Why vinyl records? - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 297Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 271 Old 11-25-2016, 07:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,587
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1231 Post(s)
Liked: 1439
a scouser? had to look that one up! Now I know.

Quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. ~ Richard P. Feynman
CruelInventions is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 271 Old 11-25-2016, 08:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,855
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5333 Post(s)
Liked: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot Nrrrd View Post
["Somebody was trying to tell me that CDs are better than vinyl because they don't have any surface noise. I said, 'Listen, mate, *life* has surface noise." - John Peel]
By this logic I should be able to take more lifelike photographs by adding dirt/smudges to my camera's lens surface and my flatbed scanner's glass.
erhurd, pibroch and rnsound like this.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there IS no concept of "accounting for personal taste/preference". As art consumers we don't "pick" the level of bass, nor the tint/brightness of a scene's sky, any more than we pick the ending of a novel or Mona Lisa's type of smile. "High fidelity" means "high truthfulness", faithful to the original artist's intent: an unmodified, neutral, accurate copy of the original master, ideally being exact and with no discernable alterations, aka "transparency".

Last edited by m. zillch; 11-25-2016 at 08:31 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #183 of 271 Old 11-25-2016, 08:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1775 Post(s)
Liked: 1048
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzybody View Post
It's been done to some movies. A recent horrible example was "Inception". It had that constant noise, call it "foreground music", that all but obliterated the dialog. I had to turn the volume down and turn on subtitles. Somehow that garbage won an award for sound. I suppose people who had a 5.1 channel system could crank up the center channel and turn their subwoofer off to be able to hear the dialog... but nobody should have to do so in order to hear what the actors are saying. If it was a movie I cared to see again, I'd rip it, demux the 5.1 audio, adjust the levels then put it back together.
It depends; that's great if you were the sound editor, but the director may have felt differently.

Many people complained about how the effects drowned out some of the dialog in Interstellar, but Nolan has stated in several interviews that that was exactly what he was going for.

Since he also made Inception, I suspect the effect was similarly intentional.
kucharsk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #184 of 271 Old 11-25-2016, 09:39 PM
Senior Member
 
VMat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
I've also had a few CDs from the 80s, I believe, just die on me for no apparent reason. Nothing that I could really see wrong. They just would no longer play. Nuttin is perfect.
Maybe it had the metal layer damaged because the protective layer had holes in it.

A friend of mine had a copy of Deep Purple with a visible little hole in the metal layer (visible if we looked through it against some light). We could hear a "tick" in one of the tracks, as if the player were fast forwarding, during a few seconds. Apparently the protective layer had tiny holes that were letting the air in, leading to oxidation of the metal layer. I think that was around 1997, but I have no idea how old the CD was.

When I purchased my (brand new) copies of Genesis' Wind & Wuthering and A Trick Of The Tail, also around that time, I did see some similar holes. I couldn't hear anything while playing them, but I had them replaced anyway.

I also have an older CD, can't remember which one right now, that shows a clear deterioration of the metal layer at a point near the edge. I brushed the edge with a bit of super glue to stop the air from getting in there, and I think it worked.

And, by the way, I love vinyl for the cover arts, but that's pretty much it. A well recorded/mastered CD is way better for me. These can be hard to find, indeed, with post-1990 rock and pop material, but not so hard with fusion and modern jazz, which I like a lot.
pibroch likes this.

In use: MA GX200; Yam A-S500, CDC-697, NS-BP300, RX-V800; Squeezebox V3; H/K TD4500; Pio PL-S50, CT-WM62R, DV-46, DV-400, DV-420; Sansui TU-D99X; Tech SU-Z65, ST-Z45; Pana DMP-BD30; AT ATH-M35; Audioengine D1; Tomato Pi; Athena LS-100b.
In storage: MA BX2/1/Centre; CA Minx 10; BIC Acoustech H-100; Yam RX-A1000, DVD-C750; CA DacMagic; Pio BDP-320, DV-610, VSX-1025, VSX-821; Sansui SE-7; AT ATH-M40fs.
VMat is offline  
post #185 of 271 Old 11-26-2016, 01:57 PM
Member
 
richopp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airsculpture View Post
Sorry my system is "mediocre", it's pretty much all I can afford, but yes it is convenient.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Uh, you took this the wrong way, but OK, so the rationale for posters listing their personal "system components" is what, exactly?

