+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 164

Thread: Dynamic range of vinyl recordings

  1. #111
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: Valley of the Hazels

    Posts: 8,735
    I'm AMusicFanNotAnAudiophile.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    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.
    Chris



    Common sense isn't anymore!

  2. #112
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 24,780
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    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-conte...yond-20kHz.pdf

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



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * Nelson Pass DCB1 Pre amp / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  3. #113
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: Seaton, Devon, UK

    Posts: 1,467
    I'm Adrian.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post

    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 ďMASTERĒ has been RE-mixed in some way. I am aware that some early CDís 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.
    [FONT="Arial"]
    Listening is the act of aural discrimination and dissemination of sound


    Michel GyroDec (slightly modified), SME IV arm(special build virtually a V), Michel Cusis MC cartridge, Furutech AG-12-R4 High Performance Phono Cable, LFD MMC special phono stage, RaspberryPi/HifiBerry Digi to Beresford Caiman SEG DAC, Meridian 508 CD to Caiman SEG, ALLNIC T1500 MKII SET 300B amp, Vienna Acoustics Mozart SE speakers, Chord Epic speaker leads, & signature links, the Eccose Conductor CA1 cd to pre

  4. #114
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 24,780
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post



    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

    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.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * Nelson Pass DCB1 Pre amp / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  5. #115
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,202
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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

  6. #116
    Join Date: Jan 2013

    Location: Birmingham

    Posts: 4,521
    I'm James.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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!
    VPI Scout 1.1 - Ortofon 2M Black FGS - Croft 25R+ - Croft Series 7 - Spendor SP2

  7. #117
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 24,780
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    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.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * Nelson Pass DCB1 Pre amp / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  8. #118
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: Seaton, Devon, UK

    Posts: 1,467
    I'm Adrian.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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 ďimproved release in a higher resolutionĒ of an existing product be it VINYL, CD, or a digital file then itís 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, CDís recorded using exacting studio processes where itís 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 LPís 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 itís 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.
    [FONT="Arial"]
    Listening is the act of aural discrimination and dissemination of sound


    Michel GyroDec (slightly modified), SME IV arm(special build virtually a V), Michel Cusis MC cartridge, Furutech AG-12-R4 High Performance Phono Cable, LFD MMC special phono stage, RaspberryPi/HifiBerry Digi to Beresford Caiman SEG DAC, Meridian 508 CD to Caiman SEG, ALLNIC T1500 MKII SET 300B amp, Vienna Acoustics Mozart SE speakers, Chord Epic speaker leads, & signature links, the Eccose Conductor CA1 cd to pre

  9. #119
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 85,466
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

    BE HAPPY EVERYDAY!

  10. #120
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,202
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast



 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •