audiophiles, help me understand... - Page 6

It is easy to prove what format change the sound most.

*Take one vinyl, play it back and cut another from that one. Do this 5 times. Do the same with a CD, play it back and record it again on CD.
Then compare the original vinyl/CD to the fifth generation version. The one that have changed the most is coloring the sound most.

*One can do blindtest between a vinyl and a vinyl that goes in a A/D-D/A. That have been done many times and people are guessing wrong.

*Cut a vinyl from a CD and compare. If vinyl is a better format than the CD, it will sound the same. (just like a 480P image can have the same resolution on a 1080P format but you cannot have 1080P resolution on a 480P format).

All these test can be done and many have been done before.

I've read that many times, and I can even cite a JAES paper that says about that. BTW, the paper was writtten to justify the HDCD format extension for the regular audio CD.

However, that was then and this is now. Yes, many people can hear sounds that are at 0 dB SPL or even slightly below on a good day. And yes, 120 dB is a point where you probably aren't in all that much pain, and you won't be permanently hurt if you stop right away.

But no way is the dynamic range of human hearing 120 dB in a practical hifi sense.

Listening to music at 120 dB for any amount of time will usually cause what's known as a "Temporary Threshold Shift" which means that your ability to hear sounds at or near 0 dB is temporarily gone. Maybe a nice quiet overnight sleep will set things right, but maybe it might take a few days. Or maybe never.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a real world live musical event of a normal variety that has and actual 120 dB dynamic range. Even setting up a real world recording situation with 120 dB dynamic range has AFAIK never been done.

OK, you can make sound at 120 dB, but that always seems to involve raising the noise floor to 35 or more dB SPL. 120 - 35 = 85 dB dynamics. Most orchestral recordings have about 65 dB dynamic range, but a few recordings with 75 dB dynamic range have been around for a decade or more.

The widest dynamic range commerical recording I know of is some fairly recent Minneapolis Symphony stuff on the BIS label, delivered as a dual-layer SACD. I have a SACD player and in my tests, the CD layer is mastered the same as the SACD (so its a fair comparison) and both show an actual musical dynamic range of about 85 dB.


True in the lab, under lab conditions. Get far enough into the real world to have real musicans playing real instruments, and so much of it all slips away that the CD is entirely sufficient.

The reference presents relevent information and reaches a relevant conclusion. But it doesn't really say why.

The reason why is that any measurement of noise is only relevant to the bandwidth over which it is measured. In most of these plots, the actual measurement bandwidth per point is not clear.

The most common abuse of this principle involves FFT software that allows various "numbers of points" to be selected by the user. It may not be obvious at first, but every time you double the "number of points", the random noise floor per point goes down by 3 dB.

I could pick nits all day long with the Audioholics L/CD/DVD-A/SACD comparison, but this is one big issue with more general application.

Maybe it's just me but I simply cannot stand to listen to Neil Young or Paul Simon on CD. It's probably just bias but they just sound so lifeless on CD compared to the vinyl.

Interestingly, I know someone who says the same thing about some Joan Jett albums. I think her CDs sound just fine.

You're "digitizing" two of the flattest voices in popular music there (although Young at least tries), so I can see your point.

Make that three. Might as well add Jackson Browne and make it an even four.

On a somewhat related note my LP of Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" is pretty damn old and I think it's time to replace it. Does anyone have the 180g version and/or SACD release? I can't decide which version to get.

Find DVD-A version like this http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Arms-.../dp/B0009WFF7M

Then grab it into FLAC or WavPack and you'll never need to repeat it again.

I've been listening to both of these guys on LP since the days when LPs were all we had. I think they as a rule sound so much better on CD.

Let me hold my tongue and suggest that indeed, it is something that is about you. It is about memories.

You can convert the 24bit track to FLAC or WAV?

Amusing choice for a handle.



The thing that got me turned on with vinyl was the re-emergence of direct to disc vinyl on 33RPM; mainly (?) due to Sax/Mayorga and their Sheffield Lab label.

Out of curiosity, does/did direct to disc masters stick to the above limits that you outline above?



For sound quality, I like vinyl better, similar to you.

But for convenience, there's a lot to like with digital discs (including CD) and hard disc drive music servers.

Nice to see your post on this.

