Dynamic range of vinyl recordings

[magiccarpetride]

I've been doing a little bit of comparative listening between my digital tracks and the same tracks on vinyl. Overall, my layman conclusion is that digital on my system sounds noticeably more 'polite', for the lack of a better word. When I analyzed more closely what could be causing that 'politeness', I've concluded that it's pretty much down to dynamics. Simply put, my turntable playback appears to be giving more dynamic range to my ears compared to my digital playback. Hence many of my LPs sound more pushy, more aggressive.

Now, that doesn't make any sense, because from what I understand, one of the most severe limitations of vinyl playback is exactly the dynamic range!

Anyone else noticed this discrepancy between what the specs say and what the ears hear?

[Haselsh1]

Oh yes Alex I sure have. I'm going to use Roger Waters' album 'Amused to Death' as an example here. The recent reissue was available on compact disc and vinyl and my partner Sue and I bought both. There is a rather classic explosion on this album that when played on vinyl sort of hits with some serious and worrying impact through the loudspeakers whereas the same thing on compact disc is quite flat and restricted. Of course it could be the case that on compact disc the sound has been compressed compared to the vinyl but I have no knowledge of that being the case. Another example is 'Moroccan Roll' by Brand X. Stunning album that is absolutely staggering on vinyl but quite poor on compact disc. Again this version is quite flat and drab sounding.

[Jimbo]

Technically CD and digital files have a greater dynamic range than vinyl but sadly this is often not translated in the mastering and therefore vinyl does often sound more dynamic. Again this is dependant on how well the vinyl was mastered but in my experience it usually betters CD.

[Macca]

The thing about digital recordings with a large dynamic range is that you have to turn the volume up. They are designed to be listened to with bit of welly. And I mean turn it up to where the peaks are actually frightening in scale and power. Not always possible in a domestic situation hence the 'polite' sound. Brand X recordings have a good dynamic range on digital and although I don't have any Roger Waters I suspect the same is true of his recordings. System has to be able to deliver it without the amp clipping or the speakers straining though, otherwise it will just sound 'loud' and unpleasant.

The vinyl versions are likely more compressed, especially in the bass, but this will give punch at lower volumes in the same way that a loudness button does.

[JohnMcC]

I've been thinking about this for a couple of years and I have to agree. Objectively I'm prepared to believe CDs have a greater dynamic range, but subjectively in my system (by no means top end) vinyl has it nearly every time - especially old analogue recordings. The worst dynamic range, I'm sad to say, is on many BBC Radio3 live broadcasts. I'm not sure this was always the case on R3, but now, very often as you wait for some great orchestral crescendo, you get the aural equivalent of premature ejaculation! :scratch:

[Macca]

I've been thinking about this for a couple of years and I have to agree. Objectively I'm prepared to believe CDs have a greater dynamic range,:

The technology is capable of it, the recordings placed on it are often not mastered to take advantage of it. The reasons being:

Recording companies know that people listen a lot on portables or in cars where, with a recording that has high dynamic range, the background noise will drown out quiet passages unless you ramp up the volume; and if you ramp up the volume to hear the quiet bits over the background noise the peaks will take your head off.

Recording companies also know that a lot of music is listened to through cheap radios or televisions that do not have sufficient clean amplifier power or capable enough speakers to do the peaks properly with a highly dynamic recording. In other words, they will distort badly.

So they use a lot of overall compression and master for 'punch' rather than fidelity.

Even if you have good equipment the design of many active pre-amplifiers is such that they will be at full output a third around the volume dial. With a source like a DAC or CD player that has a high output voltage compared to the typical phono stage this means you get a choice between a sound too quiet to do the recording justice or too loud to be comfortable, and nowhere to go that is in-between the two.

[magiccarpetride]

The technology is capable of it, the recordings placed on it are often not mastered to take advantage of it. The reasons being:

Recording companies know that people listen a lot on portables or in cars where, with a recording that has high dynamic range, the background noise will drown out quiet passages unless you ramp up the volume; and if you ramp up the volume to hear the quiet bits over the background noise the peaks will take your head off.

Recording companies also know that a lot of music is listened to through cheap radios or televisions that do not have sufficient clean amplifier power or capable enough speakers to do the peaks properly with a highly dynamic recording. In other words, they will distort badly.

So they use a lot of overall compression and master for 'punch' rather than fidelity.

Even if you have good equipment the design of many active pre-amplifiers is such that they will be at full output a third around the volume dial. With a source like a DAC or CD player that has a high output voltage compared to the typical phono stage this means you get a choice between a sound too quiet to do the recording justice or too loud to be comfortable, and nowhere to go that is in-between the two.

Excellent explanation, thanks Martin :)

[magiccarpetride]

I've been thinking about this for a couple of years and I have to agree. Objectively I'm prepared to believe CDs have a greater dynamic range, but subjectively in my system (by no means top end) vinyl has it nearly every time - especially old analogue recordings. The worst dynamic range, I'm sad to say, is on many BBC Radio3 live broadcasts. I'm not sure this was always the case on R3, but now, very often as you wait for some great orchestral crescendo, you get the aural equivalent of premature ejaculation! :scratch:

Haha!

[Haselsh1]

Yes indeed I have noticed on the recent reissue of ELP's Brain Salad Surgery where you have to keep the volume low for the loud bits however the quiet bits are then too quiet. A bit of a bugger really which shows that the older recordings are much better all round.

[willbewill]

My belief is that it is to do with the way vinyl masters are cut to disc, and the effects of RIAA compensation.

[curry49]

I've been doing a little bit of comparative listening between my digital tracks and the same tracks on vinyl….. Simply put, my turntable playback appears to be giving more dynamic range to my ears compared to my digital playback. Hence many of my LPs sound more pushy, more aggressive.
Now, that doesn't make any sense, because from what I understand, one of the most severe limitations of vinyl playback is exactly the dynamic range!
Anyone else noticed this discrepancy between what the specs say and what the ears hear?

Great question!!! Great topic!!!


The technology is capable of it, the recordings placed on it are often not mastered to take advantage of it. The reasons being:

Recording companies know that people listen a lot on portables or in cars where, with a recording that has high dynamic range, the background noise will drown out quiet passages unless you ramp up the volume; and if you ramp up the volume to hear the quiet bits over the background noise the peaks will take your head off.

Recording companies also know that a lot of music is listened to through cheap radios or televisions that do not have sufficient clean amplifier power or capable enough speakers to do the peaks properly with a highly dynamic recording. In other words, they will distort badly.

So they use a lot of overall compression and master for 'punch' rather than fidelity.


Great explanation there, and those factors certainly do come into play.

However, the root cause is more sinister. Also, the practice of seeking to produce the loudest recordings started long ago from the days when recording companies sought to have the loudest recordings in jukeboxes and on radio-stations. And this was with vinyl, decades before the advent of digital audio. Nevertheless, there was only so much that they could do in that regard with vinyl. But digital now affords the opportunity to take this practice to ridiculous extremes.

The following in italics is from a piece written elsewhere - actually from the book below in my signature (just google the title).

The main problem for pop-music CDs, especially, is one of abuse, where engineers compress the music and limit dynamic range in order to produce the loudest music to gain an advantage in grabbing listeners’ attention over the competition. The practice has been common-place in the production of popular music for decades. It’s called; “The Loudness Wars” – and it’s killing the music. That’s one of the main issues holding back the digital format today, in the opinion of many in the know.

Analogue media (such as vinyl and tape) remain largely immune to such extreme abuse, ironically because of their more severe limitations in the recording process. These limitations require more moderate recording levels and thus prevent them from similar levels of abuse and, therefore, ensure better quality recordings with more dynamic-range than what obtains with the more severely abused digital versions.

[Haselsh1]

I always found Pink Floyd's DSOTM album to be a classic case of over the top compression. The track 'Money' is so obviously ruined when Gilmour's solo comes in on a big crescendo but nothing actually gets any louder. No matter what system I have heard this on, the studio compression completely buggers it up. The SACD remix/remaster is just the same. Nothing on this album actually gets any louder, the whole sound is just squeezed into a cacophony of compression. OK so it is a 1973 recording. Excuse..? I'll accept it as such.

[Macca]

I always found Pink Floyd's DSOTM album to be a classic case of over the top compression. The track 'Money' is so obviously ruined when Gilmour's solo comes in on a big crescendo but nothing actually gets any louder. No matter what system I have heard this on, the studio compression completely buggers it up. The SACD remix/remaster is just the same. Nothing on this album actually gets any louder, the whole sound is just squeezed into a cacophony of compression. OK so it is a 1973 recording. Excuse..? I'll accept it as such.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=pink+floyd&album=dark+side+of+the+moon

Unless you count the blu ray quad mix average DR is between 9 and 11. Ignore the vinyl ones as they're pretty much meaningless. Best standard version is the original cd release with an 11 (no surprise). I have the 2003 remaster which scores a 9. :( Still better than the cassette version it replaced though.


So looks like there are no versions with a high dynamic range.

[curry49]

I bumped into used vinyl record (Paul McCartney "Band on the Run") at a yard sale yesterday. The LP was in pretty bad shape, didn't even have inner sleeve, but I got it for one dollar. I then remembered that few years back I bought the "Uncompressed Audiophile 96kHz/24bit" hi-res download of the remastered album (http://www.hdtracks.com/band-on-the-run-hi-res-digital-download-uncompressed), so I decided to compare the LP with the hi-res remaster.
I was sure that the hi-res remaster is going to destroy the old vinyl (I had strong expectation bias). I was stunned when I played both formats side-by-side to hear how LP sounded much, much better than digital remaster. Especially knowing that the LP is old, abused, warped, not in the best overall shape.
Previously I wasn't surprised when I was comparing CDs to LPs and when I heard that vinyl beats the red book format. But I always thought that hi-res digital must have an upper hand compared to vinyl. Listening to both formats on "Band on the Run", I couldn't help but conclude that remastered hi-res digital sounds like a joke compared to the old school vinyl. I'm still in the state of disbelief...
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?51396-Comparing-vinyl-sound-to-hi-res-digital-remaster
Thread entitled: Comparing vinyl sound to hi-res digital remaster

The above is from a similar thread to this one, started by the same OP, with one respondent jokingly calling into question the quality of the OP’s digital gear. Several posters faulted the remasterig process. Another suggested that analogue guys usually use expensive TTs ($5k and above) to compare with less costly digital gear ($1k) with the implication being that this may be the cause of the disparity in quality. Also, in both threads, we seem to focus on individual digital recordings with a view to indentifying the really bad ones as against the ones that aren’t as bad (though mostly still not as good as they could be).

But I wonder if, by focusing on such things, whether we’re not missing the forest for the trees.

One poster in that other thread made the point that master-tape dups ripped to digital media on his modest Pioneer CD-Recorder are awesome and much superior to LPs on his much more expensive La Platine Verdier TT. This illustrates a point we should all be aware of; which is that there’s nothing so wrong with the digital format itself - and that it’s absolutely capable of sounding as good as any analogue source (almost identical).

So the quality of digital gear is not the problem either.

The problem is the abuse of digital media by the tactics employed in the Loudness-Wars.

With all due respect, perhaps this is where our focus should be. As audiophiles, we should perhaps be partaking in fora like these which would perhaps serve to enlighten the guilty in recording-industry of the fact that we’re not pleased with their butchering of popular-music.

But this won’t happen if we’re not all aware of the real source of the problem – ‘The Loudness-Wars.'

Incidentally, I stress the effects on popular-music genres because of the fact that the Classics are scarcely affected by the Loudness-Wars.

If you were to look at my signature, you’d come away with the impression that I’m a very big fan of analogue in general and vinyl in particular. But the reality is that this is so only because the Loudness-Wars cause vinyl to be still relevant to me, with the best and most realistic and dynamic recordings of music in the popular genres of music to which I mostly listen. For now, digital is secondary for me – and this is solely because of the general lack of dynamism wrought by the Loudness-Wars. Were it not for that, I’d be fully digital long ago, instead of using merely a PS-1 as my foremost digital source (actually preferable to my ailing elderly Sony CD-P 610ES, but that’s another story). There wouldn’t be a TT in sight. And I’m sure I’m not alone, as there must be several others motivated in this way. (And it would also be nice to hear from them too).

I’ll bring this long post to an end with another excerpt (in italics) from the book previously mentioned: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07J5TVS7Z

Because of the ‘Loudness-Wars,’ the same recording on vinyl will sound better and more dynamic than it does in any of the digital media. This makes vinyl extremely relevant today and absolutely the best choice in relevant circumstances.

Outside of that, then it’s digital all the way.

So, again, my advice would be this:

If you listen exclusively to the Classics and especially if you favour large and dynamically explosive Classical musical works and similar, then go completely digital, exclusively.

If you listen exclusively to most popular music genres - which are severely compromised by the ‘Loudnness-Wars’ - then go completely analogue, with vinyl and etcetera, exclusively. (That is unless you prefer to endure the reduced quality for the convenience of digital here, or if you endeavour to buy your popular-music like Jazz only or mostly from the premium labels which don’t engage in the ‘Wars’).

However, if you regularly listen BOTH to popular-music AND to the likes of explosive Classical works, then go BOTH analogue AND digital – and for all the reasons stated above.

Food for thought, perhaps!
---------------

[Evidence of the ‘Loudness–Wars’ can be found here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/vinyl-vs-cd-in-the-loudness-war/
https://www.arrow-av.com/news-reviews-articles/2016/11/29/the-loudness-war-why-analogue-vinyl-beats-digital-unfortunately
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/loudness-wars-era-albums-redeemed-by-vinyl-releases.701375/
Perfect Sound Forever?]

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Great question!!! Great topic!!!




Great explanation there, and those factors certainly do come into play.

However, the root cause is more sinister. Also, the practice of seeking to produce the loudest recordings started long ago from the days when recording companies sought to have the loudest recordings in jukeboxes and on radio-stations. And this was with vinyl, decades before the advent of digital audio. Nevertheless, there was only so much that they could do in that regard with vinyl. But digital now affords the opportunity to take this practice to ridiculous extremes.

The following in italics is from a piece written elsewhere - actually from the book below in my signature (just google the title).

The main problem for pop-music CDs, especially, is one of abuse, where engineers compress the music and limit dynamic range in order to produce the loudest music to gain an advantage in grabbing listeners’ attention over the competition. The practice has been common-place in the production of popular music for decades. It’s called; “The Loudness Wars” – and it’s killing the music. That’s one of the main issues holding back the digital format today, in the opinion of many in the know.

Analogue media (such as vinyl and tape) remain largely immune to such extreme abuse, ironically because of their more severe limitations in the recording process. These limitations require more moderate recording levels and thus prevent them from similar levels of abuse and, therefore, ensure better quality recordings with more dynamic-range than what obtains with the more severely abused digital versions.

Having listened over many years to both vinyl and digital, digital IMO remains true to the original recordings dynamic range, whereas vinyl has far more variance. The exception is
a few Three Blind Mice Lp's and Thelma Houston's Pressure Cooker,that are the equal of their digital counterparts.

To notice this your audio system must have the ability of creating silence when music is not playing and for no audio losses with its attenuation and subsequent amplification.