My '07 Corolla is a heck of a car, but not going to beat my '72 GS Stage 1 Conv. when racing 1320 feet. Both have 4 wheels, an engine, etc., and both get me to work and back.

The assumption seems to be that ALL systems sound the same when playing the elusive "perfect source." Clearly you did not mean to imply that as it is illogical.

So, listing system components must have SOME rationale. I was merely pointing out that one's components clearly have some bearing on what is heard, but that the ROOM they are in has at least as much if not more bearing on the listeners' perceptions as the individual components do, pricey or not.

All the technical measurement numbers presented previously in this thread are based upon a number of variables: the measuring devices, their calibration--are they dead-on balls accurate?--were the measurements necessarily performed in an anechoic chamber? Since they are simply measuring the performance of a piece of hardware encoded a certain way (a CODEC), how does that measurement translate to an actual "listening" experience in your room, and so forth?

If I have an A Capella group or a solo piano player perform in YOUR room and place them where your speakers are and have, oh, I don't know, Peter McGrath, say, record them live, will you be able to hear the difference between the live and recorded performance on his Stellavox or any specific digital recorder? Will there be post-recording processing? Will the mics have to be positioned several times before the performance to provide that "perfect" sound? Where will YOU be sitting, standing, etc.?

That's all I was trying to point out. Listing system components has to have some rationale; money cleearly plays SOME part in the equation as reliability is built into the price you pay if the company is a normal business, so the design points for your specific component are dictated by the retail price point the manufacturer sets. Obviously, hand-built items constructed from individually-measured components that must meet specific quality standards are going to cost more than mass-produced items that tolerate higher technical deviations of individual components. Yes, digital this and that, in many cases, simply requires sourcing the cheapest HW and not worrying about MTBF, but most on here do at least SOME research and listening prior to making any purchase regardless of their budget. (For example, high-end Nakamichi cassette decks sounded very good in the day, but were very expensive, and pretty much every one of them failed within a month of purchase and had to be sent back for repair. Did they build those costs into the retail price? Would you have bought one knowing this regardless of the sound quality?)

If you are not taking the individual items home and listening to them there before you buy, you might make an error based on some measurement or some review or opinion. That was basically the point I was trying to make, as well as pointing out that "digital" did not necessarily mean "musical" or "accurate" per my comment on the drums and organ issues.

Finally be sure to buy expensive interconnects; it is clear to me, because I have personally spoken to them, that electrons DESPISE travelling on cheap 12 stranded copper wire when they could be skating luxuriously down the wonderful world of non-oxygenated extra-virgin platinum-molybdenum-gold-silver hand-pulled strands encased in South American oil-based sheathing attached to 24-Caret gold terminals. (OK, gold ends don't corrode as quickly as chrome, but seriously???)

Cheers,

Richard
erhurd likes this.

Last edited by richopp; 11-26-2016 at 02:01 PM.
richopp is offline  
post #186 of 271 Old 11-26-2016, 02:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,258
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 802 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrabok View Post
Sure you can still get a high quality source but you're better off getting some master audio that's well engineered (N.B. not saying that source can't be vinyl)

If you're in pursuit of high fidelity/high resolution audio thats well engineered, both systems are expensive regardless of medium (digital or analog). The audio engineers that are actually giving quality sound deserve the credit since it starts there. If you have a bad source (could be on vinyl/tape/CD/SACD/DVD-A/DVD/Bluray any medium) you will not get the desired result.
I don't understand how vinyl somehow got a reputation in some quarters as a source medium.

99.99% of all vinyl LPs were mastered on analog tape. Vinyl is used as the copying/distribution media, as proper tape copying/playback is impractical. Where the original tape masters are still available, digitized copies of them are more faithful to that source than any vinyl distribution copy that's gone through a few generations of plated lacquers, mothers and stampers -- and far more practical.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #187 of 271 Old 11-26-2016, 07:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airsculpture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: English but in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 935
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 500 Post(s)
Liked: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by richopp View Post
Uh, you took this the wrong way, but OK, so the rationale for posters listing their personal "system components" is what, exactly?



