Vinyl records
04-26-2011, 04:33 PM
#61
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Quite frankly yes, I know the technical limitations of both vinyl and digital, to include CD. Pops squeaks flutter etc are only one problem with phonographs (the other rotational velocity, which is why I much prefer the drum format for vinyl </sarcasam off>). But when I hear people talk about "warmth" then I want to know what it is about the equipment, since the record player has "Warmth" as they say, that is filtering the music to add "warmth". Pretty much without fail we hear the "Magic ear" argument, they gets rid of anything quantifiable by just saying, "You are inferior if you can't hear it" .
When talking about signals in the sense of audio there is only one golden rule. That is to replicate the original signal as exactly as possible. If your equipment has "a sound" then your equipment is adding/subtracting something to the original signal, so you are deviating from the golden rule. Now you may like how that sounds, like some people like to crank bass to 11, that's fine, could care less. But don't then say your system is superior because it is technically deficient (it applies a filter). Most people don't understnad what an EQ is for (and why so much audio equipment has presets that, to me, make no sense). EQs are there to make up for defficiencies in equipment, or in the room. For instance if you could identify that "warm" sound as a predominance in the 15-20Khz range (or whatever it is) I would go in and turn that range down when playing from vinyl, since that is an artifact of the vinyl and not the original sound. In fact I'd be willing to bet today most phono inputs do exactly that, very similar to what dolby does from tape (seeks to eliminate the mechanical hiss of tape, though done at both the recording and playback end), but I don't know that for sure.
On top of that the analog recording process also has (in vinyl you buy or bought in the stores) not only a higher signal to noise ratio, but less dynamic range, due to the fact that pure analog processes always leave a fingerprint in every step (microphone to mic pre-amp (unavoidable in any recording system) pre-amp to amp, amp to tape (no one records on vinyl anymore due to it's very poor quality recording) etc etc etc. Wheras once a signal is digitized it can* be moved and shifted as many times as necessary without any degradation of quality over the originally digital sampling.
Furthermore many people unfamiliar of how things really work think that a CD player outputs some form of square wave, or stepped wave to the amplifier, and bias themselves by this. Of course this is absolutely not the case. The output of a CD player (analog out not digital out as we are talking about the output of the DtoA electronics) is distinguishable from the output of a phonograph only in it's lack of noise and it's higher dynamic range.
*note the use of can here, of course it can be down sampled as well, reducing the quality obviously, And of course this is done at the level of recording CD's to a small degree so that the arbitrary length of the CD is to a specific target limiting the amount of data to be recorded. But down sampling is done with forethought for specific reasons, and is not inherent to the the total system as it is in audio recordings.
When talking about signals in the sense of audio there is only one golden rule. That is to replicate the original signal as exactly as possible. If your equipment has "a sound" then your equipment is adding/subtracting something to the original signal, so you are deviating from the golden rule. Now you may like how that sounds, like some people like to crank bass to 11, that's fine, could care less. But don't then say your system is superior because it is technically deficient (it applies a filter). Most people don't understnad what an EQ is for (and why so much audio equipment has presets that, to me, make no sense). EQs are there to make up for defficiencies in equipment, or in the room. For instance if you could identify that "warm" sound as a predominance in the 15-20Khz range (or whatever it is) I would go in and turn that range down when playing from vinyl, since that is an artifact of the vinyl and not the original sound. In fact I'd be willing to bet today most phono inputs do exactly that, very similar to what dolby does from tape (seeks to eliminate the mechanical hiss of tape, though done at both the recording and playback end), but I don't know that for sure.
On top of that the analog recording process also has (in vinyl you buy or bought in the stores) not only a higher signal to noise ratio, but less dynamic range, due to the fact that pure analog processes always leave a fingerprint in every step (microphone to mic pre-amp (unavoidable in any recording system) pre-amp to amp, amp to tape (no one records on vinyl anymore due to it's very poor quality recording) etc etc etc. Wheras once a signal is digitized it can* be moved and shifted as many times as necessary without any degradation of quality over the originally digital sampling.