The secrets to good audio are to minimize distortion in attenuation and amplification, this includes very simple audio signal paths, and to have speakers capable of adequate dispersion
to minimize reflections. If on the other hand your audio system has obvious faults, then correcting those first is advisable before blaming the medium of the recording.

There is also wisdom avoiding purchase of recordings that are artificially compressed. A standard reference would be to have a copy of Anouar Brahems " Les pas du chat noir "
to compare recordings to, as it is just natural and one of ECM's best I think ( most ECM's are pretty good )

[Macca]

I don't listen to any classical but all my listening is on CD.

I don't find overall compressed recordings to be too much of a problem, I look for the versions with the highest DR. Usually earlier releases. I rarely buy current music. I find the compression has to be pretty bad before it ruins things. Also whilst vinyl might sound 'more dynamic' that isn't the same as having actually having a wider dynamic range on the vinyl record.


Added to that most pop and rock recordings don't need much as much dynamic range as classical.


But I agree that in principle the record companies should cater to the people like us who want to listen on proper systems and offer less compressed versions where possible.

[struth]

Don't really think there is a major problem personally. Modern pressings on vinyl or CD seem fine by and large. You always get a few but most are acceptable. A lot of perceived issues are due to the way much music is being mastered for headphones, as that is now the main way music is listened to

[Macca]

Compilations or best of albums by very popular mainstream acts are the ones to avoid if they are post 2000. I've got a Bee Gees 'best of' that is practically unlistenable.

[curry49]

Having listened over many years to both vinyl and digital, digital IMO remains true to the original recordings dynamic range, whereas vinyl has far more variance.

Fascinating that you'd express such a view even in the face of ample evidence of the Loudness-War and the effect it has on popular music in digital media, with even mastering engineers articulating on the issue and acknowledging the detrimental effects on whatever popular music you listen to on the digital media you refer to.

Have you actually read about what is happening to the music? Have you not heard it yourself? And how would you explain the multitudes of reports on the effects of the Loudness-Wars, saying exactly the same things I've said? They're all wrong?

Have a look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/vin...-loudness-war/
https://www.arrow-av.com/news-review...-unfortunately
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...leases.701375/

On a separate but related issue, you also mention, "digital IMO remains true to the original recordings dynamic range, whereas vinyl has far more variance."

Amazingly, that's the very same point I've been making, along with all those articles on the subject you haven't read. If you look at a previous post of mine, you'll see me highlighting the very same fact that digital audio is absolutely capable of mimicking any sound-source, including analogue master-tape or any other analogue source. But if you were to actually stop to think really, you'd realize that that is not the issue.

The issue is all about the drastic curtailment of dynamic-range in digital recordings of popular music, due to the Loudness-Wars. This issue is widely acknowledged by the players in the recording industry (and admitted by many who actually engage in it). So for you to deny what the industry-players have admitted and acknowledged actually boggles the mind.

As to vinyl's "variance" or limitations, I've also pointed that out along with the fact that; were it not for the the effects of the Loudness-Wars on digital (Pop-music) vinyl would be irrelevant (to me, at least). Whether or not you recognize that vinyl is less affected by the loudness-wars (due to its limitations) and therefore more dynamic than CDs mutilated by the effects of these 'Wars (acknowledged by the engineers who actually do it) that's less important than whether or not you recognize that the Loudness Wars has a detrimental effect on digital recordings of popular music.

Unless you recognize what the whole recording-industry acknowledges, then there's not much point in a game of 'trivial-pursuit' - literally.

Thanks for the critique, though.

Cheers :)

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Fascinating that you'd express such a view even in the face of ample evidence of the Loudness-War and the effect it has on popular music in digital media, with even mastering engineers articulating on the issue and acknowledging the detrimental effects on whatever popular music you listen to on the digital media you refer to.

Have you actually read about what is happening to the music? Have you not heard it yourself? And how would you explain the multitudes of reports on the effects of the Loudness-Wars, saying exactly the same things I've said? They're all wrong?

Have a look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/vin...-loudness-war/
https://www.arrow-av.com/news-review...-unfortunately
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...leases.701375/

On a separate but related issue, you also mention, "digital IMO remains true to the original recordings dynamic range, whereas vinyl has far more variance."

Amazingly, that's the very same point I've been making, along with all those articles on the subject you haven't read. If you look at a previous post of mine, you'll see me highlighting the very same fact that digital audio is absolutely capable of mimicking any sound-source, including analogue master-tape or any other analogue source. But if you were to actually stop to think really, you'd realize that that is not the issue.

The issue is all about the drastic curtailment of dynamic-range in digital recordings of popular music, due to the Loudness-Wars. This issue is widely acknowledged by the players in the recording industry (and admitted by many who actually engage in it). So for you to deny what the industry-players have admitted and acknowledged actually boggles the mind.

As to vinyl's "variance" or limitations, I've also pointed that out along with the fact that; were it not for the the effects of the Loudness-Wars on digital (Pop-music) vinyl would be irrelevant (to me, at least). Whether or not you recognize that vinyl is less affected by the loudness-wars (due to its limitations) and therefore more dynamic than CDs mutilated by the effects of these 'Wars (acknowledged by the engineers who actually do it) that's less important than whether or not you recognize that the Loudness Wars has a detrimental effect on digital recordings of popular music.

Unless you recognize what the whole recording-industry acknowledges, then there's not much point in a game of 'trivial-pursuit' - literally.

Thanks for the critique, though.

Cheers :)

The thing is, I deliberately avoid all the music you attribute to loudness wars, rather I purchase music which exhibits faithful replay of dynamics.

One such recording that exhibits dynamics correctly and as natural as you can I think possibly get is as I provided in my earlier post
Anouar Brahem's "La pas du chat noir" ( translates as The black cats paw ). I listen to a lot of piano music, but many other artists as well
all carefully chosen for faithful replay.

I also referred to the very careful choice of replay equipment that is needed to accurately reproduce the dynamics and essence contained in music.
that if not chosen correctly distracts severely from what is actually possible within digital replay.

My main system presently consists of Marantz CD52Mk2SE , Yamaha CDRHD1500, Stereo Coffee LDR attenuator, Quad 306 x2
and JR149 loudspeakers.

[Cas]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.

[curry49]

The thing is, I deliberately avoid all the music you attribute to loudness wars, rather I purchase music which exhibits faithful replay of dynamics.

One such recording that exhibits dynamics correctly and as natural as you can I think possibly get is as I provided in my earlier post
Anouar Brahem's "La pas du chat noir" ( translates as The black cats paw ). I listen to a lot of piano music, but many other artists as well
all carefully chosen for faithful replay.


But those are the Classics. :doh: Ha, ha! My Gosh man, you had me going there for a while. I distinctly said that the Classics are scarcely affected by the Loudness-War. No wonder you don’t see a problem. None of this applies to you or other fans of the Classics. Moreover, even Jazz fans who buy strictly from the premium labels should also have less of a problem too, as these labels do not engage in the ‘Wars.

Btw, LDR, a friend recently sent me a copy of an awesomely dynamic album (especially track 4). Absolutely no analogue reproduction source-component on this planet could ever be as dynamic as that.

Here he is making reference to it in the book in my signature I keep citing; “I have just listened to a recording of Jon Leifs Saga Symphony which has a really huge dynamic range, from so quiet it's almost too soft to hear to very big smacks of a big resonant box with a mallet that even my large speakers couldn't cope with. And I was running the volume very high so as to hear the soft bits. There is no way an LP could have that range on it, nor a tape, which is the first stage before cutting LP's.”

If you don’t have it perhaps you should get a copy – it’s a ‘must-have’ in any demonstration of the awesome capabilities of digital audio.

We have nothing like that in popular-music. But this is not to say that Pop isn’t dynamic. Anyone who suggests that should listen to a mostly unamplified garage-band in rehearsal (OK, with electric guits and synth but unamplified drumkit). Listen keenly to how the drums drown out everything else. Then listen to a digital Pop-music recording of a similar band and see if it’s anywhere as dynamic and exciting.

That’s the point.

And the sad thing is that anyone who hears the likes of that Jon Leifs recording will know that digital audio is absolutely capable of replicating every bit of the dynamics of that garage-band’s drum-set, and much more. Then ask yourself why it is that we’re listening to puny facsimilies of the drum-set and other instruments in Pop in a discipline which claims to be on a quest for the closest fidelity to the ‘live’ original sound.

The answer to that lies dead on the battlefield of the ‘Loudness-War.’

Of course, none of us would want all that intensity all the time, but it should absolutely be an option for those of us who want to replicate the real thing, from time to time.

That’s the point - again!

Cheers :)


PS
Nice system, BTW.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.


With indifference, the sound recorded which is the end result and how it was recorded is what you need to concentrate on I think rather than the final
delivery speed of the medium. Each medium is capable of reasonably equal frequency response and dynamic range, so there is IMO nothing special one vs the other about a LP rotating
at 33 and 1/3 rpm ( with motor and pully and belt variance ) vs a CD rotating at 200- 500rpm. Rather each is a storage and replay system with a designed set purpose.

If we instead look at analogue recordings the majority ( and the good ones ) were done to reel to reel tape, few would argue they preferred 3 and 3/4 inch
to 30 inches per second, in order to pick up more of what was delivered at the performance.

The discussion here gives a balanced outlook comparing digital to analog, ftp://ftp.dbxpro.com/pub/pdfs/WhitePapers/Type%20IV.pdf
There are some advantages with analog recording techniques that digital needs to follow and these are addressed in the papers discussion
looking at additional headroom for digital.

[dave2010]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.You're joking, surely!

Unfortunately the rather longer reply I was in the process of writing has disappeared, as I think my log in timed out. Maybe I'll come back to this. The general discussion upto this point has been interesting, and there are real concerns.

Turns out that companies have been "tweaking" sound for many years, often based on profit motives, and feedback from sales figures, rather than for "fidelity" and "realistic" sound. Realistic sound levels and dynamics can be unpleasant in a domestic environment - and anti-social. Many recordings raise the quiet levels to make them audible, and that means that the loudest parts have to be reduced. Crescendos can be squashed completely. Also, as noted, some companies optimise for car listening - which seems silly as some cars have players which can adjust the dynamic range. It would make more sense for digital recordings to use steering tracks, if control over dynamics in cars is desirable, or for the full dynamics to be used, and for players in cars to be made to handle those more "intelligently".

Other factors which affect perception are ambience and spatial factors. These can (but don't always) play a big part. In pop music ambience and spatial aspects are often "fake" - artificial reverberation and pan-potted instruments. In classical music ambience might be recorded, though it may also be spoiled by using too many microphones, which is what many recording engineers use nowadays. To be fair, there are compromises in recordings, and sometimes having a lot of microphones might help - but other times it may not. One can hear the nonsense of instrumental soloists being boosted as the engineers note "important" solos - but then the balance reverts later.

OK - lets' see if this post does better than my previous one.

[Haselsh1]

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=pink+floyd&album=dark+side+of+the+moon

Unless you count the blu ray quad mix average DR is between 9 and 11. Ignore the vinyl ones as they're pretty much meaningless. Best standard version is the original cd release with an 11 (no surprise). I have the 2003 remaster which scores a 9. :( Still better than the cassette version it replaced though.


So looks like there are no versions with a high dynamic range.

Nice one Martin. I gave up on this recording a very long time ago as I think it is just a bad recording. Musically of course it is a staggering piece of ambient prog rock.

[Haselsh1]

Don't really think there is a major problem personally. Modern pressings on vinyl or CD seem fine by and large.

Couldn't agree more.

[Jimbo]

You're joking, surely!

Unfortunately the rather longer reply I was in the process of writing has disappeared, as I think my log in timed out. Maybe I'll come back to this. The general discussion upto this point has been interesting, and there are real concerns.

Turns out that companies have been "tweaking" sound for many years, often based on profit motives, and feedback from sales figures, rather than for "fidelity" and "realistic" sound. Realistic sound levels and dynamics can be unpleasant in a domestic environment - and anti-social. Many recordings raise the quiet levels to make them audible, and that means that the loudest parts have to be reduced. Crescendos can be squashed completely. Also, as noted, some companies optimise for car listening - which seems silly as some cars have players which can adjust the dynamic range. It would make more sense for digital recordings to use steering tracks, if control over dynamics in cars is desirable, or for the full dynamics to be used, and for players in cars to be made to handle those more "intelligently".

Other factors which affect perception are ambience and spatial factors. These can (but don't always) play a big part. In pop music ambience and spatial aspects are often "fake" - artificial reverberation and pan-potted instruments. In classical music ambience might be recorded, though it may also be spoiled by using too many microphones, which is what many recording engineers use nowadays. To be fair, there are compromises in recordings, and sometimes having a lot of microphones might help - but other times it may not. One can hear the nonsense of instrumental soloists being boosted as the engineers note "important" solos - but then the balance reverts later.

OK - lets' see if this post does better than my previous one.

The timing delivery of analogue and digital sound is different.

[jandl100]

When it comes to listening to analogue or digital/CD this is the basics.

Analogue sound is delivered slowly therefore your ears pick up more of what is being delivered.

Digital sound is delivered faster therefore your ears miss some of the delivery.

Our hearing is built for analogue sound, that is why it sounds better, our ears pick up more.

Easy.

Thanks for that, Chris. Always good to start the day with a chuckle. :thumbsup:

[Haselsh1]

Thanks for that, Chris. Always good to start the day with a chuckle. :thumbsup:

:eyebrows:

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The timing delivery of analogue and digital sound is different.
Quite a statement there. Digital prior to and following conversion to analog provides far greater accuracy
than mechanical speed variations inherent in analog systems.

[jandl100]

Ah, well.
There is timing as in temporal accuracy, and timing as in tap the foot along with da choons.
Quite different things.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Ah, well.
There is timing as in temporal accuracy, and timing as in tap the foot along with da choons.
Quite different things.

How we perceive timing is indeed fascinating. My reflection overall is there is presently advantage in digital vs analogue
but there is at the same time far more future to achieve with digital. As an example we accept linear regulated DC supplies in digital electronics
yet IMO this is not what they need, rather they need DC supplies to be timed on, relative to prior areas, so capable of anticipation of what
has already occurred.

[jandl100]

But those are the Classics. :doh: Ha, ha! My Gosh man, you had me going there for a while. I distinctly said that the Classics are scarcely affected by the Loudness-War. No wonder you don’t see a problem. None of this applies to you or other fans of the Classics.

Well, yes and no.

In general, classical digital recordings aren't overly compressed, although I feel sure that there is some compression going on. Nowhere near as much as a lot of pop, though. And classical generally sounds dynamically plausible.

The exception being broadcasters such as ClassicFM - they tailor their output to car radios and Alexas. And there is one hell of a lot of compression deliberately applied.
Just listen to the dynamic extremes of a Mahler of Bruckner scherzo on ClassicFM and you'll find that the loud bits are scarcely actually louder than the soft bits.
This is fine in the car where I do listen to a lot of ClassicFM, but completely intolerable at home on my main audio system!

[Jimbo]

Quite a statement there. Digital prior to and following conversion to analog provides far greater accuracy
than mechanical speed variations inherent in analog systems.

The process of recording analogue sound onto tape rather than digital sampling/recording has timing implications. In order to fill in the gaps as it were in the sampling process the speed of the recorded information is slightly different too an analogue recording that has not gone through a digital process.