My '07 Corolla is a heck of a car, but not going to beat my '72 GS Stage 1 Conv. when racing 1320 feet. Both have 4 wheels, an engine, etc., and both get me to work and back.



The assumption seems to be that ALL systems sound the same when playing the elusive "perfect source." Clearly you did not mean to imply that as it is illogical.



So, listing system components must have SOME rationale. I was merely pointing out that one's components clearly have some bearing on what is heard, but that the ROOM they are in has at least as much if not more bearing on the listeners' perceptions as the individual components do, pricey or not.



All the technical measurement numbers presented previously in this thread are based upon a number of variables: the measuring devices, their calibration--are they dead-on balls accurate?--were the measurements necessarily performed in an anechoic chamber? Since they are simply measuring the performance of a piece of hardware encoded a certain way (a CODEC), how does that measurement translate to an actual "listening" experience in your room, and so forth?



If I have an A Capella group or a solo piano player perform in YOUR room and place them where your speakers are and have, oh, I don't know, Peter McGrath, say, record them live, will you be able to hear the difference between the live and recorded performance on his Stellavox or any specific digital recorder? Will there be post-recording processing? Will the mics have to be positioned several times before the performance to provide that "perfect" sound? Where will YOU be sitting, standing, etc.?



That's all I was trying to point out. Listing system components has to have some rationale; money cleearly plays SOME part in the equation as reliability is built into the price you pay if the company is a normal business, so the design points for your specific component are dictated by the retail price point the manufacturer sets. Obviously, hand-built items constructed from individually-measured components that must meet specific quality standards are going to cost more than mass-produced items that tolerate higher technical deviations of individual components. Yes, digital this and that, in many cases, simply requires sourcing the cheapest HW and not worrying about MTBF, but most on here do at least SOME research and listening prior to making any purchase regardless of their budget. (For example, high-end Nakamichi cassette decks sounded very good in the day, but were very expensive, and pretty much every one of them failed within a month of purchase and had to be sent back for repair. Did they build those costs into the retail price? Would you have bought one knowing this regardless of the sound quality?)



If you are not taking the individual items home and listening to them there before you buy, you might make an error based on some measurement or some review or opinion. That was basically the point I was trying to make, as well as pointing out that "digital" did not necessarily mean "musical" or "accurate" per my comment on the drums and organ issues.



Finally be sure to buy expensive interconnects; it is clear to me, because I have personally spoken to them, that electrons DESPISE travelling on cheap 12 stranded copper wire when they could be skating luxuriously down the wonderful world of non-oxygenated extra-virgin platinum-molybdenum-gold-silver hand-pulled strands encased in South American oil-based sheathing attached to 24-Caret gold terminals. (OK, gold ends don't corrode as quickly as chrome, but seriously???)



Cheers,



Richard



When I joined it seemed what people did. I think it's more to do with if people are having issues or are looking to upgrade part of their system it's a lot easier to see what they are dealing with rather than having to list their equipment again in each post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Scotth3886 likes this.

Sony XBR65X900E, Oppo UDP-203 Universal Player
Front L&R - Polk TSx550t, Centre - Polk CSiA6 all in Cherry
Surrounds & Rears - Mission 77DS & Mission 780s
Subwoofer - Polk PSW125 in Cherry
Receiver - Marantz SR6012
Airsculpture is offline  
post #188 of 271 Old 11-26-2016, 08:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by richopp View Post
Uh, you took this the wrong way, but OK, so the rationale for posters listing their personal "system components" is what, exactly?

My '07 Corolla is a heck of a car, but not going to beat my '72 GS Stage 1 Conv. when racing 1320 feet. Both have 4 wheels, an engine, etc., and both get me to work and back.

The assumption seems to be that ALL systems sound the same when playing the elusive "perfect source." Clearly you did not mean to imply that as it is illogical.

So, listing system components must have SOME rationale. I was merely pointing out that one's components clearly have some bearing on what is heard, but that the ROOM they are in has at least as much if not more bearing on the listeners' perceptions as the individual components do, pricey or not.

