made more listenable and accurate.
Lol... Other than the issue of semantics, I wasn't referring to you!!
Marco.
I want to be transported to the venue where the recording was made and hear them there.
Could be an expensive taxi fare! :D
Marco.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 16:06
Lol... Other than the issue of semantics, I wasn't referring to you!!
Marco.
Ah, damn, I thought I had you there. :eyebrows:
Perhaps weirdly I prefer CD to vinyl. I do think it is much easier to get a non-fatiguing sound from LP, warts and all, but when you get digital right, it wins for me. Lower noise, better channel separation, more dynamic range, better slam and bass, but as mentioned difficult to get the beguiling dynamic contrast, 3D soundstage, and natural midrange / top end / harmonics of a good record player.
...the bigger issue IMHO is down to mastering, especially digital remasters. They often sound far too "hot" and fizzy (compressed) on CD, which gives the LP an unfair advantage.
Ah, damn, I thought I had you there. :eyebrows:
Haha - been way too long arguing on forums to get caught out like that! ;)
Marco.
magiccarpetride
28-03-2017, 16:43
Perhaps weirdly I prefer CD to vinyl. I do think it is much easier to get a non-fatiguing sound from LP, warts and all, but when you get digital right, it wins for me. Lower noise, better channel separation, more dynamic range, better slam and bass, but as mentioned difficult to get the beguiling dynamic contrast, 3D soundstage, and natural midrange / top end / harmonics of a good record player.
...the bigger issue IMHO is down to mastering, especially digital remasters. They often sound far too "hot" and fizzy (compressed) on CD, which gives the LP an unfair advantage.
Here is an interesting 'experiment' in which a select group of testers were subjected to the blindfold test to ascertain which digital format is preferred -- lossless or lossy. Surprisingly, lossy format won:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html
Of the material I have in both formats, which sounds best depends on the mastering I think. Both can sound fantastic, but in general a high quality vinyl replay system costs more than a similar quality cd replay system. However,a Lenco L70 I recently bought for chf70 and threw a dl-110 into is challenging even this statement currently :)
Vinyl is technically worse. Therefore it sounds better.
Just taking the piss a bit.
However, there is a mass of truth in that piss taking statement.
Sound quality isn't related to technical prowess in all circumstances by any means. Some tracks love complementary distortion. Only problem is the same distortion traits won't work across the board.
I don't use technically accurate digital because I like messing around with distortion injection via valve rolling.
Choose your poison based on what you have learned to like.
Vinyl is technically worse. Therefore it sounds better.
Just taking the piss a bit.
However, there is a mass of truth in that piss taking statement.
Sound quality isn't related to technical prowess in all circumstances by any means. Some tracks love complementary distortion. Only problem is the same distortion traits won't work across the board.
I don't use technically accurate digital because I like messing around with distortion injection via valve rolling.
Choose your poison based on what you have learned to like.
In fact, choose your distortion. I like the distortion inherent in valves and vinyl even though I know they are technically wrong. Music played through this medium stimulates my soul and heart and my brain forgets everything else.
When I listen to digital in its purest form I find it stimulates my brain but leaves my soul cold.
We live in a distorted world and we somehow feel more comfortable with this than cold clinical technically perfect digital.
I would rather wonder through the magic mushroom forest of valve induced euphoria rather than the cold steel city of digital perfection.
I better stop taking this stuff.....:lol:
Fuck off Jim how much is it and can you get me some?
Just winding up the politicians you understand:)
Fuck off Jim how much is it and can you get me some?
Just winding up the politicians you understand:)
:lol:
magiccarpetride
28-03-2017, 19:37
We live in a distorted world and we somehow feel more comfortable with this than cold clinical technically perfect digital.
Interesting. I'm curious to know what makes you think that we live in a distorted world? Also, whose definition are we talking about when mentioning "cold clinical technically perfect digital"?
To me, nature cannot be distorted. I see nature not making any mistakes. Sound originates in nature, and thus it cannot be distorted. I know this is a philosophical statement, but nevertheless I think it is only human interpretation (engineering interpretation) that proclaims something to be distorted and something else to be 'clinical technically perfect'.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 19:40
To me, nature cannot be distorted. I see nature not making any mistakes.