*This is not my opinion or supposition it is that of one of the greatest mastering recording engineers in the business today.* I Think he may know a little more about digital and analogue recording than we do?:)

[Macca]

The process of recording analogue sound onto tape rather than digital sampling/recording has timing implications. In order to fill in the gaps as it were in the sampling process the speed of the recorded information is slightly different too an analogue recording that has not gone through a digital process.

*This is not my opinion or supposition it is that of one of the greatest mastering recording engineers in the business today.* I Think he may know a little more about digital and analogue recording than we do?:)

Do we have a link to this? I hope it's not Steve Hoffman.

[NRG]

‘fill in the gaps’....I hope its not that old chestnut again! There are no gaps in digital sampling :doh: the analogue signal is bandwidth limited and before anybody goes down the stair step waveform route....don’t, there are no stair steps either.

[Jimbo]

Do we have a link to this? I hope it's not Steve Hoffman.

No its not Hoffman.

I will find you a link to a video where the chap in question is interviewed, I have sent it too you before but you were not paying attention!:):spank:

[jandl100]

‘fill in the gaps’....I hope its not that old chestnut again! There are no gaps in digital sampling :doh: the analogue signal is bandwidth limited and before anybody goes down the stair step waveform route....don’t, there are no stair steps either.

It very much sounds like it, doesn't it. :rolleyes:
Fill in the gaps between digital samples.
There are indeed no gaps.
Oh dear.

[Macca]

No its not Hoffman.

I will find you a link to a video where the chap in question is interviewed, I have sent it too you before but you were not paying attention!:):spank:

I have trouble remembering what happened yesterday let alone a couple of years ago.

[chris@panteg]

If you have a good look through the DRC database, it's quite alarming just how many digital download files including 24 bit high res are brickwalled into the red, not just the cd versions.

Looking at original issues from the 80s including cd, are all in the green.

[Jimbo]

I have trouble remembering what happened yesterday let alone a couple of years ago.

Hi Martin,

Ok here is the video I was referring too - The interesting bit is on video No2 WAX 2015 Part 2 at 7.30mins in. The video quality is a bit limited but you can hear clearly what is being said. The whole interview is quite interesting.

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/wax-mastering-panel-videos

[Macca]

Hi Martin,

Ok here is the video I was referring too - The interesting bit is on video No2 WAX 2015 Part 2 at 7.30mins in. The video quality is a bit limited but you can hear clearly what is being said. The whole interview is quite interesting.

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/wax-mastering-panel-videos

He's clearly speculating about something he knows little about. He says 'The digital artefacts don't show up so much on a record. Or something like that.' So he accepts he is speculating. In fact he comes across as though he had never really pondered the question before. What he then goes on to say about sampling rates is just wrong. Sampling captures the whole waveform and that is mathematically demonstrable, there's no room for speculation there.

Michael Fremer makes me laugh, I like him, but he is one of those people who doesn't know how anything works and doesn't want to know. He does lead them on a bit too. His schtick has always been vinyl sounds better than digital. Fair enough but he likes to insist that this is due to some unquantified technical attribute as opposed to psychoacoustic reasons. I don't really understand why.


They do touch on psychoacoustics (which is the real key to understanding the differences between analogue and digital) but there does not seem to be much knowledge of that area amongst them and they quickly move on.

[Jimbo]

He's clearly speculating about something he knows little about. He says 'The digital artefacts don't show up so much on a record. Or something like that.' So he accepts he is speculating. In fact he comes across as though he had never really pondered the question before. What he then goes on to say about sampling rates is just wrong. Sampling captures the whole waveform and that is mathematically demonstrable, there's no room for speculation there.

Michael Fremer makes me laugh, I like him, but he is one of those people who doesn't know how anything works and doesn't want to know. He does lead them on a bit too. His schtick has always been vinyl sounds better than digital. Fair enough but he likes to insist that this is due to some unquantified technical attribute as opposed to psychoacoustic reasons. I don't really understand why.


They do touch on psychoacoustics (which is the real key to understanding the differences between analogue and digital) but there does not seem to be much knowledge of that area amongst them and they quickly move on.

I am sure they could learn a lot from you.:D

[Macca]

I am sure they could learn a lot from you.:D

Possibly, I certainly learnt it all from other people. Lots of things that are pondered on as being deep mysteries in hi-fi, especially on none-technical sites like this in fact have well established explanations. A lot of people are not interested in the technical side at all. Which is fine if we are talking about what we like or prefer but things soon fall over when we start pondering the reasons why.

[NRG]

Hi Martin,

Ok here is the video I was referring too - The interesting bit is on video No2 WAX 2015 Part 2 at 7.30mins in. The video quality is a bit limited but you can hear clearly what is being said. The whole interview is quite interesting.

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/wax-mastering-panel-videos

He seems to be referring to tape hysteresis and makes the comparison to digital immediately changing from one state to another. It’s not how it works the digital is a point sample in a bandwidth limited signal, there’s no change from one state to another. It seems he’s getting mixed up.

[Jimbo]

He seems to be referring to tape hysteresis and makes the comparison to digital immediately changing from one state to another. It’s not how it works the digital is a point sample in a bandwidth limited signal, there’s no change from one state to another. It seems he’s getting mixed up.

Ok I bow to your superior knowledge.

[jandl100]

If you prefer vinyl, fine.
But don't talk or believe in technical nonsense to try and justify it.

[AJSki2fly]

I've been doing a little bit of comparative listening between my digital tracks and the same tracks on vinyl. Overall, my layman conclusion is that digital on my system sounds noticeably more 'polite', for the lack of a better word. When I analyzed more closely what could be causing that 'politeness', I've concluded that it's pretty much down to dynamics. Simply put, my turntable playback appears to be giving more dynamic range to my ears compared to my digital playback. Hence many of my LPs sound more pushy, more aggressive.

Now, that doesn't make any sense, because from what I understand, one of the most severe limitations of vinyl playback is exactly the dynamic range!

Anyone else noticed this discrepancy between what the specs say and what the ears hear?

This is quite interesting because I recently experienced exactly the opposite when at a friends. He has a MARANTZ PEARL KI SACD PLAYER, which is highly rated, and an SME 20/3 with SME V - ALLNOC phono, both went through a ALLNIC single ended 300B to Tannoy Kensingtons GR's. AS you would expect his system does sound rather nice, I have generally listened to vinyl when there. Out of interest I lent him Genesis - Nursery Cryme SACD, and a few other SACD's to listen to. We did a back to back comparison of Nursery Cryme and I was quite surprised. it was very obvious that the SACD was brighter and sounded more forward, possibly more detailed, but to me it was to much edging towards harsh/brash. The vinyl rendition was in fact much more relaxed to listen to and sounded more real as a result, less forced.

My friend agreed with me as well, I was actually quite surprised by just how different they sounded. Especially as both would have been from the original master, or at least they purport to be. In the circumstances I would have expected them to have been very similar. We tried a few others and found the same. So it the SACD player, supposedly one of the best for rendering accurately and musically, I am not sure but will be doing the same at home once I get the SACD's back.

[Jimbo]

If you prefer vinyl, fine.
But don't talk or believe in technical nonsense to try and justify it.

What technical nonsense are you referring to Jandl?

[Stratmangler]

I lent him Genesis - Nursery Cryme SACD, and a few other SACD's to listen to. We did a back to back comparison of Nursery Cryme and I was quite surprised. it was very obvious that the SACD was brighter and sounded more forward, possibly more detailed, but to me it was to much edging towards harsh/brash. The vinyl rendition was in fact much more relaxed to listen to and sounded more real as a result, less forced.

Would the vinyl have been original releases from the 70s, or the much more recent 180g reissues?

The SACD releases have all been remixed from the multitrack session tapes, even the stereo versions, largely because the stereo mastertapes were fooking knackered, having bin played to death.
The session tapes hadn't been played since the mixes and stereo mastertapes were finalised, so were in surprisingly good condition.

[jandl100]

What technical nonsense are you referring to Jandl?

Having to fill in the gaps between the digital samples.
There are no gaps.
You still don't get it, do you?

[AJSki2fly]

Would the vinyl have been original releases from the 70s, or the much more recent 180g reissues?

The SACD releases have all been remixed from the multitrack session tapes, even the stereo versions, largely because the stereo mastertapes were fooking knackered, having bin played to death.
The session tapes hadn't been played since the mixes and stereo mastertapes were finalised, so were in surprisingly good condition.

Ok that may explain it then, there is certainly a big difference, I definitely prefer the old vinyl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimbo]

Having to fill in the gaps between the digital samples.
There are no gaps.
You still don't get it, do you?

Your tone and manner sound very confrontational and rude. Mods can you deal with this?

[Macca]

Yeah, come on Jerry, knock it off.

[Stratmangler]

Ok that may explain it then, there is certainly a big difference, I definitely prefer the old vinyl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The remixes were done in 2007, and all versions released since have been from those remixes.
That's SACD, CD & vinyl.
The original master sourced material was pulled from circulation the second those remixes became available.
The last time the original stereo masters were used was for the 1994/1995 Definitive Remaster CDs.

[alphaGT]

Who cares what new pop music sounds like? I mean, have you heard it? The vast majority of my vinyl collection was purchased before 1982, so I’m not affected by these volume wars.

I do have a few hundred CD’s from the 80’s and 90’s, and a pretty decent CD player, but I play vinyl 10 to 1 over CD’s, partly due to sound quality, but mostly because I prefer the music made before 1982. Is it because it sounds better? Maybe

If I do own a recording performed after 2000, I’m not sure what it is? But I’m am sure that no matter the medium, it all goes back to the engineer, and what he chose to do with the session tapes. I’ve got good vinyl, and bad, good CD, and bad. The engineer’s decisions during the mastering process far out way differences in the mediums. IMHO

Russell

[AJSki2fly]

Who cares what new pop music sounds like? I mean, have you heard it? The vast majority of my vinyl collection was purchased before 1982, so I’m not affected by these volume wars.

I do have a few hundred CD’s from the 80’s and 90’s, and a pretty decent CD player, but I play vinyl 10 to 1 over CD’s, partly due to sound quality, but mostly because I prefer the music made before 1982. Is it because it sounds better? Maybe

If I do own a recording performed after 2000, I’m not sure what it is? But I’m am sure that no matter the medium, it all goes back to the engineer, and what he chose to do with the session tapes. I’ve got good vinyl, and bad, good CD, and bad. The engineer’s decisions during the mastering process far out way differences in the mediums. IMHO

Russell

Yep, your pretty close to the truth of it, and then the care taken getting it to vinyl or later on to CD, they both can be screwed up in manufacturing.

[alphaGT]

I will say that some of the new 180g vinyl records I’ve bought recently, that were recently made, do sound excellent! The original album was created back in 1969, so they may be remastered?

But I’ll attribute their good sound to the pressing process, and the vinyl recipe. I have heard that the new vinyl recipe is a bit harder than the vinyl we bought back in the late 70’s. With some ingredient that acts as a lubricant to the diamond sliding around on it.

Many of the “Improved”, products we enjoy these days are due to new materials. “Better Living Through Chemistry”, used to be on the sign entering my nearest little town, due to all the factories there. But they took it down after they got caught polluting the river. But more on subject, we see a lot of new materials in the Hi Fi industry, new speaker cone materials, new rubbers and adhesives in phono carts., new plastics in capacitors, oxygen free metals. And apparently, better vinyl for records?

Recording studios now have some of the best equipment in all of history to master new music with! Power filters and better cables, and the build quality of the rest of the chain. Too bad they let business men dictate how they use it, and let some “volume war”, screw up what should be the best we’ve ever known!

Russell

[Macca]

“Better Living Through Chemistry”, used to be on the sign entering my nearest little town, due to all the factories there. But they took it down after they got caught polluting the river.

That's funny.

[Jimbo]

Quite a statement there. Digital prior to and following conversion to analog provides far greater accuracy
than mechanical speed variations inherent in analog systems.

I am not questioning the accuracy of digital reproduction whatever you may perceive that to be.

I was referring to transient timing which affects spatial awareness of digital sound. Hence digital often sounds so flat compared to analogue.

[Jimbo]

Having to fill in the gaps between the digital samples.
There are no gaps.
You still don't get it, do you?

So what does an interpolation filter do?

[Audio Al]

[QUOTE=AJSki2fly;1057220]Ok that may explain it then, there is certainly a big difference, I definitely prefer the old vinyl


:):cool:

[Macca]

So what does an interpolation filter do?

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html scroll down to 'sampling fallacies and misconceptions'

[Firebottle]

That is THE best article I have read about acoustics and digital audio.

Every one should be made to read and absorb the information.

[Jimbo]

That is THE best article I have read about acoustics and digital audio.

Every one should be made to read and absorb the information.

I agree.

[NRG]

So what does an interpolation filter do?


Perhaps in your own words you’d like to tell us...

[Jimbo]

Perhaps in your own words you’d like to tell us...

Your the expert so maybe you can tell me....?

[Marco]

It interpols the ations, and stuff...

Marco.

[struth]

the insertion of something of a different nature into something else...ie dodgy sex:ner:

[jandl100]

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html scroll down to 'sampling fallacies and misconceptions'

Excellent article - I've not seen it before.

".... All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required. Sampling doesn't affect frequency response or phase. The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal. ...."

It really is that simple.
Well, OK, read further for the complications!
But compared to a diamond wiggling around in a plastic groove .... :eyebrows:

[Jimbo]

the insertion of something of a different nature into something else...ie dodgy sex:ner:

:lol:

[NRG]

Your the expert so maybe you can tell me....?

But your google skills are improving I’m interested to read by how much...

[Jimbo]

But your google skills are improving I’m interested to read by how much...

I am interested in your explanation not what google says. I am only asking for information.

[Macca]

I am not questioning the accuracy of digital reproduction whatever you may perceive that to be.

I was referring to transient timing which affects spatial awareness of digital sound. Hence digital often sounds so flat compared to analogue.

I kind of agree that digital can sound flat, at least compared to a vinyl record. I now have a lot of recordings on both vinyl and cd so have done many comparisons. It's also notable how expansive the soundstage can be with vinyl compared to its digital equivalent. Not on every album of course but very obvious on some - Curtis Mayfield's soundtrack for 'Superfly' is a good example.

The reasons for this are outside the bounds of this thread so I'm not getting into it now, suffice it to say it has nothing to do with transient timing.

[Jimbo]

I kind of agree that digital can sound flat, at least compared to a vinyl record. I now have a lot of recordings on both vinyl and cd so have done many comparisons. It's also notable how expansive the soundstage can be with vinyl compared to its digital equivalent. Not on every album of course but very obvious on some - Curtis Mayfield's soundtrack for 'Superfly' is a good example.

The reasons for this are outside the bounds of this thread so I'm not getting into it now, suffice it to say it has nothing to do with transient timing.

I have heard a lot of DACs and many of them sound 2 dimensional with a flat soundstage. However the Chord Qutest I borrowed sounded much more three dimensional and DAVE was nearly as good as anything I have heard from vinyl.
Why do you think this?

And going back to the OP I found the dynamic range delivered through a Chord DAVE was breathtaking. However I must say one caveat here was that the recordings were well mastered and produced. U2 albums still sounded thin and flat but there again they do on vinyl as well.