All the technical measurement numbers presented previously in this thread are based upon a number of variables: the measuring devices, their calibration--are they dead-on balls accurate?--were the measurements necessarily performed in an anechoic chamber? Since they are simply measuring the performance of a piece of hardware encoded a certain way (a CODEC), how does that measurement translate to an actual "listening" experience in your room, and so forth?

If I have an A Capella group or a solo piano player perform in YOUR room and place them where your speakers are and have, oh, I don't know, Peter McGrath, say, record them live, will you be able to hear the difference between the live and recorded performance on his Stellavox or any specific digital recorder? Will there be post-recording processing? Will the mics have to be positioned several times before the performance to provide that "perfect" sound? Where will YOU be sitting, standing, etc.?

That's all I was trying to point out. Listing system components has to have some rationale; money cleearly plays SOME part in the equation as reliability is built into the price you pay if the company is a normal business, so the design points for your specific component are dictated by the retail price point the manufacturer sets. Obviously, hand-built items constructed from individually-measured components that must meet specific quality standards are going to cost more than mass-produced items that tolerate higher technical deviations of individual components. Yes, digital this and that, in many cases, simply requires sourcing the cheapest HW and not worrying about MTBF, but most on here do at least SOME research and listening prior to making any purchase regardless of their budget. (For example, high-end Nakamichi cassette decks sounded very good in the day, but were very expensive, and pretty much every one of them failed within a month of purchase and had to be sent back for repair. Did they build those costs into the retail price? Would you have bought one knowing this regardless of the sound quality?)

If you are not taking the individual items home and listening to them there before you buy, you might make an error based on some measurement or some review or opinion. That was basically the point I was trying to make, as well as pointing out that "digital" did not necessarily mean "musical" or "accurate" per my comment on the drums and organ issues.

Finally be sure to buy expensive interconnects; it is clear to me, because I have personally spoken to them, that electrons DESPISE travelling on cheap 12 stranded copper wire when they could be skating luxuriously down the wonderful world of non-oxygenated extra-virgin platinum-molybdenum-gold-silver hand-pulled strands encased in South American oil-based sheathing attached to 24-Caret gold terminals. (OK, gold ends don't corrode as quickly as chrome, but seriously???)

Cheers,

Richard

"'72 GS Stage 1 Conv. when racing 1320 feet"


Last edited by Scotth3886; 11-26-2016 at 08:27 PM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #189 of 271 Old 11-26-2016, 08:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Funny. Look what I found. It was sealed all these years until I got curious and opened it today.


Scotth3886 is online now  
post #190 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 04:49 AM
Member
 
richopp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
"'72 GS Stage 1 Conv. when racing 1320 feet"

Thanks for the memories...it was a great day at the track. Of course, "pure stock" and "showroom stock" are different, and even back in the day the cars provided to the various magazines were, well, "special" in that they were somewhat tweaked by factory people prior to delivery to the track for the racing. Anyway, torque remains important and 455 Buicks had lots (510--the most) and won many of these tests back then.

People today pay millions for Mustangs and Mopar products from the day; this always gives me a chuckle as I drove those cars back then and they were, shall we say, of "lessor" build quality and slower than my Buicks, but then again today's buyers have no intention of racing and driving these cars as we did then and as some of us still do today.

http://www.stage1registry.com/BuickGS/richogs.jpg

Sure, VP 103 gas is over 11.00/gallon these days, but driving the Buick around town gives me a lot more fun/satisfaction than the Corolla. (Then again, by having the Corolla I can afford to drive the Buick!)

The days of 50-cent/gal Sunoco 260 are long gone, but the cars are just as much fun today as they were then...even without modern huge computer screens on the dash. Having stated that, I would purchase a Tesla in a second if I could...

Cheers,

Richard
richopp is offline  
post #191 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 05:28 AM
Member
 
biomedtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I used to think like you. But as it turns out I only ever owned mediocre turntables in my youth. Recently I had a chance to partially restore a state-of-the-art turntable from the mid-70s. It is a manual turntable made by Sansui. With a good quality Stylus and cartridge it sounds amazing. I have digitized some older records of mine that are virtually indistinguishable from their commercial CD version. Funny thing is my hearing is worse now, than it was 30 years ago, and these records today sound way better.
erhurd likes this.
biomedtech is offline  
post #192 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 05:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by richopp View Post
Thanks for the memories...it was a great day at the track. Of course, "pure stock" and "showroom stock" are different, and even back in the day the cars provided to the various magazines were, well, "special" in that they were somewhat tweaked by factory people prior to delivery to the track for the racing. Anyway, torque remains important and 455 Buicks had lots (510--the most) and won many of these tests back then.