Evolution and natural selection are driven by a never-ending series of mistakes. That's what makes the natural living world actually work.
Evolution and natural selection are driven by a never-ending series of mistakes. That's what makes the natural living world actually work.
"a never-ending series of mistakes" should read "a never-ending series of minor adaptations, or changes". If the changes were in fact 'mistakes' they would be of no advantage to the survival of those that bore them, and they would die out.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 20:09
Mistakes in the copying of DNA are what drives evolution.
The failures are just as important as the successes. They are what breed success.
Mistakes in the copying of DNA is what drives evolution.
The failures, or mistakes, are just as important as the successes. It is what breeds success.
Fair enough. (You mean DNA doesn't have error correction? :lol:)
magiccarpetride
28-03-2017, 20:14
Evolution and natural selection are driven by a never-ending series of mistakes. That's what makes the natural living world actually work.
I think the concept of evolutionary mistakes is an imputation. This imputation is coming from a very limited viewpoint.
I have yet to witness nature make even the slightest mistake. But that's just me.
jandl100
28-03-2017, 20:18
I think the concept of evolutionary mistakes is an imputation. This imputation is coming from a very limited viewpoint.
I have yet to witness nature make even the slightest mistake. But that's just me.
Yes, I can see that viewpoint as well.
Whilst the DNA copying is sometimes 'wrong', it is that wrongness that actually allows species to survive in a changing world - so in a way they are not mistakes at all!
walpurgis
28-03-2017, 20:24
I have yet to witness nature make even the slightest mistake. But that's just me.
Some might argue that the presence of human life shows that nature definitely does make mistakes!!
Indeed - and some of the vermin in existence that sadly are allowed to breed! ;)
Marco.
Interesting. I'm curious to know what makes you think that we live in a distorted world? Also, whose definition are we talking about when mentioning "cold clinical technically perfect digital"?
To me, nature cannot be distorted. I see nature not making any mistakes. Sound originates in nature, and thus it cannot be distorted. I know this is a philosophical statement, but nevertheless I think it is only human interpretation (engineering interpretation) that proclaims something to be distorted and something else to be 'clinical technically perfect'.
Think you would have to start another post to cover distortion in nature. Moving away a bit from your LP vs CD playback post me thinks?:)
magiccarpetride
28-03-2017, 20:41
Think you would have to start another post to cover distortion in nature. Moving away a bit from your LP vs CD playback post me thinks?:)
Yes, you're right. If we all agree here, for a moment, that analogue is natural, and digital is merely contrived by human mind, then digital could be labeled, for a brief New York minute, as 'distorted'.
Stratmangler
28-03-2017, 20:45
Yes, you're right. If we all agree here, for a moment, that analogue is natural, and digital is merely contrived by human mind, then digital could be labeled, for a brief New York minute, as 'distorted'.
Analogue is indeed natural, just so long as you're not referring to recording.
Any form of recording is contrived by the human mind, and therefore distorted.
magiccarpetride
28-03-2017, 21:01
Analogue is indeed natural, just so long as you're not referring to recording.
Any form of recording is contrived by the human mind, and therefore distorted.
Are you sure? Fossils have been recorded by the forces of mother nature in the absence of human mind (as far as we know). Are you saying fossils are distorted?
Stratmangler
28-03-2017, 21:10
Are you sure? Fossils have been recorded by the forces of mother nature in the absence of human mind (as far as we know). Are you saying fossils are distorted?
Insert the word "audio" before the word "recording" in both sentences.
Are you sure? Fossils have been recorded by the forces of mother nature in the absence of human mind (as far as we know). Are you saying fossils are distorted?
good mushrooms you have. No, really !
magiccarpetride
28-03-2017, 22:11
good mushrooms you have. No, really !
No, wrong slang.
walpurgis
28-03-2017, 22:15
Far out!! :guitar:
In this instance, I'm afraid it isn't. Anyone who claims to champion a purist approach of faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio, cannot sensibly simultaneously advocate using a graphic equaliser, which tailors the sound, thus achieves precisely the opposite.
That's a fact, I'm afraid, whether you like it or not, and so continuing to deny it just makes you look silly.
Marco.