[struth]

guess at the pre vinyl stage the digital master, if decoded well will sound the same for cd as vinyl but it is mastered differently due to necessity so will sound different for obvious reasons. Think there is no absolute ceiling with vinyl opposed to digital. Probably that, and the mastering at the final stages that make the difference, along with the higher noise floor of vinyl, even if its not obvious to the listener. Noise can be good to the ear, if its the right noise at the right level.

[AJSki2fly]

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html scroll down to 'sampling fallacies and misconceptions'

As previously mentioned an excellent article that clearly washes away some myths about digital, everyone should have a read.

[Macca]

I have heard a lot of DACs and many of them sound 2 dimensional with a flat soundstage. However the Chord Qutest I borrowed sounded much more three dimensional and DAVE was nearly as good as anything I have heard from vinyl.
Why do you think this?

.

I'm not entirely sure and I don't think anyone is although you see all sorts of reasons put forward there's never any accompanying proofs. Certainly agree that my higher end cd players sound more 3 dimensional than the budget efforts. I'd be inclined to say power supplies myself as this tends to be the only identifiable difference, but that is just a (half-educated) guess.

Regarding perceived dynamics, that isn't the same thing as dynamic range. There are all sorts of reasons why we might perceive the sound as 'dynamic' that have nothing to do with the difference in level between the quietest and loudest parts of the recording. You can buy a DAC from China for a ton that will have a dynamic range over 120db. Will it sound as dynamic as the much more expensive Chord offerings? I doubt it. So clearly there are other subjective factors at play.

This is before you take into account that an absolute best case for dynamic range of vinyl is about 80db. So dynamic range is clearly not what makes vinyl sound 'dynamic' compared to digital.

[Jimbo]

guess at the pre vinyl stage the digital master, if decoded well will sound the same for cd as vinyl but it is mastered differently due to necessity so will sound different for obvious reasons. Think there is no absolute ceiling with vinyl opposed to digital. Probably that, and the mastering at the final stages that make the difference, along with the higher noise floor of vinyl, even if its not obvious to the listener. Noise can be good to the ear, if its the right noise at the right level.

I though dynamic range was limited with vinyl because of the limitations of the stylus being able to track a groove?

[Macca]

I though dynamic range was limited with vinyl because of the limitations of the stylus being able to track a groove?

Also the amount of space on a vinyl record is limited. And the speed, 45 is better than 33. Compare the 12 inch single to the album track of the same song. Add to that surface noise and there are big limitations on the dynamic range of vinyl whereas digital is only limited by the bit depth of the format, which, in theory, can be infinite.

[struth]

I though dynamic range was limited with vinyl because of the limitations of the stylus being able to track a groove?

was talking absolutes, not in practice. think cd(16 bit) undithered is about 96db but with dither goes up somewhat, and is commonly kept up near the top. this is what audiophiles dont like). Although there is technically no maximum of analogue, on vinyl its about 70+ but rarely always up there as it would cause issues. With vinyl mastering they obviously adjust down the bass a bit and usually up the high freq, then the amp equalizes it(afaik)

[Pigmy Pony]

Also the amount of space on a vinyl record is limited. And the speed, 45 is better than 33. Compare the 12 inch single to the album track of the same song. Add to that surface noise and there are big limitations on the dynamic range of vinyl whereas digital is only limited by the bit depth of the format, which, in theory, can be infinite.

Sorry if this digresses a bit, but why is 45rpm better-sounding than 33? I'd always assumed it may be to do with how much of the record the stylus can pass through in a given period of time! Also one reason why reel to reel sounds better than compact cassette (due to the higher speed) and why the 'long play' facility on VCRs was never as good.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

As an audio forum collective we need to push boundaries further, rather than being surrounded by them.

For instance from the article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
"I'm sure you've heard this many, many times: The human hearing range spans 20Hz to 20kHz. It's important to know how researchers arrive at those specific numbers"

This is safe and very nice for manufacturers of equipment, in fact so much so, you will I predict see deterioration of those specifications as time moves on.
As example 0.4db drop of frequency here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-neurochrome-modulus-286-amp.6443/

Rather we should insist on understanding hearing as perception of frequencies outside that range as identified by David Blackmer
https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-world-beyond-20kHz.pdf

[Light Dependant Resistor]

We need equipment capable like this again http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/harman-kardon-citation-ii-power-amplifier/
Look at the frequency response of this https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/harman-kardon/citation-17.shtml

[phonomac]

I couldn't agree more. If as a species all we had ever heard was 20kHz sinusoidal frequency range we wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.


As an audio forum collective we need to push boundaries further, rather than being surrounded by them.

For instance from the article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
"I'm sure you've heard this many, many times: The human hearing range spans 20Hz to 20kHz. It's important to know how researchers arrive at those specific numbers"

This is safe and very nice for manufacturers of equipment, in fact so much so, you will I predict see deterioration of those specifications as time moves on.
As example 0.4db drop of frequency here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-neurochrome-modulus-286-amp.6443/

Rather we should insist on understanding hearing as perception of frequencies outside that range as identified by David Blackmer
https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-world-beyond-20kHz.pdf

[Macca]

As an audio forum collective we need to push boundaries further, rather than being surrounded by them.

For instance from the article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
"I'm sure you've heard this many, many times: The human hearing range spans 20Hz to 20kHz. It's important to know how researchers arrive at those specific numbers"

This is safe and very nice for manufacturers of equipment, in fact so much so, you will I predict see deterioration of those specifications as time moves on.
As example 0.4db drop of frequency here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-neurochrome-modulus-286-amp.6443/

Rather we should insist on understanding hearing as perception of frequencies outside that range as identified by David Blackmer
https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-world-beyond-20kHz.pdf

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.' - no they don't, at least not when put to the test. The difference between this article and the previous two is that in this article a bloke is trying to sell you something.

[Bigman80]

What about intermodulation?

[Marco]

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.' - no they don't, at least not when put to the test.

How do you *know* that for sure, Martin - when was the last time you tested a sample section of listeners for such? Or do you just automatically accept as fact, what you've read somewhere, and which on the surface, appears to support your argument? ;)

Marco.

[alphaGT]

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.' - no they don't, at least not when put to the test. The difference between this article and the previous two is that in this article a bloke is trying to sell you something.

As I’ve posted on this forum before, when I was just a kid in school, a doctor came around to test everyone’s hearing. When it came my turn, the nurse called the doctor in, and he ran the tests over and over, and the machine could not stump me, my hearing exceeded the freq. gen. they were using that topped out over 24KHz, so yes, a proven, lab tested result of me hearing well above 20KHz, documented. (I suppose they kept records, but I don’t have them, it was very long ago). No doubt I do not hear as well as I did when I was 12, but we can say that some humans can hear over 20KHz, in fact, over 24KHz, as he could not stump me, we don’t know how high my hearing would have tested.

I read an article, probably 20 or more years ago, I wish I could find it but wouldn’t know where to look, but this acoustic scientist was testing high frequency effects on human hearing. He had some graphs showing that while subjects could not hear frequencies upward of 40KHz, brain scan MRI showed that there was brain activity when the subjects were exposed to frequencies from 20K to 40KHz. What does that mean? It’s hard to say, how does the brain know about things you can’t hear? Or are these frequencies managed by the brain differently from sound information?

The biggest problem with A/B testing for such things is the test subjects, if they are an average run of the mill population, then there will be some with good hearing, and some with lesser hearing, and some with bad hearing. If we tested test subjects and only chose the ones who could hear at 20KHz or greater, then the test may provide some meaningful results?

Russell

[Macca]

How do you *know* that for sure, Martin - when was the last time you tested a sample section of listeners for such? Or do you just automatically accept as fact, what you've read somewhere, and which on the surface, appears to support your argument? ;)

Marco.

It's not 'my argument'. It's a fact that in all the trials conducted no-one was able to distinguish the difference between 'hi res' music and the same at 16/44.1 - Unsurprisingly these results correlate perfectly with all of the other research done over the past 100 years into the limitations of human hearing.

I think you need to get away from the idea that arguments I present are something I dreamed up myself. They are based on considerable amounts of study of the existing research, all of which was done with an open mind and with no bias. There is no 'I want to believe' with me, and I don't have any horse in the race or any axe to grind. I'm only interested in the truth of the matter, whatever that turns out to be.

[Marco]

It's not 'my argument'. It's a fact that in all the trials conducted no-one was able to distinguish the difference between 'hi res' music and the same at 16/44.1


Ok, please state the source(s) of your information, by linking to details of the trials concerned (but specifically only to what you consider are the most relevant bits), and moreover, which you believe support your argument here as fact, so that others, such as myself, can judge whether that's the case or not:)


I think you need to get away from the idea that arguments I present are something I dreamed up myself. They are based on considerable amounts of study of the existing research, all of which was done with an open mind and with no bias.


That's NOT what I'm saying. However, with respect, based on previous experience of how you often put forward arguments on these subjects, you have the tendency to apply factual information that is arguably out of context, and present it rather authoritatively as 'proof' that you're right, when that's not necessarily the case.


There is no 'I want to believe' with me, and I don't have any horse in the race or any axe to grind. I'm only interested in the truth of the matter, whatever that turns out to be.

Exactly the same here, but I've just got a different way of going about it;)

Marco.

[Jimbo]

It's not 'my argument'. It's a fact that in all the trials conducted no-one was able to distinguish the difference between 'hi res' music and the same at 16/44.1 - Unsurprisingly these results correlate perfectly with all of the other research done over the past 100 years into the limitations of human hearing.

I think you need to get away from the idea that arguments I present are something I dreamed up myself. They are based on considerable amounts of study of the existing research, all of which was done with an open mind and with no bias. There is no 'I want to believe' with me, and I don't have any horse in the race or any axe to grind. I'm only interested in the truth of the matter, whatever that turns out to be.

The only real truth is what you experience yourself, not what always what is written.

I have done the evaluation myself blind with hi res material 24bit /DSD and 16 bit and I could hear the difference but I was not always aware which one was which. I had to guess which one i was listening too! So what does this tell you about Hi res? In the end it is which one you prefer and in many cases I chose 16/44 material. All the material was FBA.

[Marco]

The only real truth is what you experience yourself, not what always what is written.


Exactly! But unfortunately, Martin seems too easily influenced by what he reads, especially if it's from what he considers is an 'expert source'.

Marco.

[Macca]

You don't seem to understand that audio is science and is treated like science. Hypothesis are generated, experiments with suitable protocols and controls are conducted, results are tabulated and then subject to peer review. This is not a process without flaws, it is, nevertheless, of more use than someone on a forum claiming that they heard it so it's true.

I will dig you out some links to proper trials of high rez audio when I am back home this evening.

[Joe]

'"What is truth?" said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men’s minds vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds of a number of men poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves?' (as Francis Bacon put it)

[Macca]

The only real truth is what you experience yourself, not what always what is written.

I have done the evaluation myself blind with hi res material 24bit /DSD and 16 bit and I could hear the difference but I was not always aware which one was which. I had to guess which one i was listening too! So what does this tell you about Hi res? In the end it is which one you prefer and in many cases I chose 16/44 material. All the material was FBA.

In all cases where differences have been noted the reason was that the mastering was not identical. This is even true for packages that contain the 16/44.1 version and the 24/192 version although they purport to be the same thing. So this is the most likely case.

All trials take a 24/192 recording and reduce it to 16/44.1 for the comparison, thus guaranteeing that any difference will not be due to mastering. If you didn't verify this then your comparison has no value. If you did then you have made a breakthrough that would create some serious waves in the audio science community.

[Marco]

You don't seem to understand that audio is science and is treated like science. Hypothesis are generated, experiments with suitable protocols and controls are conducted, results are tabulated and then subject to peer review.


Yes, but the results of the science currently applied to it aren't always conclusive. If they were, we'd be able to prove the existence of everything in audio that we can *genuinely* hear - and since that isn't (yet) the case, then it strongly suggests we've still got more to learn. And I believe that the subject under discussion here is a case in point, as my experience mirrors that of Jim.

Moreover, I feel that what's being claimed, in reference to high-resolution music files, is being wrongly dismissed out of hand by evidence that doesn't conclusively disprove it, which is why I think further investigation into the subject is required, over and above that which has so far been carried out, before any proper conclusions can be reached.


This is not a process without flaws, it is, nevertheless, of more use than someone on a forum claiming that they heard it so it's true.


Well, the fact is BOTH are flawed, to varying degrees, therefore by definition, neither can be used (as you're doing) as *conclusive proof* to win an argument!;)


I will dig you out some links to proper trials of high rez audio when I am back home this evening.

Please do, as that would be interesting, but I sincerely doubt it will act as evidence to *conclusively disprove* what Jim, for example, is claiming. It will only likely act as evidence, which on the surface, appears to support your argument. - no more than that, in my book.

The big difference between you and I, is just because I've read somewhere that something is true [even if the information concerned has come from a supposedly 'expert source'], doesn't automatically make it so - *especially* if I'm suitably convinced that what I've experienced to the contrary (and have tested for numerous times, using my own judgement criteria) is real.

The fact that it doesn't appear to tally with the supposed 'truth', won't cause me to dismiss my experience as imaginary. That is how intelligent (free-thinking) people think and also learn, and how for centuries mankind has evolved and will continue to do so, if we place due faith in our senses - and aren't afraid of challenging what is deemed as 'the truth' by a supposedly higher authority.

Marco.

[AJSki2fly]

The big difference between you and I, is just because I've read somewhere that something is true [even if the information concerned comes from a supposedly 'expert source'], doesn't automatically make it so - *especially* if I'm suitably convinced that what I hear (and have tested for numerous times, using my own judgement criteria) is real.

The fact that, on the surface it appears to contradict the supposed 'truth', won't make me simply dismiss my experience as erroneous.

Marco.

I have read many papers and articles on this subject over the last ten years, mainly because I was concerned with the lack of quality I perceived(that word again) when listening to so called hi-res MP3's and some CD's (I would emphasis this process was done on a system known to me and stable for several years, which we can call my testbed).

This all came about when a friend sent me some mp3 files of world music from the far east, the type of which I had not heard before and some instruments I would not have heard before. I put it on with excitement as he often found interesting stuff. What a shock it just sounded awful and weird, so I downloaded the same, and still the same. So I contacted my friend and asked if he was having a joke, a firm no came and he sent me a direct copy CD, on it went and hey ho it sounded quite different and was now listenable. This prompted me into doing some investigation of my own as I had actually digitised all met CD's to mp3 or equivalent, foolishly as I discovered.

I selected a well known piece of music to me that I had not listened to for some time, Led Zeppelin I and played it using MP3 I had and it sounded quite dull and lifeless really not at all how I remembered it. Then on with the CD and presto the life was back into it, but not quite as I remember it on vinyl, so then I listened on Vinyl and yes it was how I recalled it in my minds EAR. Intrigued I did some more investigation and the master for the mp3 and CD were the same the vinyl was different being from the original master. So I then found a 24/96 version and downloaded, this did actually sound different and after some investigation I resolved it was a remix of the original master, hence why timbre had change, nothing to do with the bit depth or the frequency.

So I then went off to find Vinyl, MP3, CD and SACD and 24/96 or 24/192 of the same music. One of my favourite albums of all time is Supertramp - Crime of the Century, and I had Vinyl, standard CD and and MFSL copies from the original master tapes, so I then purchased MP3 and 24/192 of the same. What I wanted to obviously ascertain was could I actually hear any difference and if so what.