People today pay millions for Mustangs and Mopar products from the day; this always gives me a chuckle as I drove those cars back then and they were, shall we say, of "lessor" build quality and slower than my Buicks, but then again today's buyers have no intention of racing and driving these cars as we did then and as some of us still do today.

http://www.stage1registry.com/BuickGS/richogs.jpg

Sure, VP 103 gas is over 11.00/gallon these days, but driving the Buick around town gives me a lot more fun/satisfaction than the Corolla. (Then again, by having the Corolla I can afford to drive the Buick!)

The days of 50-cent/gal Sunoco 260 are long gone, but the cars are just as much fun today as they were then...even without modern huge computer screens on the dash. Having stated that, I would purchase a Tesla in a second if I could...

Cheers,

Richard

"Of course, "pure stock" and "showroom stock" are different"

NHRA pure stock here starting in 1960

Gorgeous car btw.

mine

(the 63 here in Ohio and the 61 and 66 in Socal). Daily divers: 2009 Pontiac G8 GT and 2017 Buick Lacrosse premium

Spoiler!

Last edited by Scotth3886; 11-27-2016 at 06:13 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #193 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 05:53 AM
Member
 
richopp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airsculpture View Post
When I joined it seemed what people did. I think it's more to do with if people are having issues or are looking to upgrade part of their system it's a lot easier to see what they are dealing with rather than having to list their equipment again in each post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks, that makes sense.

Cheers,

Richard
richopp is offline  
post #194 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 07:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
erhurd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Buckeye, Arizona (Phoenix); USA; Planet Earth
Posts: 538
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by EatStatic14 View Post
This dynamic range database bears repeating if it hasn't been mentioned in any of the relevant threads: http://dr.loudness-war.info/

So, there's your objective proof of the loudness war and why vinyl is usually better sounding, especially pre-loudness war albums. It's not a fidelity issue, but one of mastering and craft. Hopefully MQA will render the war moot in the future.
Bring me up to speed, please: what is MQA?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Edwin R. Hurd
AVS Forums Lurker-In-Training!

My Tight-space A/V Setup
erhurd is offline  
post #195 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 07:57 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 21,160
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1800 Post(s)
Liked: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by erhurd View Post
Bring me up to speed, please: what is MQA?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Master Quality Authenticated: it is an audio codec developed by Meridian Audio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master..._Authenticated

I have been listening to some MQA tracks you can download here: http://www.2l.no/hires/
(FLAC encoded MQA) music files using an Aurender A10: there is very little MQA encoded material out there
erhurd likes this.

please take the high road in every post:do not respond to or quote a problematic post: report it
HDMI.org:what a mess HDCP = Hollywood's Draconian Copy Protection system
LG C9 OLED owner



Last edited by markrubin; 11-27-2016 at 08:12 AM.
markrubin is offline  
post #196 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 09:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
erhurd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Buckeye, Arizona (Phoenix); USA; Planet Earth
Posts: 538
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 55
^ Thanks for your reply, markrubin, and I appreciate the links!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Edwin R. Hurd
AVS Forums Lurker-In-Training!

My Tight-space A/V Setup
erhurd is offline  
post #197 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 12:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,855
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5333 Post(s)
Liked: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by erhurd View Post
Bring me up to speed, please: what is MQA?
I do not own a decoder however MQA encoding is said to have benefits even without using a decoder, as per co-creator Bob Stuart in this Q and A:

"Q57. No Decoder
a. Can you confirm if a person does NOT have MQA decoding capability, does the file still retain a *full* 16-bits (and presumably 48kHz sampling rate) resolution if they try to play back the data?
b. MQA is said to playback without decoding with good quality or improved quality over a non- MQA Redbook file
i. is this true? . . .


A57.
a. The file is a 24-bit file and so that is the resolution seen by the DAC.
Without a decoder, the noisefloor depends on the encoding parameters and compatibility settings (producers can trade off the performance for no-decoder situations).