Furthermore many people unfamiliar of how things really work think that a CD player outputs some form of square wave, or stepped wave to the amplifier, and bias themselves by this. Of course this is absolutely not the case. The output of a CD player (analog out not digital out as we are talking about the output of the DtoA electronics) is distinguishable from the output of a phonograph only in it's lack of noise and it's higher dynamic range.
*note the use of can here, of course it can be down sampled as well, reducing the quality obviously, And of course this is done at the level of recording CD's to a small degree so that the arbitrary length of the CD is to a specific target limiting the amount of data to be recorded. But down sampling is done with forethought for specific reasons, and is not inherent to the the total system as it is in audio recordings.
04-26-2011, 04:35 PM
#62
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
ALso shows your limitation of understanding of how this works. Appreciation of music playback, or even music in general, does not increase with age ,it degrades due to losses in the higher frequencies.
Though I know you have a magic ear that can hear ultrasonic as well as infrasonic, as you've stated.
04-26-2011, 04:38 PM
#63
Rennlist Member
I agree that their is a roundness in the sound of vinyl, but the convience of cd or higher resolution formats is undeniable.
As well, what most people love about vinyl, or even certain recording equipement is that it colors the sound in a way that is pleasing to the ear. It adds a frequency curve, and warmth (more accurately, even-order harmonics, like nice distortion) which we consider nice.
There is also something special about pulling the record from it's sleeve, and then the needle onto it's surface... ahhhhh.
In the end, I feel it is time better spent listening to the notes and words, than to the dissection of frequencies and dynamics, as fun as that is.
As well, what most people love about vinyl, or even certain recording equipement is that it colors the sound in a way that is pleasing to the ear. It adds a frequency curve, and warmth (more accurately, even-order harmonics, like nice distortion) which we consider nice.
There is also something special about pulling the record from it's sleeve, and then the needle onto it's surface... ahhhhh.
In the end, I feel it is time better spent listening to the notes and words, than to the dissection of frequencies and dynamics, as fun as that is.
04-26-2011, 04:49 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
Sorry my experience in the audio world, why not the highest by far, far exceeds most, and I'd reckon yours.
ALso shows your limitation of understanding of how this works. Appreciation of music playback, or even music in general, does not increase with age ,it degrades due to losses in the higher frequencies.
Though I know you have a magic ear that can hear ultrasonic as well as infrasonic, as you've stated.
ALso shows your limitation of understanding of how this works. Appreciation of music playback, or even music in general, does not increase with age ,it degrades due to losses in the higher frequencies.
Though I know you have a magic ear that can hear ultrasonic as well as infrasonic, as you've stated.
So if i say i can hear the guitar or piano string roll off and fade away giving a warmer realistic experience vs a CD which cuts the signal abruptly making it feel cold and unnatural will that help explain what i am trying to say. Anything i say can always be argued if you want to argue it.
To add, a well setup system will not need any equalization. Mine has no tonal controls whatsoever but a simple line stage.
04-26-2011, 04:59 PM
#65
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Signals do not cut off abruptly in CDs, that again is showing a lack of knowledge.
No you don't have to understand how music works in order to enjoy the experience, just like you don't have to know how an engien works to drive fast. But the two are not analagous.
The anology would be better if you told me you don't know how engines work, but you have a car with 120 hp that gets 80mpg and goes 200mph. And I say prove it.
Again, I don't care that you prefer vinyl, please by all means listen to the noise your system makes. My problem are those that like you that say say CD's are inherently bad, and as you've shown mainly because you don't understand how it works. To be fair you don't understand how either works. And again, that's fine, you don't have to know have to make an engine to enjoy or porsche. But what your saying here is that your Tata indigo is better than a porsche, and that Carburetors outperform fuel injectors.