So I have repeated the listening to these many times myself and an audiophile friend, it involves putting on at least 3 of Vinyl, MP3, CD and MFSL or 24/192 at any one time and them cueing each track simultaneously and the other person in the room randomly switching between them and each time it changes writing down what the listener thinks it is and the switcher writing down what it actually is. The results were as so, MP3 was relatively easily identifiable and hardly ever missed, pure 16/44.1 CD was identified at least 50% of the time. When CD quality was not identified for what it was, what actually was playing was the MFSL CD or the 24/192 Flac. Conversly the same was true with the MFSL CD or the 24/192 FLAC, this is to say that at about 50% of the time these were thought to be the CD playing. Finally vinyl was identified from digital most of the time at least 95%. We repeated the tests many times to try and get a good result.

So my point is that in my experience and that of my friend if all the formats are derived from the same master then differentiating aurally between CD 16/44.1 and any higher quality digital is virtually impossible, in fact it is down to guess work.

Based on the above and various articles I would have to say that from an aural resolution perspective anything beyond 16/44.1 makes no difference aurally to us mere human beings, and as I understand it that is why it was chosen by engineers originally for CD's to sound the same as the original recording.

On the same point I and my friend recently both identified a rather expensive SACD as sounding odd when compared to an earlier CD and the Vinyl version, in fact it had been produced from a inferior quality master.

So it is all not clear cut and is I am afraid a can of listening worms, if it sounds odd or poor then it probably is and comes from some inferior re-master irrespective of the resolution CD or above.

[Marco]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for sharing your experiences in this area - most interesting:)

The important thing here, I feel, is that rather than simply accepting as fact the relevance to this argument of tests you've read about (no matter how seemingly 'expert' or scientifically credible), but which you yourself weren't involved in, you instead carried out your OWN tests and subsequently used *your* judgement criteria to decide the outcome - and that's the type of intelligent (free) thinking we promote on AoS. Ultimately, it's what YOUR senses (or conclusions) tell you, on any subject, that counts!

My own experience in this area concurs largely with yours, with perhaps the exception that when comparing recordings, all else being equal, including mastering, then in my view high-res 24-bit (done well) consistently produces a discernibly superior sound, to CD quality 16/44.1, and certainly MP3.

Like you, I'm in the position of owning, and thus being able to compare at length, many identical albums on various formats, some digital and some analogue, and if the difference is obvious (which as you say isn't always the case), then it's invariably the analogue recording on vinyl (given a pressing that has been produced from the original analogue master), or high-res 24-bit recording on digital, which is sonically superior.

However, I do agree that, more often than not, recordings of CD quality are not easy to differentiate from high-res ones, but it can be done, and in some cases easier than you think.

A point I'd l make, in reference to that, is the 'MASTER' quality recordings, available on the likes of Tidal, which for me virtually always sound superior (more detailed, open and dynamic) than even the best standard recordings within their music library (often including non-'MASTER' recordings of the same) - and I frequently notice this by accident, simply when going about my business listening to music (as I often do whilst working from home), and thinking to myself: 'Gosh, that sounds much better (or worse) than usual', depending on whether I'm playing a 'MASTER' quality recording or not.

Now, bear in mind when making that observation, I'm not near the TV or computer screen, but simply listening to the music (I could be working in the kitchen or in any other room separate from where the system is), and so have no idea whether a 'MASTER' quality recording is being played or not. It's only when I actually look at the screen for confirmation of such, or otherwise, that I find out... And almost always, the difference is easily heard!

I don't know precisely what criteria Tidal use for tagging certain recordings with the title 'MASTER' (perhaps someone who knows could say?), and therefore how they differ from standard recordings. However, it seems a bit too much of a coincidence that, unprompted and in the absence of any other variables, almost every time I hear one, it sounds better than the latter, through the exact same system.

Marco.

[Jimbo]

I have read many papers and articles on this subject over the last ten years, mainly because I was concerned with the lack of quality I perceived(that word again) when listening to so called hi-res MP3's and some CD's (I would emphasis this process was done on a system known to me and stable for several years, which we can call my testbed).

This all came about when a friend sent me some mp3 files of world music from the far east, the type of which I had not heard before and some instruments I would not have heard before. I put it on with excitement as he often found interesting stuff. What a shock it just sounded awful and weird, so I downloaded the same, and still the same. So I contacted my friend and asked if he was having a joke, a firm no came and he sent me a direct copy CD, on it went and hey ho it sounded quite different and was now listenable. This prompted me into doing some investigation of my own as I had actually digitised all met CD's to mp3 or equivalent, foolishly as I discovered.

I selected a well known piece of music to me that I had not listened to for some time, Led Zeppelin I and played it using MP3 I had and it sounded quite dull and lifeless really not at all how I remembered it. Then on with the CD and presto the life was back into it, but not quite as I remember it on vinyl, so then I listened on Vinyl and yes it was how I recalled it in my minds EAR. Intrigued I did some more investigation and the master for the mp3 and CD were the same the vinyl was different being from the original master. So I then found a 24/96 version and downloaded, this did actually sound different and after some investigation I resolved it was a remix of the original master, hence why timbre had change, nothing to do with the bit depth or the frequency.

So I then went off to find Vinyl, MP3, CD and SACD and 24/96 or 24/192 of the same music. One of my favourite albums of all time is Supertramp - Crime of the Century, and I had Vinyl, standard CD and and MFSL copies from the original master tapes, so I then purchased MP3 and 24/192 of the same. What I wanted to obviously ascertain was could I actually hear any difference and if so what.

So I have repeated the listening to these many times myself and an audiophile friend, it involves putting on at least 3 of Vinyl, MP3, CD and MFSL or 24/192 at any one time and them cueing each track simultaneously and the other person in the room randomly switching between them and each time it changes writing down what the listener thinks it is and the switcher writing down what it actually is. The results were as so, MP3 was relatively easily identifiable and hardly ever missed, pure 16/44.1 CD was identified at least 50% of the time. When CD quality was not identified for what it was, what actually was playing was the MFSL CD or the 24/192 Flac. Conversly the same was true with the MFSL CD or the 24/192 FLAC, this is to say that at about 50% of the time these were thought to be the CD playing. Finally vinyl was identified from digital most of the time at least 95%. We repeated the tests many times to try and get a good result.

So my point is that in my experience and that of my friend if all the formats are derived from the same master then differentiating aurally between CD 16/44.1 and any higher quality digital is virtually impossible, in fact it is down to guess work.

Based on the above and various articles I would have to say that from an aural resolution perspective anything beyond 16/44.1 makes no difference aurally to us mere human beings, and as I understand it that is why it was chosen by engineers originally for CD's to sound the same as the original recording.

On the same point I and my friend recently both identified a rather expensive SACD as sounding odd when compared to an earlier CD and the Vinyl version, in fact it had been produced from a inferior quality master.

So it is all not clear cut and is I am afraid a can of listening worms, if it sounds odd or poor then it probably is and comes from some inferior re-master irrespective of the resolution CD or above.

Excellent post Adrian and your observations regaring 16/44 and 24bit recording being only identified 50% of the time concurs closely with what I have found.

[AJSki2fly]

Hi Adrian,


My own experience concurs largely with yours, with perhaps the exception that all else being equal, including mastering, when comparing recordings, then high-res, done well, consistently produces a discernibly superior sound.

Now, bear in mind when making that observation, I'm not near the TV or computer screen, but simply listening to the music (I could be working in the kitchen or anywhere), and so have no idea whether I'm listening to a 'MASTER' quality recording or not. It's only when I actually look at the screen for confirmation of such, or otherwise, that I'm faced with the reality... And almost always, the difference is easily heard!

I don't know what criteria Tidal use for giving certain recordings their 'MASTER' title (perhaps someone who knows could say?) but it seems a bit too much of a coincidence that, unprompted, almost every time I hear one, it sounds better than the others, through the exact same system.....

Marco.

I would agree with most of what you say with the exception of hi-res, I cannot personally discern a difference between it and CD level quality, if the playing field is equal and from the same master. That is on my system and my friends, he is of the same opinion, maybe its the sad fact of old or buggered ears, mine definitely roll off at 15khz.

What is interesting is the TIDAL experience with their MASTER titles, and I would agree with you these generally do sound exceptionally good when compared to other recording of the same. So it would be interesting to know what they are sourced from (and I am deliberately choosing to ignore all the arguments around MQA and whether it is better or not, on my system it will only be resolved on level to CD quality anyway). Like yourself I often listen to TIDAL random playlists and find new music that way and it can be quite pronounced when the quality is better, interesting.

There has been much said on this thread and on the ground box one around "perceived' aural quality and what is real and what is not. In my experience only you as an individual can judge that for yourself, after all we each have a pair of ears and brain and by human definition they will not be the same, possibly similar but they will be slightly different. So by that fact alone it is very likely our listening experience and how we perceive music individually will be different to anybody else. So IMO it is best to listen and make your own judgment on what you like to hear and what you don't.

[Jimbo]

In all cases where differences have been noted the reason was that the mastering was not identical. This is even true for packages that contain the 16/44.1 version and the 24/192 version although they purport to be the same thing. So this is the most likely case.

All trials take a 24/192 recording and reduce it to 16/44.1 for the comparison, thus guaranteeing that any difference will not be due to mastering. If you didn't verify this then your comparison has no value. If you did then you have made a breakthrough that would create some serious waves in the audio science community.

I was listening to the same mastered material just released as 24bit and CD quality.

[Macca]

I was listening to the same mastered material just released as 24bit and CD quality.

Yes but it is important to verify this is truly the case. There is at least one instance where the mastering of the CD version was demonstrably hobbled compared to the 24/192.


Here's a link to the most commonly cited paper http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 you have to pay to download the whole thing but the conclusions are reproduced on the title page:

Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analogue output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

My bold.

Now this is not conclusive proof and no-one has claimed it is. In any case you only get to really prove things in mathematics. And I want to emphasise again that this is not 'my' argument. It is simply my opinion that having read the research that vast bulk of it demonstrates that we are unable to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and higher sampling rates. It's a opinion shared by the vast majority of researchers into the subject.


For balance http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190207/18296.pdf here's a fully available meta-analysis (note this paper has been highly criticised for both methodology and conclusions) that suggests that 'evaluation of audio discrimination involves testing the limits of perception and it is clear from the presented meta-analysis that it is difficult to detect.'


So best case we are talking about a difference (not an improvement, that's not the same thing) which is at best on the edge of perception - how good is your hearing these days?



And to finish an accessible lecture from a record producer who has made over 100 hi rez recordings (AIX Records). https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/page-3


Note he points out that if you didn't record hirez and digital all the way from the microphones onward, it isn't and can never be 'hi rez' regardless. You think you've been listening to the hi rez version of Fleetwood Mac 'Rumours'? No you haven't. :D

[Jimbo]

"So best case we are talking about a difference (not an improvement, that's not the same thing) which is at best on the edge of perception - how good is your hearing these days?"

This is what I found when I was listening to hi res vs 16bit.

Your last point regarding recording in digital also has lots of questionable implications, not only was the recording done digitally in the first place but was the hi Rez version just up scaled from 16bit or in the case of CD downscaled from a 32,DSD or 24 bit recording.

I have read lots of papers on the net that have used a sample of the population to verify if they could hear hi res vs CD and many are inconclusive but if you were not there you also don't know what bias there maybe, how the system is set up and what were the precise conditions.

As we found when we did the phono stage bake off in the summer it is hard to match exact gain and keep all equipment on the same conditions and as a result we had quite mixed reactions and preferences.

Ultimately no matter what controlled circumstances you read about in evaluation of digital music, the way they are written up and interpreted can be very subjective. Not least how individuals hear and perceive sound!

Nothing beats your own personally experience in the environment you know well especially if you have access to good equipment and recordings.

[Marco]

Here's a link to the most commonly cited paper http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 you have to pay to download the whole thing but the conclusions are reproduced on the title page:

Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analogue output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

My bold.

Now this is not conclusive proof and no-one has claimed it is.


Ok, but you were using it earlier to refute Jim's opinion, and that of others who think differently on the subject, based on the results of their personal experience, which is why I pulled you up on it. And now that you've had a chance to think about it more, your stance has somewhat softened;)

In reality, the results of those tests are only relevant to what was tested for on that day, under the specific conditions in question. You can't necessarily extrapolate them as proof of something else, in the context of a another situation, and where the conditions aren't the same.


In any case you only get to really prove things in mathematics. And I want to emphasise again that this is not 'my' argument. It is simply my opinion that having read the research that vast bulk of it demonstrates that we are unable to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and higher sampling rates. It's a opinion shared by the vast majority of researchers into the subject.


Sure, and I certainly agree with your point on mathematics, but that opinion (although a learned one) isn't necessarily more valid than Jim's or mine on the subject, and as you say, it doesn't act as conclusive proof of anything. It's simply another opinion (among many) to throw into the mix for consideration.


So best case we are talking about a difference (not an improvement, that's not the same thing) which is at best on the edge of perception - how good is your hearing these days?


Well, at the end of the day, you hear what you hear, and how well that stands up to scrutiny, depends on a number of factors, including listening tests in the real world with your own system and recordings.


And to finish an accessible lecture from a record producer who has made over 100 hi rez recordings (AIX Records). https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/page-3

Note he points out that if you didn't record hirez and digital all the way from the microphones onward, it isn't and can never be 'hi rez' regardless. You think you've been listening to the hi rez version of Fleetwood Mac 'Rumours'? No you haven't. :D

Fair enough, but when introduced at any point in the recording chain, it could still be enough to influence the final result, and thus be responsible for why, with hi-res, some of us can clearly hear the difference.

As an aside, I think you'd benefit greatly from embracing music streaming, as it would provide access to a much broader range of recordings, thus allowing you to make more comparisons, which are relevant to discussions such as this (i.e you could assess what I'm hearing with 'MASTER' quality recordings on Tidal, and offer an opinion on that), rather than using tests from researchers to support your arguments.

Marco.

[Marco]

I have read lots of papers on the net that have used a sample of the population to verify if they could hear hi res vs CD and many are inconclusive but if you were not there you also don't know what bias there maybe, how the system is set up and what were the precise conditions.


Yup, that's also my view, which is why it *proves* nothing, in the context of what we're currently discussing. I also agree with the rest of your post.

Marco.

[Macca]

Ok, but you were using it earlier to refute Jim's opinion, and that of others who think differently on the subject, based on the results of their personal experience, which is why I pulled you up on it. And now that you've had a chance to think about it more, your stance has somewhat softened;)




Not in the slightest. As a gambling man I would say you are betting against massive odds. Best case nobody hears a 'clear difference' with hi-res. It's at the limit of perception. Any clear difference is due to different mastering. Which is what I have said all along. Aside from anything your speakers don't have the bandwith - what's the upper roll off on a Tannoy 15 inch gold?


Anyway you asked for studies, you got them. Did you watch the video?

[Marco]

Not in the slightest.


Well, IMO, your current stance is less dogmatic than it was in some of the statements you were making earlier, and if I could be arsed scrolling back through what's been written, I could quote you to prove my point.