On a side note, while both solid state electronics, and tube electronics, have improved this past 30 years, I personally think that solid state has come further.


Cheers

Interesting take on things as usual Arny.


I agree however would argue this is solely due current trends dictating the properties of said "music" be artificailly engineered to be useable by Joe public, ie a lowest commn denominator solution. If the software were instead to be engineered to be realistic, ie closely resemble reality, it's possible there would be no more threshold shifting occuring while listening to it than which were naturally occuring from listening to actual event if the engineers were reasonable succesful. A big part of the problem is popular softwares dynamic range for example: recording trends have gone in the opposite direction from trying to achieve realistic reproduction to truly catering to the absolute lowest common denominator playback systems by becoming increasingly more and more dynamically compressed over time.


I admit I honestly have no idea what SOTA recording technlogy is capable of. However, realism in reproduction seems a worthy goal to me worth striving for, regardless of current or past trends developed to satisfy Joe six pack.

I should probably also mention that as much as I try to introduce high culture to my cro magnon sensibilities I am just not primarily interested in reproducing live symphony music. My interests in realism stems from a desire to be able to have it when I want it for movies, video games and that stuff. I would also say though while a capability for realism may not ever be embraced as necessary by the community creating the music I am most interested in, typically studio created rock, I can't imagine that having the possiblity of utilizing high dynamic range systems available is going to hurt the studio recording rock communities feelings. Who knows? Perhaps highly capable systems becoming popular would spawn a new variant of artist who rejects current ultra compression and embraces and strives to achieve realistic dynamics via their recordings.

As I have mentioned my interest is in studio recordings mostly. I believe in a near enough proximity at least certain percussive events must be approaching 120dB SPL peaks for short durations. I am wondering if using recording tricks such as recording in near anechoic environments with close mics might allow one to keep recorded noise floor low enough to at least exceed whatever high mark we are currently shooting for, perhaps your 85dB SACD example. Whatever the case, get the worlds garage bands interested in this goal, and techniques for pushing currently existing limits are bound to be developed. Unfortunately, at the moment anyway, garage bands I am familiar with are unanimously headed in the opposite direction.


I agree CD may very well achieve maximum live musical event capture/playback realism. Instead my interest is in what the engineers can do with studio recordings were they to set their minds to it.

For a non-scientific viewpoint try this; Vinyl is like have a nice relaxing hot bath, but it cools down after about 20 minutes. A CD (or loseless digital stream) is like taking a shower, stays hot as long as the water runs and gets you more refreshed and cleaner, quicker. But sometimes it's nice to soak in the bath.

I have great hopes that advancements in nanotechnology will one day create the positronic brain and on that day the engineers will finally have a mind.

Thanks for the encouraging words, I guess. Is this interesting as in crazy or interesting as in good depth? ;-)


Temporary threshold shift is independent of how the music or other sound is made or recorded. It is dependent on spectral content and intensity, whether the source is acoustic or electronic. It can happen in factories and symphony halls as well as with a home stereo.


I agree with that, and that is one of the point's I'm trying to make. The OP I'm responding to says that the ear is capable of a 120 dB dynamic range. Because of TTS that doesn't happen, even at live acoustic concerts because if you get loud enough above ambient noise to be 120 dB above it (that would be like 150-160 dB), you've changed the ears of the listeners and performers to the point where they can't even hear the ambient noise. Actually, you may have injured or even killed some of them, depending.

We know what 140 dB broadband noise does to people, because it happens on the deck of aircraft carriers all the time. People who are subjected to this sort of thing wear protective equipment and clothing, or they will become injured. When suited up, their perception of ambient sounds probably starts around 50-60 dB SPL.

If you perform music in say the Carlsbad caverns where the ambient noise level (without people) is actually 0 dB SPL or below, just bringing in enough musicans to play at 120 dB with typical acoustic instruments will raise the ambient noise to at least 25-35 dB SPL. All of a sudden your potential for 120 dB dynamic range is gone.

If you try to do 120 dB electronically, then your typical electronic instruments will raise the ambient noise level, maybe a little less.

If you do it with lab equipment, then your demonstration is not real world.