Any offense I may have taken is your air of superiority with a distinct lack of knowledge.
No you don't have to understand how music works in order to enjoy the experience, just like you don't have to know how an engien works to drive fast. But the two are not analagous.
The anology would be better if you told me you don't know how engines work, but you have a car with 120 hp that gets 80mpg and goes 200mph. And I say prove it.
Again, I don't care that you prefer vinyl, please by all means listen to the noise your system makes. My problem are those that like you that say say CD's are inherently bad, and as you've shown mainly because you don't understand how it works. To be fair you don't understand how either works. And again, that's fine, you don't have to know have to make an engine to enjoy or porsche. But what your saying here is that your Tata indigo is better than a porsche, and that Carburetors outperform fuel injectors.
Any offense I may have taken is your air of superiority with a distinct lack of knowledge.
04-26-2011, 05:16 PM
#66
Rennlist Member
Signals do not cut off abruptly in CDs, that again is showing a lack of knowledge.
No you don't have to understand how music works in order to enjoy the experience, just like you don't have to know how an engien works to drive fast. But the two are not analagous.
The anology would be better if you told me you don't know how engines work, but you have a car with 120 hp that gets 80mpg and goes 200mph. And I say prove it.
Again, I don't care that you prefer vinyl, please by all means listen to the noise your system makes. My problem are those that like you that say say CD's are inherently bad, and as you've shown mainly because you don't understand how it works. To be fair you don't understand how either works. And again, that's fine, you don't have to know have to make an engine to enjoy or porsche. But what your saying here is that your Tata indigo is better than a porsche, and that Carburetors outperform fuel injectors.
Any offense I may have taken is your air of superiority with a distinct lack of knowledge.
No you don't have to understand how music works in order to enjoy the experience, just like you don't have to know how an engien works to drive fast. But the two are not analagous.
The anology would be better if you told me you don't know how engines work, but you have a car with 120 hp that gets 80mpg and goes 200mph. And I say prove it.
Again, I don't care that you prefer vinyl, please by all means listen to the noise your system makes. My problem are those that like you that say say CD's are inherently bad, and as you've shown mainly because you don't understand how it works. To be fair you don't understand how either works. And again, that's fine, you don't have to know have to make an engine to enjoy or porsche. But what your saying here is that your Tata indigo is better than a porsche, and that Carburetors outperform fuel injectors.
Any offense I may have taken is your air of superiority with a distinct lack of knowledge.
As I sit here at work with a 102 fever because I have to be here I didn't expect this game but I should know better by now when you start in.
There is a clear difference in the 2 medias and you can't tell me that digital captures and presents music in the same way vinyl does. CD's most definitely cuts off the signal does not capture or present the full tonal range of a single note the same way a quality analog recording does. i have done comparisons over and over it is clear as day.
A good representation and comparison are Telarc digital recordings pressed to vinyl and CD. I have copies of the same music both released by Telarc and the difference is quite noticeable. If your in the neighborhood stop by and if hearing first hand does convince you than maybe i have a golden ear or you are tone def.
Time to get some rest, my day is done and colds suck.
04-26-2011, 05:42 PM
#67
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Wait, your telling me that digital is inherently worse (sharp cutoffs etc) yet you have a digital recording pressed to vinyl.
Same limitations in digital recordings regardless of media. Any "losses" would happen at the encoding stage, and then downsampling after. Even downsampled CD has fidelity above human capability (Superhuman not being factored in).
Going to your place to listen doesn't work. Let me get the filters to muddle CD audio to mimic vinyl (with the odd artifact thrown in), and then do an AB comparison and see if you can separate the two.
I've worked with people who do this for a living, trust me, the outcome is known, and I can show it to you on an oscilliscope. But it takes you accepting what your lying eyes are telling you.
Same limitations in digital recordings regardless of media. Any "losses" would happen at the encoding stage, and then downsampling after. Even downsampled CD has fidelity above human capability (Superhuman not being factored in).