As a gambling man I would say you are betting against massive odds. Best case nobody hears a 'clear difference' with hi-res. It's at the limit of perception. Any clear difference is due to different mastering.Which is what I have said all along.


Sorry, in terms of the first bit, I've no idea what you're referring to, so please clarify?

In terms of the bit in bold. how can it be when (along with Jim and Adrian) I've heard clear differences in sound quality, during the streaming of music (as mentioned from my experiences on Tidal), when all else is has been equal, apart from the recording sampling rate.

Therefore, that clearly disproves your assertion, unless you're saying that we're all imagining it?


Aside from anything your speakers don't have the bandwith - what's the upper roll off on a Tannoy 15 inch gold?


No idea, as I have little interest in such measurements, only in what I know I can hear. And besides, the listening in question was carried out on my Celestion 15XRs (with upgraded crossovers), not the Tannoys.


Anyway you asked for studies, you got them. Did you watch the video?

Not yet. Is it relatively short and sweet, not overly geeky, and therefore not too boring? I don't want to fall asleep tonight any earlier than necessary:D;)

Marco.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.' - no they don't, at least not when put to the test. The difference between this article and the previous two is that in this article a bloke is trying to sell you something.

I think if you look into Davids background being the founder of DBX you will find his ethics to be without question, rather he fairly examples what he knows
and has contributed engineering to. https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-world-beyond-20kHz.pdf

What is needed is a rethink of the CD standard and accompanying equipment replaying CD's to lift the available frequency.
20-20kz is safe, predictable and great for manufacturers, but not for high fidelity audio. We need to realize we are being short changed.

Nyquist sampling simply determines that the sampling occur at twice the upper frequency limit, its mathematics places no apparent restriction.
Things would be much better had the upper frequency originally designed to be 44.1khz and therefore the sampling to be at 88.2khz, but thinking like this got in the way
http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_rate.shtml

" Rumor has it that video equipment already had clocks that ran at 44.1K that could be integrated into the first CD players. I have also heard that Herbert von Karajan complained
to Sony that Beethoven's 9th would not fit on the early CD specifications. By lowering the rate to 44.1K, 74 minutes could be recorded onto a CD using 16-bit samples, enough to do the trick."

Now to find other equipment following this same mediocrity path by providing 20-20khz or OMG less, is not good for the future of high fidelity
Here in comparison we see the Denon DL103 cartridge providing 20hz to 45khz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denon_dl103

[Jimbo]

I think if you look into Davids background being the founder of DBX you will find his ethics to be without question, rather he fairly examples what he knows
and has contributed engineering to. https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-world-beyond-20kHz.pdf

What is needed is a rethink of the CD standard and accompanying equipment replaying CD's to lift the available frequency.
20-20kz is safe, predictable and great for manufacturers, but not for high fidelity audio. We need to realize we are being short changed.

Nyquist sampling simply determines that the sampling occur at twice the upper frequency limit, its mathematics places no apparent restriction.
Things would be much better had the upper frequency originally designed to be 44.1khz and therefore the sampling to be at 88.2khz, but thinking like this got in the way
http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_rate.shtml

" Rumor has it that video equipment already had clocks that ran at 44.1K that could be integrated into the first CD players. I have also heard that Herbert von Karajan complained
to Sony that Beethoven's 9th would not fit on the early CD specifications. By lowering the rate to 44.1K, 74 minutes could be recorded onto a CD using 16-bit samples, enough to do the trick."

Now to find other equipment following this same mediocrity path by providing 20-20khz or OMG less, is not good for the future of high fidelity
Here in comparison we see the Denon DL103 cartridge providing 20hz to 45khz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denon_dl103

I have read in another article that indeed it was set at 44.1k purely so that 74 mins could be recorded onto CD. 88.2 k would have resulted theoretically in a much higher quality recording.

[Stratmangler]

I have read in another article that indeed it was set at 44.1k purely so that 74 mins could be recorded onto CD. 88.2 k would have resulted theoretically in a much higher quality recording.

Go back to the early 1980s, and 44.1 kHz sample rate was bleeding edge technology - 88.2 kHz was not possible.
The earliest digital studio recorders were working at 16 bit, 50 kHz.

[Macca]

I think if you look into Davids background being the founder of DBX you will find his ethics to be without question, rather he fairly examples what he knows
and has contributed engineering to. https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-world-beyond-20kHz.pdf

,

Then why does he begin his article by stating something that is demonstrably false?

[AJSki2fly]

In terms of the bit in bold. how can it be when (along with Jim and Adrian) I've heard clear differences in sound quality, during the streaming of music (as mentioned from my experiences on Tidal), when all else is has been equal, apart from the recording sampling rate.

No idea, as I have little interest in such measurements, only in what I know I can hear. And besides, the listening in question was carried out on my Celestion 15XRs (with upgraded crossovers), not the Tannoys.

Marco.

Marco, first point yes I can hear differences but not with every master on TIDAL. In fact for a few I have done listening comparisons with CD as a for a few I them already. Some there was no difference I could detect, others definitely sounded better. So the question is why, my suspicion, which I cannot confirm, is that a different master has been used from the CD or the TIDAL “MASTER” has been RE-mixed in some way. I am aware that some early CD’s produced were made from a master re-mixed this was at the time an attempt to try and loose the harsh top end people complained about in with CD replay back then.

On the second point, I think it is very important to keep in mind the limitations of a systems reproduction capabilities when having these discussions, and any other limiting issues. For example personally I know my speakers currently in use roll off at 16.5khz and they are designed that way to closely follow the hearing curve of the human ear, this gives a relaxed and musical sound that is easy to listen too. My other speakers all drop off the cliff around 18-20khz. So for me when I discuss differences it has to be within these boundaries and also within my hearing limit which is around 15.5khz. Basically I am saying I am unable to evaluate beyond those boundaries unless I used measuring equipment and reproduction equipment proven to go beyond the frequencies mentioned.

One other method of comparison which has just occurred to me would be to take the wav form of each rendition of the piece of music in question. In other words the CD and the Tidal version, and then do a direct comparison on a computer used no software like Audacity to inspect for difference. Another method would be to feed each digital file into a computer program and analyse differences. I suspect this would be quite complex to achieve accurately, but computer are good at number crunching and fast. At least it would tell you if they were different or not.

[Macca]

Sorry, in terms of the first bit, I've no idea what you're referring to, so please clarify?

In terms of the bit in bold. how can it be when (along with Jim and Adrian) I've heard clear differences in sound quality, during the streaming of music (as mentioned from my experiences on Tidal), when all else is has been equal, apart from the recording sampling rate.

Therefore, that clearly disproves your assertion, unless you're saying that we're all imagining it?



No idea, as I have little interest in such measurements, only in what I know I can hear. And besides, the listening in question was carried out on my Celestion 15XRs (with upgraded crossovers), not the Tannoys.



Not yet. Is it relatively short and sweet, not overly geeky, and therefore not too boring? I don't want to fall asleep tonight any earlier than necessary:D;)

Marco.

If you are hearing clear differences then all is not equal and you have no way of determining exactly what you are listening to on Tidal, it is just what they give you. No-one would pay extra for the HD versions if they sounded identical to the 16/44.1 would they? Your comparisons are invalid which is why your findings fly in the face of all the research.


I doubt that the tweeters in your 40 year old Celestions are capable of reproducing anything above 20 khz.


The video is about 50 minutes, it is interesting. I don't think you should continue with the debate until you have watched it.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Then why does he begin his article by stating something that is demonstrably false?
Can you be more specific ?

David was deeply interested in sound, and wished simply to see what was possible, he gave many talks to the Audio Engineering Society (AES) , a sample is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j71NrNMx2rU

[Jimbo]

If you are hearing clear differences then all is not equal and you have no way of determining exactly what you are listening to on Tidal, it is just what they give you. No-one would pay extra for the HD versions if they sounded identical to the 16/44.1 would they? Your comparisons are invalid which is why your findings fly in the face of all the research.


I doubt that the tweeters in your 40 year old Celestions are capable of reproducing anything above 20 khz.


The video is about 50 minutes, it is interesting. I don't think you should continue with the debate until you have watched it.

Some Hi res material has been proven to not actually been Hi res but upscaled 16/44.1. Unless you can verify what you are listening too, which is what Adrian was suggesting, making evaluations is a tad difficult?

People do pay for Hi res material in the hope they are getting something better and in some cases I don't dispute they are but in others it is a waste of money in my experience as the differences you can hear are not substantial enough to warrant the extra cash!

[Macca]

I quoted it previously:

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.'

I'm sure he is deeply interested in sound, but he also has to flog microphones in order to put food on the table. Not that I've any issue with that per se but the man has a vested interest and you need to bear that in mind before taking anything he says on the subject as gospel.



Not that I've any issue with recording in high resolution, it actually makes a lot of sense to do that. It's replaying in high resolution that is pointless (unless you want access to the different masterings that are not available in any other format).

Watch the video I linked to where a producer who actually makes hi-rez recordings explains why there is no benefit to be had in replay.

[AJSki2fly]

I quoted it previously:

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.'

Not that I've any issue with recording in high resolution, it actually makes a lot of sense to do that. It's replaying in high resolution that is pointless (unless you want access to the different masterings that are not available in any other format).

Watch the video I linked to where a producer who actually makes hi-rez recordings explains why there is no benefit to be had in replay.

Martin, I will go back an watch the video, I presume he is an independent? We need to remember in all these discussions that the music industry is a ruthless and sometimes a cruel business. The large music companies are driven by profit and sales, not necessarily an interest in the artist (from whatever genre) or the music, you just need to look at the history of recording contracts to understand that. So bear mind if the industries prime driver is sales, then to be able to sell a product many times over in different formats or even an “improved release in a higher resolution” of an existing product be it VINYL, CD, or a digital file then it’s easy and quick max profit. So whether the new version is actually better or not may not be of much interest to the music company bosses. I know that is a cynical view, but IMO probably not far from the truth.

If you look at marketing of re-releases of music which are generally considered better, if you look closely a lot of what is stated by them will imply a better resolution or closer to the original. Yes it will state 24bit, SACD, GOLD DISC, HI RES ETC but you find where it actually says guaranteed better resolution of the same material and a better sound.

Having said that there are clearly some products which offer a better resolution, certain high quality vinyls, CD’s recorded using exacting studio processes where it’s virtually a live recording going to the master tape with minimal mixing. These are not the norm and tend to come from the classical and Jazz arenas, occasionally the odd rock/pop one gets exceptional treatment, some of the Style Councils LP’s are a good example, here the artist has taken more control.

As I have said before it really is a can of musical worms, IMO it is best to listen to the music and decide for yourself if you like it musically and secondly if it sounds good, if the answer to both is yes then great. If it’s good musically but does not sound good then if your system is good as far as your ears are concerned then it may be worth seeing if there is a better version of the same piece of music. Otherwise forget it and listen to some other music and move on.

[Marco]

If you are hearing clear differences then all is not equal and you have no way of determining exactly what you are listening to on Tidal, it is just what they give you. No-one would pay extra for the HD versions if they sounded identical to the 16/44.1 would they? Your comparisons are invalid which is why your findings fly in the face of all the research.


Firstly, Martin, don't tell me that anything I've heard and reported, or the comparisons I've made, in reference to any subject, is "invalid", or we're liable to fall out in a major way, especially in this instance as you don't know for sure exactly what I've compared.

Everything we hear in audio is valid; it's only the context in which it's applied that could be argued as invalid. However, without categorical proof that's the case, which certainly hasn't been supplied in reference to the discussion here, no-one has the right to completely dismiss someone else's findings, which indirectly is what you're doing.

It's not only the differences with recordings on Tidal I can hear, but when streaming 24-bit files, contained on my NAS drives, of the *same* (and I mean SAME - same mastering, same everything else) albums I have on CD, of which i have compared 100s of examples, and more often than not, the 24-bit files sound superior (more open, detailed and dynamic).

Now I can't explain exactly what's happening, but I'm definitely not imagining it, and it would certainly help the discussion if you were less dismissive and a little more open-minded to possibilities that fall outside of your comfort zone for consideration.

Perhaps what's happening is that with 24-bit, there's a knock-on effect, which manifests itself lower down the frequency range, within audibility, and influences what is heard overall from the recording, somewhat like the effect gained by installing super-tweeters?

Lots of people who've installed super-tweeters, and used them with their existing speakers, have reported significant sonic improvements, in the way I've described with hi-res over CD, even though the tweeters are operating outside of the bounds of human audibility, and you can still hear that effect on a pair of 40-year old speakers.

On a wider note, IMO, it would also help greatly (and give more weight to your arguments here) if you obtained more practical experience in this area, by embracing file-based audio, and in the context of your system, listened to some of the recordings in question and compared them with the same on CD, rather than treating the details of technical research elsewhere as Gospel, and dismissing the valid findings of others, simply because they appear to fly in the face of that.

And since you mentioned validity, in my book, opinions on audio formed from *practical experience*, such as I've outlined above, will always be more valid than those learned from books or Internet research, and it is those opinions I will always give credence to and listen to the most, quite simply because they are more real.

I'll watch the video when I get a chance later.

Marco.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I quoted it previously:

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.'

I'm sure he is deeply interested in sound, but he also has to flog microphones in order to put food on the table. Not that I've any issue with that per se but the man has a vested interest and you need to bear that in mind before taking anything he says on the subject as gospel.



Not that I've any issue with recording in high resolution, it actually makes a lot of sense to do that. It's replaying in high resolution that is pointless (unless you want access to the different masterings that are not available in any other format).

Watch the video I linked to where a producer who actually makes hi-rez recordings explains why there is no benefit to be had in replay.

Hi Martin
David Blackmer passed away in March of 2002. If you view some of his interviews, and know where he fitted in terms of audio history, you should gather
he was a legend in audio.

Briefly his main effort was working on companding, where Dolby could manage only a 10db increase in dynamic range, David went for 30db
If you look at some of DBX's history and products: http://vintagedbx.free.fr/index_en.html you can see a continual urge to push boundaries of
what was possible. For instance the DBX 700 which offered Delta Sigma modulation and 644khz sampling. Following the sale of DBX he continued his passion
(not something as mundane as you put it as bread on the table) for audio, exploring what was possible. What a great life he had.

Regarding replay of high resolution audio, think instead of where certain standards that the industry adopts originate from. You will observe that marketing and
agreement to a standard that will only just do the job is a very common trait. In fact marketing over rides everything usually and consumers end up with something that
works, but has quite boring written all over it . We can thankfully step away from large scale marketing and instead choose equipment that is exciting and different from
much smaller manufacturers. Even more exciting beyond the usual day job -is being an inventor yourself.

Reflecting back to David Blackmer you can now hopefully see he had battled every form of nasty within big business, and in his latter life came out smiling
and still inventing - what a guy.

[Pigmy Pony]

Firstly, Martin, don't tell me that anything I've heard and reported, or the comparisons I've made, in reference to any subject, is "invalid", or we're liable to fall out in a major way, especially in this instance as you don't know for sure exactly what I've compared.

Everything we hear in audio is valid; it's only the context in which it's applied that could be argued as invalid. However, without categorical proof that's the case, which certainly hasn't been supplied in reference to the discussion here, no-one has the right to completely dismiss someone else's findings, which indirectly is what you're doing.