I'm a recordist. I can make recordings any way that I want to. If I have to do things a certain way to meet the needs of the customer, I can slip in any reasonable number of additional mics and recorded tracks to suit my own purposes. Things like TTS are independent of commercial software. It happens with jet engines, punch presses, symphony orchestras, rock bands, or football games. It also happens with any recording regardless of source, as long as you have sufficient SPL and spectral content.


I do, and the BIS/Minneapolis symphony recordings I previously mentioned are probably about it. A piece of background - before the BIS recordings the previous record holder in my hall of fame was a studio pop recording that was made in the middle 1980s. It was the eponymious recording by Rickie Lee Jones.

I'm not counting my own entries which I made in 2002 under very carefully controlled conditions which have dynamic range that was maybe a little better then the BIS recordings.


In this case, Joe Six Pack is irrelevent except that he has ears that start out about the same as those of the rest of us.


Movie music and dialog is probably the most highly produced media in the world. If you think it is realistic it is because it was cultured and pruned and nurtured and even fluffed up to seem to be realistic to you. How much is dubbed in on a sound stage? If not, why do movie producers work on sound stages? How much came out of the 21st century Foley department? If not, why do movie producers have so much of those kinds of resources employed?

Mentioning movie sound tracks and actual realism in the same sentence except as a contrast is actually an insult to the people who work so hard to process what they record into something that is as realistic as it may seem!


In the studio, the dynamic range goes out the door, but in different ways. First off, a lot of recording studios don't themselves have good ambient dynamic range in the context of 120 dB dynamic range.

Secondly, there are two basic ways to make music in the studio. You either have a large studio and record with everybody playing together, in which case dynamic range gets hurt by bleed from ambient noise, the other instruments and people who are working together. Or, you set up a musician or a few musicians in a smaller room or a corner of the big room, and you have them play along with music they listen to with monitor speakers or headphones. In either case, bleed from ambient noise, monitors and headphones remain a limiting factor.


Those artists always exist, and those recordings are always being made, its just that they are often niches. The sort of producer or engineer who claws his way to the top and is working with say Brittney isn't interested in serving a bumch of geeks with high end stereos who sit around just listening to music.

They say things like "I've got (pick one or more number) (pick one or more from Grammy, Oscar, Gold record, etc.,) and I made them all with close micing, lots of compression and EFX from the following boxes. Nobody who (Records/Produces, pick one or both) at this level does clean recordings with minimalist micing."


Yes, but those things always happen in environments that are relatively noisy compared to a 0 dB SPL cave. For one thing, there has to be a living, breathing, blood pumping human near by to operate the percussion instrument.


That works, which is exactly how I beat my 85 dB SPL example. But, it wasn't a real world performance/recording enviroment. How many musicans are willing to freeze all motions but one, and hold their breaths for the duration? Working in anechoic chambers is very weird, and flies in the face of common wisdom for setting up environments where musicans can do crazy things like stay in time and on pitch with each other.


Believe it or not, people are interested in listening to and making music, not so much breaking records for dynamic range. If you have this sterile lab project made by musical nobodies working poorly in figurative strait jackets, the world won't beat a path to your door, not even enough for the lot of you to live on bread and water.



If you check out your typical audiophile recording which pays lip service to that sort of thing, you'll find that the dynamic range numbers are typically not all that great.

And if you do all that, none of what I said about TTS goes away. You've just made the world's greatest recording of one hand clapping! ;-)

Absolutely.

I guess you don't understand that as a rule, any 24 bit track is created and processed as a .wav file. FLAC is nothing if not compatible with .wav files.

Here is a web site that is one of many that will sell you 24 bit FLACs:

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?f...diophile_96khz

Vinyl reminds me of a kind of bath that like the LP, was very popular in the first half of the 20th century - sulfur springs.

Thanks. It's an old military call sign.


I've never done one, but it's one of the oldest methods of recording...long, long before magnetic tape hit the scene. I can't imagine that you'd be able to record to vinyl at any size for any purpose using the same dynamic parameters as digital. The cutting equipment won't permit it...it's a limitation of the manufacturing process as far as I know.


I agree. I do both all the time. It's a simple matter of convenience for me. Plus, I've only been back to collecting again for a few years so I don't have everything in vinyl that I have access to digitally. I mean, certainly that's one of the reasons for the way digital took over the industry. Distribution is vastly simplified as is archival.