Going to your place to listen doesn't work. Let me get the filters to muddle CD audio to mimic vinyl (with the odd artifact thrown in), and then do an AB comparison and see if you can separate the two.
I've worked with people who do this for a living, trust me, the outcome is known, and I can show it to you on an oscilliscope. But it takes you accepting what your lying eyes are telling you.
04-26-2011, 06:20 PM
#68
Rennlist Member
As soon as I saw this thread a few days ago, I knew where it was headed LOL.
This arguement goes on everyday at audiogon, audioasylum, and every other audio forum. Kind of like air cooled vs. water cooled, or God forbid, a discussion on oil!
I've been an audio geek for as long as I can remember. I would never say one medium is "better" than the other. I have LP's that are amazing and have some that are unlistenable. I have CD's that are magical and others that will make your ears bleed. I would say my gear is pretty close to state of the art - not bragging, just saying that a good LP on a properly setup system will be as dead silent as any CD. Just for those that think every LP sounds like snap, crackle, and pop. that's just not true. My digital gear is pretty much on par with my turntable and i'm always seeking the most neutral gear possible. I don't want any piece radically coloring or adding to the sound. Give me what's on the recording; good, bad, or indifferent.
One thing that someone touched upon earlier is the actual recording, or more specifically, the mastering. Many CD's sound bad because they've been "re-mastered". Usually with awful results. Instead of listening to the original master and re-issuing something as close to that as possible, many mastering enigneers feel the need to futz big time. And most usually screw it up.
I know the guys at a company called Music Matters - back in 2005 they set out to re-issue the entire Blue Note Jazz catalog. They went to incredible lengths to make the transfer as accurate to the orginials as possible, using the mastsering skills of steve hoffman and kevin grey. The result of these LP's is staggering. Unfortunately, most music today is recorded for mainstream playback devices. Everything is recorded way too LOUD and sounds like crap.
It's amazing how much better a minimally mic'd jazz recording from the 50's or one of the old RCA living stereo classical pieces will sound compared to a recording made today.
The biggest issue I've always faced about listening to music was not which medium was better - it was trying to fix the biggest problem. The room. Doesn't matter what gear you have or LP or CD, if your room sucks so will the sound. Finally stopped fighting it and built a dedicated space. My wife always busts my chops as it only has one chair in the room LOL.
I have about 5-6,000 LP's and probably 3,000 or so CD's - lost track. I just listen to what I like. sometimes it's a CD sometimes it's an LP. I'm just grateful I have the room, gear, and music to enjoy it.
Again, have no deisre to get into what's better or not, but people need to know that neither medium is perfect. And, for those that haven't listened to LP's on a quality system the LP is not nearly as "flawed" as you may think. Nor does the CD offer "perfect sound forever". I've had people in my room whose jaw has hit the floor listening to both. It's great fun.
Enjoy the music.
This arguement goes on everyday at audiogon, audioasylum, and every other audio forum. Kind of like air cooled vs. water cooled, or God forbid, a discussion on oil!
I've been an audio geek for as long as I can remember. I would never say one medium is "better" than the other. I have LP's that are amazing and have some that are unlistenable. I have CD's that are magical and others that will make your ears bleed. I would say my gear is pretty close to state of the art - not bragging, just saying that a good LP on a properly setup system will be as dead silent as any CD. Just for those that think every LP sounds like snap, crackle, and pop. that's just not true. My digital gear is pretty much on par with my turntable and i'm always seeking the most neutral gear possible. I don't want any piece radically coloring or adding to the sound. Give me what's on the recording; good, bad, or indifferent.
One thing that someone touched upon earlier is the actual recording, or more specifically, the mastering. Many CD's sound bad because they've been "re-mastered". Usually with awful results. Instead of listening to the original master and re-issuing something as close to that as possible, many mastering enigneers feel the need to futz big time. And most usually screw it up.