It's not only the differences with recordings on Tidal I can hear, but when streaming 24-bit files, contained on my NAS drives, of the *same* (and I mean SAME - same mastering, same everything else) albums I have on CD, of which i have compared 100s of examples, and more often than not, the 24-bit files sound superior (more open, detailed and dynamic).

Now I can't explain exactly what's happening, but I'm definitely not imagining it, and it would certainly help the discussion if you were less dismissive and a little more open-minded to possibilities that fall outside of your comfort zone for consideration.

Perhaps what's happening is that with 24-bit, there's a knock-on effect, which manifests itself lower down the frequency range, within audibility, and influences what is heard overall from the recording, somewhat like the effect gained by installing super-tweeters?

Lots of people who've installed super-tweeters, and used them with their existing speakers, have reported significant sonic improvements, in the way I've described with hi-res over CD, even though the tweeters are operating outside of the bounds of human audibility, and you can still hear that effect on a pair of 40-year old speakers.

On a wider note, IMO, it would also help greatly (and give more weight to your arguments here) if you obtained more practical experience in this area, by embracing file-based audio, and in the context of your system, listened to some of the recordings in question and compared them with the same on CD, rather than treating the details of technical research elsewhere as Gospel, and dismissing the valid findings of others, simply because they appear to fly in the face of that.

And since you mentioned validity, in my book, opinions on audio formed from *practical experience*, such as I've outlined above, will always be more valid than those learned from books or Internet research, and it is those opinions I will always give credence to and listen to the most.

I'll watch the video when I get a chance later.

Marco.

I hate it when mum and dad are fighting :(

I've been following this thread (with difficulty) for some time now, and paragraphs 5/6 of the above make the most sense to me - can it not be this simple?

My belief is that it comes down to our perception at the end of the day, regardless of what is scientifically provable - If you shell out on something and perceive an improvement, then that improvement is real and money well spent. If you hear no improvement then regardless of whatever anyone in a science coat says, you've wasted your money! At the end of the day the world itself only exists because we perceive it to.

[NRG]

And to finish an accessible lecture from a record producer who has made over 100 hi rez recordings (AIX Records). https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/page-3


Note he points out that if you didn't record hirez and digital all the way from the microphones onward, it isn't and can never be 'hi rez' regardless. You think you've been listening to the hi rez version of Fleetwood Mac 'Rumours'? No you haven't. :D

An excellent video thanks for linking to it. It's worth the effort to watch it all the way through, note: he's mainly attacking the use of HiRes as a marketing term when the material clearly comes from a CD quality or less(!) source. There's a fair bit of the usual 'look how good I'am' in the presentation but he makes some really valid points and rips into Pono heavily...

[struth]

Certainly heard differences using supertweeters with my single telefunkens. Wasnt sure i liked it so took them off again tho.

[Jimbo]

The only difference I found Marco when listening to 24bit vs 16bit recordings was that although I could identify differences I could not always tell which was which and blind guessing I often chose plain vanilla 16bit over 24bit. All listening was done with FBA so CD rips, no CD in the house. Maybe your experience was different as you were using CD and 24bit files?

One aspect I do find with hi res material is the sense of air around instruments, vocals were often not too different?

[struth]

The only difference I found Marco when listening to 24bit vs 16bit recordings was that although I could identify differences I could not always tell which was which and blind guessing I often chose plain vanilla 16bit over 24bit. All listening was done with FBA so CD rips, no CD in the house. Maybe your experience was different as you were using CD and 24bit files?

One aspect I do find with hi res material is the sense of air around instruments, vocals were often not too different?

shows there were differences tho. not just the same. i agree some 16/44 sound better; can only think the mastering is done well enough to make upscaling etc a reduction again.

[Marco]

I hate it when mum and dad are fighting :(


Lol - it's a merely a (passionate) slightly heated debate, the type of which Martin and I often have on these subjects, not a fight. He has strong views and conviction in his opinions, and so do I, but we're all big boys here, so there's no need for anyone to fall out.


I've been following this thread (with difficulty) for some time now, and paragraphs 5/6 of the above make the most sense to me - can it not be this simple?

My belief is that it comes down to our perception at the end of the day, regardless of what is scientifically provable - If you shell out on something and perceive an improvement, then that improvement is real and money well spent. If you hear no improvement then regardless of whatever anyone in a science coat says, you've wasted your money! At the end of the day the world itself only exists because we perceive it to.

In terms of the bit in bold, I'd suggest that it's at least a possibility. I know what I'm hearing though, so I don't give a tinker's cuss what anyone in a science coat says, if I have grounds to believe there is an agenda behind it, but that's just a general point, not in relation to the stated video, which I haven't watched yet.

We're in complete agreement with the rest, which is why I simply won't have anyone's valid perceptions/experiences here dismissed as invalid/imagined or whatever, no matter how that message has been wrapped up, as the premise I've stated above is fundamental, not only to my own views on audio, but also the AoS ethos; indeed it forms its very core, and all members here must respect that.

Marco.

[Clive]

I'd certainly agree that reading up on the science and then gaining personal experience to reach your own conclusions is sensible. The gaining of personal experience being the more important factor...

[Jimbo]

Nice to have a civilised discussion on this subject without being jeered at or closed down. We can all learn something on here as I am sure none of us know everything apart from what our own ears tell us. I get a bit frustrated by people who just want to point score. There are decent and cordial ways of discussing this subject which I thought was the ethos of AOS?

[Marco]

Hi Jim,


The only difference I found Marco when listening to 24bit vs 16bit recordings was that although I could identify differences I could not always tell which was which and blind guessing I often chose plain vanilla 16bit over 24bit. All listening was done with FBA so CD rips, no CD in the house. Maybe your experience was different as you were using CD and 24bit files?


If you didn't know exactly what you were comparing, then as Martin says, the 16-bit version might've been preferable because of better mastering. These sorts of comparisons are only valid if, aside from the hi-res factor, you're comparing like for like, which is what I've done on numerous occasions, using recordings I have on both computer files and CD or vinyl.

I've got around 1TB worth of stored hi-res music files, which I can access at the touch of a button, and compare instantly with the CD version of the same, using the same test system, so any significant sonic differences become immediately apparent.

That doesn't always happen, but when it does, the hi-res version invariably sounds superior, in the way I've described, almost as if the recording has more 'headroom', dynamically, which as you say, increases the sense of air and space around instruments. I can only report what I hear in that respect (and have heard since I embraced FBA), so that's what I've done:)

Marco.

[AJSki2fly]

We're in complete agreement with the rest, which is why I simply won't have anyone's valid perceptions/experiences here dismissed as invalid/imagined or whatever, no matter how that message has been wrapped up, as the premise I've stated above is fundamental, not only to my own views on audio, but also the AoS ethos; indeed it forms its very core, and all members here must respect that.




There has been much said on this thread and on the ground box one around "perceived' aural quality and what is real and what is not. In my experience only you as an individual can judge that for yourself, after all we each have a pair of ears and brain and by human definition they will not be the same, possibly similar but they will be slightly different. So by that fact alone it is very likely our listening experience and how we perceive music individually will be different to anybody else. So IMO it is best to listen and make your own judgment on what you like to hear and what you don't.

Marco.

I am in complete agreement, let your own ears be the judge of what is right and wrong with what you listen to, what sound good to one may well not to another, we have different ears and brains , and remember its about enjoying the music.:)

[Marco]

I'd certainly agree that reading up on the science and then gaining personal experience to reach your own conclusions is sensible. The gaining of personal experience being the more important factor...

Yes, it helps to do both, but *ultimately* all that matters is the latter, and the results of your own perception.

For me, too many people are too easily 'impressed' and/or influenced by the views of supposed 'experts', simply because it appeals to their technical/scientific mentality, especially when you don't know exactly what those views are founded upon, or the reasons that they might have for expressing them, publicly.

Too often, in my experience, it's simply to further an agenda, rather than actually educate anyone on the subject concerned.

Marco.

[dave2010]

I'd certainly agree that reading up on the science and then gaining personal experience to reach your own conclusions is sensible. The gaining of personal experience being the more important factor...I agree - up to a point. Some of the claimed improvements with tweaks, and new ways of doing things, are almost unmeasurable using equipment most of us have. Maths and science theories help a lot, and indicate possible ways forward. Also, psychology and knowledge of adaptive systems is important - we are all pretty much highly adaptive, and our behaviour and perceptions are continuously changing.

There are many examples of how our perception is adaptive in the field of visual perception, which pretty much prove how our vision adapts to what it "sees", and I feel sure that hearing is similar.

Here is a page which deals with visual illusions - though I've not checked that any of the illusions on the page are actually correct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/27/12-fascinating-optical-illusions-show-how-color-can-trick-the-eye/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ece0950334e6

I have, however, seen similar illusions which I did check - and there are printed books with this sort of thing.

Where I am with Martin (Macca) is when very expensive tweaks and kit are put forward, with big claims on the improvements, and hardly any credible scientific basis and no good theory, or misapplied theory.

Some people may have "money to burn", or different levels of possible budgets, but we shouldn't be supporting those who seem to be offering the audio equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

Danny Kaye - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t80UDdbV3Mk

[Marco]

I agree - up to a point. Some of the claimed improvements with tweaks, and new ways of doing things, are almost unmeasurable using equipment most of us have. Maths and science theories help a lot, and indicate possible ways forward. Also, psychology and knowledge of adaptive systems is important - we are all pretty much highly adaptive, and our behaviour and perceptions are continuously changing.

There are many examples of how our perception is adaptive in the field of visual perception, which pretty much prove how our vision adapts to what it "sees", and I feel sure that hearing is similar.

Here is a page which deals with visual illusions - though I've not checked that any of the illusions on the page are actually correct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/27/12-fascinating-optical-illusions-show-how-color-can-trick-the-eye/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ece0950334e6

I have, however, seen similar illusions which I did check - and there are printed books with this sort of thing.


That's a very good and valid point, Dave. And no doubt we're all susceptible to such. However, here's the thing:

*At what point*, after you've measured away until the cow's come home, and tested things to buggery, objectively, YET your ears repeatedly contradict those results and tell you that what you're hearing is real, do you simply relax and just enjoy the benefits you perceive...?

For me, if you're unable to do that *at some point*, and continue to trust your oscilloscope more than your ears, then you've got a problem! You simply can't spend your whole life denying the existence of something that may be real, simply for fear of being 'fooled'.


Where I am with Martin (Macca) is when very expensive tweaks and kit are put forward, with big claims on the improvements, and hardly any credible scientific basis and no good theory, or misapplied theory.


I completely agree. And if such tweaks are to be promoted here, then they should be accompanied by credible explanations for their efficacy. Trouble is, I'm not sure that those responsible for creating them always know for sure exactly what they're doing.

Marco.

[Clive]

I agree - up to a point. Some of the claimed improvements with tweaks, and new ways of doing things, are almost unmeasurable using equipment most of us have. Maths and science theories help a lot, and indicate possible ways forward. Also, psychology and knowledge of adaptive systems is important - we are all pretty much highly adaptive, and our behaviour and perceptions are continuously changing.

There are many examples of how our perception is adaptive in the field of visual perception, which pretty much prove how our vision adapts to what it "sees", and I feel sure that hearing is similar.

Here is a page which deals with visual illusions - though I've not checked that any of the illusions on the page are actually correct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/27/12-fascinating-optical-illusions-show-how-color-can-trick-the-eye/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ece0950334e6

I have, however, seen similar illusions which I did check - and there are printed books with this sort of thing.

Where I am with Martin (Macca) is when very expensive tweaks and kit are put forward, with big claims on the improvements, and hardly any credible scientific basis and no good theory, or misapplied theory.

Some people may have "money to burn", or different levels of possible budgets, but we shouldn't be supporting those who seem to be offering the audio equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

Danny Kaye - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t80UDdbV3Mk

When reaching one's own conclusions it's important that we're self aware of our own fallibilities and prejudices. I tend not to make snap judgments. I listen over time to different setups and reach conclusion often over several days or weeks of living with a without a particular change. There are some experts on the internet I'll take more notice of than others but there are few, many just trot out their own agenda. In the end it's a good idea to apply common sense to the process too.

As for hi-res, I've heard it be great and so-so but I've not spent time weeding out which hi-res recordings are genuine, not simply upscaled redbook and then you have the issue of whether recordings are remastered. As I don't have my own experience of thoroughly structured listening to hi-res I don't feel I can pass judgment or reach conclusions.

[Marco]

As I don't have my own experience of thoroughly structured listening to hi-res I don't feel I can pass judgment or reach conclusions.

Indeed! And I can think of someone here who would do well to consider that!:ner:

:D;)

Marco.

[Macca]

Indeed! And I can think of someone here who would do well to consider that!:ner:

:D;)

Marco.

I do have though. I was an early adopter of hi res (2001). I've done the structured comparisons (192 vs 44.1, mp3 at various rates vs 44.1) years ago now. The reason I don't bother with it now is because the only point of it is to get a different master and I found that whilst some of the re-masters do sound more 'hi-fi' that something about the 'character' of the original is lost.

Likewise I have no interest in streaming since I already have all the albums I want on CD or SACD. So it would be of no benefit to me whatsoever.

Marco the reason your comparisons are invalid has nothing to do with what you are hearing. You are hearing differences because there are differences. It is just that the reason they are sounding different is not because one recording has frequencies over 22Khz and the other doesn't. There are many ways to make audible changes to how a recording sounds.

[Pigmy Pony]

Lol - it's a merely a (passionate) slightly heated debate, the type of which Martin and I often have on these subjects, not a fight. He has strong views and conviction in his opinions, and so do I, but we're all big boys here, so there's no need for anyone to fall out.



In terms of the bit in bold, I'd suggest that it's at least a possibility. I know what I'm hearing though, so I don't give a tinker's cuss what anyone in a science coat says, if I have grounds to believe there is an agenda behind it, but that's just a general point, not in relation to the stated video, which I haven't watched yet.

We're in complete agreement with the rest, which is why I simply won't have anyone's valid perceptions/experiences here dismissed as invalid/imagined or whatever, no matter how that message has been wrapped up, as the premise I've stated above is fundamental, not only to my own views on audio, but also the AoS ethos; indeed it forms its very core, and all members here must respect that.

Marco.

:D I know you're not fighting really, I'm just putting a bit of silliness into the debate, and I really shouldn't do that when the grown ups are talking.

Completely agree with your point about not letting science tell you what is right - if you're going to do this you may as well put on a CD for your oscilloscope to enjoy while you go down the pub.

[Marco]

Marco the reason your comparisons are invalid has nothing to do with what you are hearing. You are hearing differences because there are differences. It is just that the reason they are sounding different is not because one recording has frequencies over 22Khz and the other doesn't. There are many ways to make audible changes to how a recording sounds.

Ok that's fair enough, but we'll probably have to agree to disagree on some of the reasons for those differences.


Likewise I have no interest in streaming since I already have all the albums I want on CD or SACD. So it would be of no benefit to me whatsoever


Well, at the very least, it would facilitate quick and easy comparisons between hi-res and CD quality digital recordings, which would all add to your experiences in that area.

I'll wholeheartedly say that since embracing file-based audio, I've never been more aware of the genuine differences in those recordings, and more importantly, it's also enhanced my enjoyment of music in general, as well as introducing me to some great stuff I'd simply never have encountered otherwise:)

Marco.