It's pretty much the same in the recording industry. Given the choice, solid state is almost always smoother and more reliable than tube preamps and comps. There are some notable standouts, of course...UAD, Fairchild and the like.

Frank

The places that cut vinyl, and there can't be oodles of them anymore I'd imagine, are they relying on old equipment or are there companies that supply modern cutters and stamping equipment?

The last one in Detroit; Archer Record Pressing.

http://www.archerrecordpressing.com/

This article says that "A sole company in North America sells the specialized parts for the machines."

http://detnews.com/article/20090502/...irm-presses-on


A listing for record pressing plants. I don't know if this is a complete list.

http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/pressing.htm

Let's put it this way: the last album I mixed for vinyl press was in 1988. I know there are studios that still mix for vinyl, but by and large you're talking about major label projects...nobody else has the resources in terms of production and distribution. With that in mind, I can't imagine that anybody's making any new, cutting-edge vinyl pressing equipment.

Frank

Given your 'intrest' in analog the best way for you to trully understand it's potential is to visit either a friend who IS serious about analog playback or a reputable 'brick and mortar' store that offers analog. From there you can discern wether or not you want to pursue it further yourself.

I think the OP was driven off on the first page.

Has anyone noticed though that the vinyl resurgance is centered around urban culture who are most likely not playing their records on expensive audiophile turntables?

That's because those that are using higher end analog rigs NEVER left the analog circle to begin with !

I see people say this a lot, and I'm inclined to agree. I also am not an audiophile. For me, it is quantification. Upgrading from cheap Acoustech HT-65s to Dali Ikon 6s gave me amazing detailed highs and tighter bass. For others, an upgrade from metal/poly to paper in oil caps gives the same results. This is a turn-off for me. Spending ten times the price for a new pair of speakers should give me a much greater sense of improvement than that achieved by the 'audiophile' who made a subtle upgrade yet we both use the same adjectives and quantification to describe our changing experience. I am sure owimoney has observed this on the internet also. Do self-proclaimed audiophiles desire to retain their hobby as an exclusive club or would they rather prosthetize the hobby? The urban culture digging through records at the inner-city used vinyl store, the ipod users, owinmoney, and myself are potentially the NEXT generation of audiophiles. I have been somewhat successful in sifting through the subjective BS and gotten myself a practical and reasonably priced system, but I fear others will be driven off before they can do the research.

it's not just the major labels that are mxing for vinyl. there are a decent number of bands: neurosis, isis, giant squid, *shels, etc on labels like neurot, hydra head, robotic empire, etc. etc.. that mix and master for vinyl.

these guys are putting out BEAUTIFUL vinyl releases that not only sounds amazing (granted you may not like their style) but, is packaged amazingly as well. they usually include a free download card too when you purchase their vinyl (don't know how unique that is but, pretty cool nonetheless).

they're not living pampered lifestyles but, they are making a living at what they love to do and their albums sell FAST. it's not uncommon to see a $25 release being scalped for a couple hundred bucks when the original pressing sell out after a few weeks.

This is present in every hobby I have enjoyed over the years, the subjectivist language that is all but incomprehensible to outsiders; the ever-increasing cost for progressively smaller (or no) benefit and the dichotomy of budget. $700 speakers may be a huge, once a decade investment for some, easily affordable for others and laughable and suitable only for the garage for still others.

As an example, there are those on photography forums who claim that one cannot possibly take a decent photograph with less than a $2000 lens.

I think the next generation of audiophiles will be built naturally. Some will hear the music and be quite happy with low-bitrate mp3s and earbuds. Some will listen to and prefer FLAC. Some will grow weary of those cheap computer speakers and begin an upgrade quest. The ending point will be when complete musical satisfaction is achieved, OR the budget intervenes, OR (as in my case) when breath stops.

I applaud your wisdom to seek a satisfying and reasonably priced system. I will be very interested to hear from you in about five years to see if your system is upgraded or unchanged.

Actually, one of the easiest to implement uses of nanotech would be the production of self healing vinyl records.

Never thought I'd see those groups mentioned here...Neurosis is a personal all time fav I'm listening to some Baroness Red album right now. I don't personally do the vinyl thing, but I have a close friend who does. I must admit I do enjoy listening to his collection when I'm at his place. A lot of the Indy/underground bands do support vinyl still.