I know the guys at a company called Music Matters - back in 2005 they set out to re-issue the entire Blue Note Jazz catalog. They went to incredible lengths to make the transfer as accurate to the orginials as possible, using the mastsering skills of steve hoffman and kevin grey. The result of these LP's is staggering. Unfortunately, most music today is recorded for mainstream playback devices. Everything is recorded way too LOUD and sounds like crap.
It's amazing how much better a minimally mic'd jazz recording from the 50's or one of the old RCA living stereo classical pieces will sound compared to a recording made today.
The biggest issue I've always faced about listening to music was not which medium was better - it was trying to fix the biggest problem. The room. Doesn't matter what gear you have or LP or CD, if your room sucks so will the sound. Finally stopped fighting it and built a dedicated space. My wife always busts my chops as it only has one chair in the room LOL.
I have about 5-6,000 LP's and probably 3,000 or so CD's - lost track. I just listen to what I like. sometimes it's a CD sometimes it's an LP. I'm just grateful I have the room, gear, and music to enjoy it.
Again, have no deisre to get into what's better or not, but people need to know that neither medium is perfect. And, for those that haven't listened to LP's on a quality system the LP is not nearly as "flawed" as you may think. Nor does the CD offer "perfect sound forever". I've had people in my room whose jaw has hit the floor listening to both. It's great fun.
Enjoy the music.
04-26-2011, 06:57 PM
#69
Reanimator
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Too bad i didn't know i would have taken your vinyl off your hands. better yet you should have explored a better table, cartridge or both. Vinyl is superior more often than not. But even vinyl has different quality recordings. A good setup will make all but the most abused lp's sound quiet like a CD. There are things i hear on vinyl that are so distinct that I have never experienced on even the best rated CD players costing $10k+.
When I got rid of my vinyl, there were tons of it being sold off at a buck an album in lots of places. I forgot that the vast majority of it had been abused, and didn't realize how much I might have gotten for pristine records.
Edit:
Much goes on about getting recorded music to sound exactly what it originally sounded like, either when it was recorded or when the artists and technicians were done making the media, whether album, tape or CD. But most people like to adjust what they hear; even simple mp3 players allow us to adjust treble and base to our own liking. What I like most about the digital era is, I can carry nearly everything I regularly listen to in a tiny device in my pocket, and a good set of earbuds deliver perhaps not great, but very good sound everywhere I go; I don't need bone shaking base to enjoy my music.
04-26-2011, 10:25 PM
#70
04-26-2011, 11:36 PM
#72
^^^I've seen those on the sale rack right between the Perpetual Motion machines and the carbs that get 400MPG. 
I was actually refering to non-theoretical amps like these:
I was actually refering to non-theoretical amps like these:
Same input signal, same gain levels, same output hardware, within the min/max capability and above the noise celing.
Neither you, I or anyone else could tell the difference of a non crappy amplifier.
That is not to say all amplifiers are the same, but the differences aren't in the audible sound quality within the working parameters of the amp.
Neither you, I or anyone else could tell the difference of a non crappy amplifier.
That is not to say all amplifiers are the same, but the differences aren't in the audible sound quality within the working parameters of the amp.
04-26-2011, 11:54 PM
#74
I was editing my post while you were responding. You weren't talking about "ideal" amps (the theoretical "straight wire with gain) in a prior discussion, but that all amps sounded the same when operated within their working limits. (not clipping, correct speaker impedence, etc.)
04-27-2011, 12:36 AM
#75
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
The ideal of an audio amplifier is straight wire with gain, what all audio engineers strive for. A and B or AB amps are distinguished by how they handle extremes, for example at the clipping stages. But when designed they are all striving for the same thing, gain with no modification. Per the human ear they get there, regardless of type, ad we are talking about the higher end as we discussed in the other thread. How they fail in handling extremes may be differnet but that is fairly irrelevant. Don't care what your playing if it's clipping it sound like ****. ONe may sound like different ****, but that's hardly the point.