What was the quote from Nietzsche you recently had as your signature? Ah, yes: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
And the long list of equipment that follows your signature might lead some to wonder to what extent your own 'purist' ideas are borne out by your choice of kit!
Joe, my previous signature isn't relevant here, as its message only applies where there exists a degree of ambiguity, and in the example I've given, there is none. When black is black, it's black, and when white is white, it's white.
As far as my 'long list of equipment' goes, I've no idea what relevance that has to your comment. It's simply (for reference purposes) a detailed list of everything I've got that *sometimes* is in use - it's not all used at once!
More importantly, your penchant for popping up now and then, simply to have a dig, is becoming a little wearing, so give it a rest.
Marco.
Perhaps weirdly I prefer CD to vinyl. I do think it is much easier to get a non-fatiguing sound from LP, warts and all, but when you get digital right, it wins for me.
...the bigger issue IMHO is down to mastering, especially digital remasters. They often sound far too "hot" and fizzy (compressed) on CD, which gives the LP an unfair advantage.
The issue with CD is the fact the master has to be rendered and dithered to 16 bits. All DAW's work at 32 bits internally and most audio at 24 bit. When this 24 bit master is put on LP it translates well since it does not need bit reduction and it seems to keep its open richer sound. Only issue with LP is running time. The album needs to be 45 mins max. CD holds more audio but the 24 bit has to be dithered and then it can sound restrained and lacking dynamics. Also using compressors to make it 'hot' does not help re the loudness wars. Louder with compressors always sounds better at first until you hear all the dynamics have been squashed but 99% of people dont care about that on their smart phone ear buds.
anthonyTD
29-03-2017, 09:55
Good post David.
A...
The issue with CD is the fact the master has to be rendered and dithered to 16 bits. All DAW's work at 32 bits internally and most audio at 24 bit. When this 24 bit master is put on LP it translates well since it does not need bit reduction and it seems to keep its open richer sound. Only issue with LP is running time. The album needs to be 45 mins max. CD holds more audio but the 24 bit has to be dithered and then it can sound restrained and lacking dynamics. Also using compressors to make it 'hot' does not re the loudness wars. Louder with compressors always sounds better at first until you hear all the dynamics have been squashed but 99% of people dont care about that on their smart phone ear buds.
Haselsh1
29-03-2017, 09:57
Interesting. I'm curious to know what makes you think that we live in a distorted world? Also, whose definition are we talking about when mentioning "cold clinical technically perfect digital"?
To me, nature cannot be distorted. I see nature not making any mistakes. Sound originates in nature, and thus it cannot be distorted. I know this is a philosophical statement, but nevertheless I think it is only human interpretation (engineering interpretation) that proclaims something to be distorted and something else to be 'clinical technically perfect'.
Nature constantly makes mistakes, that's why we have evolution, to weed out the errors.
Haselsh1
29-03-2017, 09:58
Evolution and natural selection are driven by a never-ending series of mistakes. That's what makes the natural living world actually work.
OK, I posted before I saw this excellent response.
Haselsh1
29-03-2017, 09:59
Fair enough. (You mean DNA doesn't have error correction? :lol:)
It is the error correction system that results in the fatal errors.
Haselsh1
29-03-2017, 10:01
Yes, you're right. If we all agree here, for a moment, that analogue is natural, and digital is merely contrived by human mind, then digital could be labeled, for a brief New York minute, as 'distorted'.
Digital was not contrived by human mind it was discovered by human mind, it already existed.
Nature constantly makes mistakes...
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.
Haselsh1
29-03-2017, 10:04
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.
:eyebrows:
Good post David.
Indeed. David (hi, mate :wave:) is one of the 'brightest lights' I've met in the field of audio - and I truly mean that, with soldering skills that are second to none. The boy knows his stuff!
Marco.
The issue with CD is the fact the master has to be rendered and dithered to 16 bits. All DAW's work at 32 bits internally and most audio at 24 bit. When this 24 bit master is put on LP it translates well since it does not need bit reduction and it seems to keep its open richer sound. Only issue with LP is running time. The album needs to be 45 mins max. CD holds more audio but the 24 bit has to be dithered and then it can sound restrained and lacking dynamics. Also using compressors to make it 'hot' does not re the loudness wars. Louder with compressors always sounds better at first until you hear all the dynamics have been squashed but 99% of people dont care about that on their smart phone ear buds.