[Marco]

:D I know you're not fighting really, I'm just putting a bit of silliness into the debate, and I really shouldn't do that when the grown ups are talking.

Completely agree with your point about not letting science tell you what is right - if you're going to do this you may as well put on a CD for your oscilloscope to enjoy while you go down the pub.

Lol, and yes, in terms of the last bit, that's why I refuse to get a hard-on over measurements, or what the 'white lab-coat brigade' have to say... Although, I'm sure it'd be a different matter, shweety, if you wear to shlip one on and do that wee dance of yours:booty:

Is that an oscilloscope in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?:eyebrows::bum:

Marco.

[Pigmy Pony]

Lol, and yes, in terms of the last bit, that's why I refuse to get a hard-on over measurements, or what the 'white lab-coat brigade' have to say... Although, I'm sure it'd be a different matter, shweety, if you wear to shlip one on and do that wee dance of yours:booty:

Is that an oscilloscope in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?:eyebrows::bum:

Marco.

It certainly oscillates a fair bit whenever I'm near Wrexham (although that may be due to the sheep). Sorry, I don't own a lab coat. I do however have a lav coat, it's waterproof, stain-resistant AND completely see through. But Mrs. Pony thinks I look a right perv in it. No accounting for taste :(

[Macca]

Well, at the very least, it would facilitate quick and easy comparisons between hi-res and CD quality digital recordings, which would all add to your experiences in that area.

I'll wholeheartedly say that since embracing file-based audio, I've never been more aware of the genuine differences in those recordings, and more importantly, it's also enhanced my enjoyment of music in general, as well as introducing me to some great stuff I'd simply never have encountered otherwise:)

Marco.

read my previous posts, did it all ages ago, years in fact.

What I don't understand is why you seem to favour the idea that it is the extended FR that is creating the difference between the versions on Tidal as opposed to it just being a different mastering. Why is that?

[Clive]

read my previous posts, did it all ages ago, years in fact.

What I don't understand is why you seem to favour the idea that it is the extended FR that is creating the difference between the versions on Tidal as opposed to it just being a different mastering. Why is that?
Were you in a position to know whether the hi-res tracks were genuine or simply upscaled redbook? It's only the last few years that it's become apparent there's been a lot of smoke & mirrors by certain hi-res sales sites. Maybe you were able to compare genuine hi-res which you then down-scaled. That's probably about the only method that's fairly safe - though even this depends on the quality of the software used to downscale. Safest would be to downscale "sensibly" - ie 88.2 to 44.1 so there's no software rounding required.

[Macca]

Were you in a position to know whether the hi-res tracks were genuine or simply upscaled redbook? It's only the last few years that it's become apparent there's been a lot of smoke & mirrors by certain hi-res sales sites. Maybe you were able to compare genuine hi-res which you then down-scaled. That's probably about the only method that's fairly safe - though even this depends on the quality of the software used to downscale. Safest would be to downscale "sensibly" - ie 88.2 to 44.1 so there's no software rounding required.

Yes I agree it is not straightforward. In the first paper I linked to they used genuine hi-rez recordings and switched in a D-A/A-D convertor to bring them down to 16/44.1 - That's a fairly safe method.

I relied on an IT friend to sort it out (it was on his system not mine) so not sure how he did it. Have also done some comparisons with hybrid SACDs. You can't be sure that they have not hobbled the cd layer of course but that would make it easier to spot the hi rez, not harder. On all occasions I failed to do better than chance. I was quite surprised at the time since I'd been sucked in to the whole deal as soon as I heard my first SACD.

[Marco]

read my previous posts, did it all ages ago, years in fact.


It's still a good to revisit things though, and refresh your thoughts on the matter. We're obviously different in that respect, as the opinions I form on audio are always open to being updated. Therefore, it's never a case of 'job done', simply because I came to a conclusion about something years ago, as by listening again I might learn something new!


What I don't understand is why you seem to favour the idea that it is the extended FR that is creating the difference between the versions on Tidal as opposed to it just being a different mastering. Why is that?

Well. I could equally ask why you seem so *certain* that the difference I'm hearing is down to mastering, when you don't know exactly which recordings I've been comparing, or indeed what their provenance is? In terms of the latter, I don't know for sure, so how do you?;)

Perhaps the difference is down to mastering, or maybe it's something else? The fact is, neither of us knows *for sure*, so we simply cannot present our respective views on the matter from the stance of being factually correct.

To the best of my knowledge I've been comparing hi-res music files with a CD version of the same, as there is nothing on the recording notes from either, or anywhere else I've looked (researched on the 'net), to suggest otherwise. Therefore, when I hear differences between them, I've no reason to suspect that other than the influence of hi-res, I'm not comparing like with like, which is why I stand by what I wrote earlier:


I've got around 1TB worth of stored hi-res music files, which I can access at the touch of a button, and compare instantly with the CD version of the same, using the same test system, so any significant sonic differences become immediately apparent.

That doesn't always happen, but when it does, the hi-res version invariably sounds superior, in the way I've described, almost as if the recording has more 'headroom', dynamically, which as you say, increases the sense of air and space around instruments.


Those are the benefits I hear, consistently and repeatedly, whenever I do the comparison, so make of that what you will. I'm convinced that there's something more to it than simply differences in mastering, and you're not, so in order to avoid a pointless circular argument, it's probably best if we leave it there:cool:

Marco.

[Pigmy Pony]

Perhaps you guys should get together for a hi-res 'bake off', you all seem to feel quite strongly about your respective views. :) And the findings worded in a way that we can all follow!

[Macca]

Perhaps you guys should get together for a hi-res 'bake off', you all seem to feel quite strongly about your respective views. :) And the findings worded in a way that we can all follow!

It's not a trivial task to do a proper comparison though. Neither of us are techy enough to do it. Plus I don't think either of us is that bothered.

[Marco]

Perhaps you guys should get together for a hi-res 'bake off', you all seem to feel quite strongly about your respective views. :) And the findings worded in a way that we can all follow!

I'm always up for things like that, so next time Martin visits, I'll subject him to the joys of FBA, and sit him down to blind-test 100s of recordings, hi-res and standard, and he won't get fed, or even be allowed to the loo, until he successfully identifies the differences!!:nono::lol:

Think I might be due round to his place first though, to hear his new Tannoys....

Marco.

[Macca]

I'll play you a SACD so you'll feel at home :D

[Marco]

Quality - you always were willing to go the extra mile!:drinking::drunk:

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

If you didn't know exactly what you were comparing, then as Martin says, the 16-bit version might've been preferable because of better mastering

I'd put money on it being a bit louder ....

[Marco]

Nah, I level-matched the comparisons, mate.

Marco.

[dave2010]

Some CDs, DVDs, Blu rays or SACDs or “studio master” files have been recorded and mastered by people who do use good kit, and at least a modicum of knowledge about what they are doing. Examples might be some of the Linn records classical recordings - e.g. some with the Dunedin Consort. I heard the Dunedin Consort choir live before Christmas - superb. I can’t say that the recordings get close to the live performances, but I am prepared to accept that the hi-res versions do sound slightly better. Possibly the benefits are more apparent with “better” quality kit. I felt that the SACDs sounded a little bit smoother than the CD layer - though others might prefer the sound from CD. I don’t have a wide choice of kit to compare versions., and I can’t do comparisons where the only variable is the quality level of the recordings as sold. Thus any comparisons I do make are not completely valid, even allowing for my own subjective assessment.

[Stratmangler]

Nah, I level-matched the comparisons, mate.

Marco.

What, for Jimbo?

[Marco]

Yesh, via the telepathy signal we've set up between us:eyebrows:

No, I thought you were referring to the discussion I've been having with Macca.

Marco.

[Jimbo]

Yesh, via the telepathy signal we've set up between us:eyebrows:

No, I thought you were referring to the discussion I've been having with Macca.

Marco.

:lol:

[alphaGT]

I’ve just spent the last two hours catching up on this thread. And I gotta say, Marco is the Man! Every time I read a post, and had thoughts on it, Marco comes back and reflects my feelings near exactly.

But you know I gotta add my two cents.

Much of the blind testing done is suspect. They don’t mention what music was used, what equipment was used, and as I’ve mentioned before, they used an average of the population as listening subjects. No wonder results were negative, 50% accuracy supposedly means pure chance. But perhaps half of the listeners had less than good hearing? Or half of the music offered was poorly mastered? Or they were set up in unfamiliar way for most of the listeners? Were the chairs even comfortable? Too many variables to call these test conclusive. If you look up side anyone’s head as you walk through town, notice that no one’s ear looks even remotely the same, each and every human hears differently.

Many of the A/B tests I’ve read about were designed to bring about the results the tester was looking for. And there is as much bias in reading the data as any expectation bias, so, any test that you didn’t conduct yourself should be taken with a grain of salt.

And I keep reading these theories about how digital works, saying there is no space between samples. And more samples don’t help, well I don’t buy it. Higher sampling rates do bring higher frequencies, but that is not all it’s doing. Yes, there is no space between samples, the sample is flat, a fixed number, for the duration of the sample. So we do start with a stair step waveform. Only after filtering does it become smooth like an analog waveform. Perfect accuracy? Not possible. Nothing is perfect. Anyone who cares to argue this point please tell me of anything that is perfect, besides a cold beer on a hot day. And “perfect enough”, doesn’t count. It’s still not perfect. We don’t listen to test tones, music is a super complex waveform. To think you can dice it into a trillion pieces, and reassemble it with absolutely no affect on the original waveform, is pure fallacy. Don’t get me wrong, it’s pretty amazing! And does a damn good job of delivering what was promised. But to flatly say it can’t get any better is naive.

Changing the subject, getting back to the original subject, I do believe that RIAA equalization has a big effect on why we perceive vinyl to sound better. A necessity to get the lowest, and highest frequencies on the record, bass grooves would be huge, and the needle would be lost in then, and high frequencies would be too small. So, they taper off both ends, and restore them with an equalizer at the time of playback. As a sound man, a room rarely sounds best with the EQ flat, it usually means pulling the middle up, or down, with the ends up, depending on the room, so depending on the phono preamp, and how it shapes this EQ to recover the low signals at each end, could be giving us a more likable EQ curve? More accurate? No, more likable? Maybe?

While digital is well known for keeping the EQ flat from top to bottom. Any live sound man knows what a BBC is, a magic box that makes your band sound better! But it’s really just a fixed equalizer that accentuates just a few frequencies. When you switch it on, everyone thinks it sounds better. So the concept that flatter is better is debatable. More accurate? Yes! Yes it is. Sounds better? Subjective.

Russell

[Jimbo]

I’ve just spent the last two hours catching up on this thread. And I gotta say, Marco is the Man! Every time I read a post, and had thoughts on it, Marco comes back and reflects my feelings near exactly.

But you know I gotta add my two cents.

Much of the blind testing done is suspect. They don’t mention what music was used, what equipment was used, and as I’ve mentioned before, they used an average of the population as listening subjects. No wonder results were negative, 50% accuracy supposedly means pure chance. But perhaps half of the listeners had less than good hearing? Or half of the music offered was poorly mastered? Or they were set up in unfamiliar way for most of the listeners? Were the chairs even comfortable? Too many variables to call these test conclusive. If you look up side anyone’s head as you walk through town, notice that no one’s ear looks even remotely the same, each and every human hears differently.

Many of the A/B tests I’ve read about were designed to bring about the results the tester was looking for. And there is as much bias in reading the data as any expectation bias, so, any test that you didn’t conduct yourself should be taken with a grain of salt.

And I keep reading these theories about how digital works, saying there is no space between samples. And more samples don’t help, well I don’t buy it. Higher sampling rates do bring higher frequencies, but that is not all it’s doing. Yes, there is no space between samples, the sample is flat, a fixed number, for the duration of the sample. So we do start with a stair step waveform. Only after filtering does it become smooth like an analog waveform. Perfect accuracy? Not possible. Nothing is perfect. Anyone who cares to argue this point please tell me of anything that is perfect, besides a cold beer on a hot day. And “perfect enough”, doesn’t count. It’s still not perfect. We don’t listen to test tones, music is a super complex waveform. To think you can dice it into a trillion pieces, and reassemble it with absolutely no affect on the original waveform, is pure fallacy. Don’t get me wrong, it’s pretty amazing! And does a damn good job of delivering what was promised. But to flatly say it can’t get any better is naive.

Changing the subject, getting back to the original subject, I do believe that RIAA equalization has a big effect on why we perceive vinyl to sound better. A necessity to get the lowest, and highest frequencies on the record, bass grooves would be huge, and the needle would be lost in then, and high frequencies would be too small. So, they taper off both ends, and restore them with an equalizer at the time of playback. As a sound man, a room rarely sounds best with the EQ flat, it usually means pulling the middle up, or down, with the ends up, depending on the room, so depending on the phono preamp, and how it shapes this EQ to recover the low signals at each end, could be giving us a more likable EQ curve? More accurate? No, more likable? Maybe?

While digital is well known for keeping the EQ flat from top to bottom. Any live sound man knows what a BBC is, a magic box that makes your band sound better! But it’s really just a fixed equalizer that accentuates just a few frequencies. When you switch it on, everyone thinks it sounds better. So the concept that flatter is better is debatable. More accurate? Yes! Yes it is. Sounds better? Subjective.

Russell

Good post Russell, I like your thinking on the subject.

[Pigmy Pony]

Yes, great post Russell, I understand almost all of it! Looks like the USA has its own Marco. But what about Canada? Please don't say Justin Bieber :(

[Jimbo]

An interesting article from the NYT which is very apt for this post on dynamic range.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/what-these-grammy-songs-tell-us-about-the-loudness-wars.html

[alphaGT]

Yes, great post Russell, I understand almost all of it! Looks like the USA has its own Marco. But what about Canada? Please don't say Justin Bieber :(

Rush comes from Canada, so they can’t be all bad! We have a joke in my band, “We go to practice, but Rush goes to perfect!”. Well, I guess you had to be there?

Russell

[alphaGT]

An interesting article from the NYT which is very apt for this post on dynamic range.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/what-these-grammy-songs-tell-us-about-the-loudness-wars.html

Usually the NYT is fish wrap. But this is a very concise and to the point article! Good find

Russ

[JohnG]

Excellent Presentation on the subject of Dynamic Range.
The graphs make visualisation of the range easy to interpret.
It would be good to have at least one of those Old School Analogue Recorded Tracks present at a Phonostage Bake Off/Comparison event.
Is the article also hinting that a Broader Dynamic Range engineered into a recording, will have a positive effect on a long term marketing strategy for a recording, with sales figures being high, when new formats are introduced for the said recording.

[Macca]

Is the article also hinting that a Broader Dynamic Range engineered into a recording, will have a positive effect on a long term marketing strategy for a recording, with sales figures being high, when new formats are introduced for the said recording.

Yes but not sure there really is a connection. I'd say that the reason Eagles greatest hits is a best seller is because lots of people like the Eagles.

[the little audio company]

Recording companies also know that a lot of music is listened to through cheap radios or televisions that do not have sufficient clean amplifier power or capable enough speakers to do the peaks properly with a highly dynamic recording. In other words, they will distort badly.

Let’s not give them the incentive to upgrade shall we then, eh? :)