And there you have it .... there are no absolutes with either format .... it's a bit of a lottery as to what has happened to the data you buy on your disc. With the the very best replay systems, some vinyl and CD recordings may approach a realistic portrayel of what was played on the day, but for the most part, the 'decision stream' made by producers, mixers, mastering bods, etc, and the enforced limitations of compromised media (such as CDs, vinyl, broadcasts, tape) leave any pretence at 'realism' in the realms of fantasy. TBH, I'm always impressed we get as close as we do with vinyl and CDs. If I was starting again today, I'd probably be downloading something like 24 bit/96KHz files (or better) as my media of choice. If nothing else, that'd certainly free up a load of space in the house :lol:
It is the error correction system that results in the fatal errors.
It was a joke Shaun. I didn't know replication of DNA had any error correction mechanism. As Jerry pointed out, it is copying errors in the replication of DNA which lead to mutation, which may or may not be beneficial to the bearer.
My misunderstanding was not to see Jerry's use of "mistake" as being synonymous with "error".
I'm always impressed we get as close as we do with vinyl and CDs. If I was starting again today, I'd probably be downloading something like 24 bit/96KHz files (or better) as my media of choice. If nothing else, that'd certainly free up a load of space in the house :lol:
My feelings as well. Especially sympathetic to your last sentence.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
deaf indeed. I have read a few articles that supplying 24 bit versions of an album is a waste but why does it sound better to my ears. It sounds less constrained, almost like some shackles have been removed. I think this is why LP format is still around, its faults are more forgiving to our ears than 16 bit issues.
deaf indeed. I have read a few articles that supplying 24 bit versions of an album is a waste but why does it sound better to my ears. It sounds less constrained, almost like some shackles have been removed. I think this is why LP format is still around, its faults are more forgiving to our ears than 16 bit issues.
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.
Lets put it this way 24 bit Hi Rez does not necessary mean you are getting anything better at all!
Indeed.. *But* when it's been done right and the mastering is also good, the results are clearly better (on a suitably revealing digital source and system), than when simply the mastering alone is good on 16-bit recordings.
*That*, mate, is the difference! :)
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.
Easy. Firstly, how recordings are mastered makes a HUGE difference, regardless of the bit rate, so much so that any well-mastered lower-bit rate recording will almost certainly sound better than a poorly-masted higher-bit rate one.
Secondly, where both are equal, 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.
Marco.
A 24 bit version can reveal more issues and problems in a recording or mix, pre-mastering, were-as 16 bit hides them. There are so many variables at work there is no black and white answer. Just play on the format you like the feel of or the one you prefer the sound of I guess and have done with it.
Indeed.. *But* when it's been done right and the mastering is also good, the results are clearly better (on a suitably revealing digital source and system), than when simply the mastering alone is good on 16-bit recordings.
*That*, mate, is the difference! :)
Easy. Firstly, how recordings are mastered makes a HUGE difference, regardless of the bit rate, so much so that any well-mastered lower-bit recording will almost certainly sound better than a poorly-masted higher-bit one.
Secondly, where both are equal, a vinyl version of the same will generally 'iron out' any digital nasties, resulting as a by-product of aspects of the digital recording process [I'm referring here to 'DDA' recordings, to use old parlance], which our ears are very sensitive to, whilst preserving most other aspects of fidelity.
Marco.
I understand completely about *mastering* Marco and that is the whole issue regarding digital formats. I assumed most people would take that into consideration on this forum as we have talked about this before many times.
What I am trying to point out from my experience is that 24bit recordings are not necessarily great, better and an automatic improvement in Hi Rez recordings. I was answering a general suggestion that 24 bit recordings just sounded better when quite often they obviously do not.
I was answering a general suggestion that 24 bit recordings just sounded better when quite often they obviously do not.
That's fine, and I appreciate that. However, you also made some points and said afterwards: "make of that what you will", so I did! ;)
Marco.
That's fine, and I appreciate that. However, you also made some points and said afterwards: "make of that what you will", so I did! ;)
Marco.
you absolutely right and I do agree with all your points. We are on the same page!:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.