For the files released so far, the signalling tends to be approximately at the 16-bit level (adjustable in mastering) and those signals in the Legacy (no decoder) channel manifest typically as equivalent to an optimum 15.9 bit coding (see Q40 and Q82). Normally this is within 0.1 bit or actually better than the CD. However, this question and the answer are both couched in Fourier/Shannon domain and do not address how it sounds. For the listener with a decoder, the noise floor range can be down to 24 bits (see Q55).
b.
i. Correct, it is true."

I took a listen, undecoded, and indeed did hear a difference: MQA sound, at least undecoded, has an equalized noise floor in the audible band and it is at a discernable level if you know what to listen for, as seen by MQA's Left and Right channel's rise above ~9kHz in blue and green, as opposed to unprocessed sound in yellow and red, below:



Each vertical mark is a 6 dB increment. Frequency in Hz is shown across the bottom of the graph.

[Update: Corrected my misidentification error. I made this close up image months ago. Original work here: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--lPk6tOpU.../Composite.png
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/0...-meridian.html

I can provide ABX test results documenting I can hear this difference, i.e. MQA's increase in high frequency noise where it audibly counts [under 20kHz], under double blind conditions, should anyone wish it.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MQA-noise-floor-small-sized.jpg
Views:	2000
Size:	19.0 KB
ID:	1793097   Click image for larger version

Name:	archimago blog image MQA color legend.jpg
Views:	1926
Size:	48.0 KB
ID:	1793505  

Last edited by m. zillch; 01-15-2017 at 04:00 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #198 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 06:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,855
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5333 Post(s)
Liked: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior View Post
Do y'all vinyl guys feel that a properly digitized LP would sound any different than the LP itself? Anyone ever do any blind tests; digitized vinyl vs. actual vinyl? Be interesting, despite my preconceptions that there would be no audible difference.
I agree there would be no audible difference however such a test is difficult to pull off because synchronizing a phonograph playback system to anything else, so you can do rapid A/B switching to make comparisons, is a nightmare. No matter how much you try you will always be off a few milliseconds and the ear can tell which is which. The added delay of one source acts as a "tell" or a giveaway so it isn't truly a blind test anymore.

What we can do however is synchronize, and therefore fairly compare, a High Resolution 96 kHz/24-bit recording of a state of the art turntable rig against a CD quality down sampled version of the same recording. I will be posting a thread about this soon I hope. Stay tuned. . .

Last edited by m. zillch; 11-27-2016 at 06:10 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #199 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 07:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior View Post
Do y'all vinyl guys feel that a properly digitized LP would sound any different than the LP itself? Anyone ever do any blind tests; digitized vinyl vs. actual vinyl? Be interesting, despite my preconceptions that there would be no audible difference.

I haven't done it quite this way, but I've sure done it LP on the VPI Classic Signature vs the same material, same master on CD or SACD. Or in one case, no master for the vinyl and the backup two track analog for the CD. Its a 1977 recording so no CD at the time. That's the Sheffield, Harry James, Still Harry. Indistinguishable between the two in this case. I have a few others where the CD or SACD is just as good as the LP. New Zion, Sunshine Seas, Yamamoto Trio, Midnight Sugar on Three Blind Mice. One where the SACD might be just a little better (the shimmer on the triangle), Cyndee Peters, House of the Rising Sun on Opus 3. I've since done some more playing around with VTA and I think I got it to where they're the same. I can't remember without doing it again. And one other where the CD pretty much puts the LP away and that's Daft Punk, Random Access Memories. The vinyl is superbly done and very quiet, but it just doesn't have the dynamics or I should say transients of the CD. There's another AVS member who feels they sound the same so I don't know what happened. Album came out three years ago I believe so maybe I have a late pressing off of a worn stamper. I have to do these under 90db +/- or noise floor from the analog intrudes on the silent parts between cuts, which of course is a give away. It's tube rush from the phono stage attempting to make something out of that low output MC at .4mv. It's ok though because I don't listen that loud anyway unless its Deadmau5 or Infected Mushrooms and then really really loud.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 11-27-2016 at 09:33 PM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #200 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 08:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,709
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Personally Daft Punk RAM sounds better with the LP mastering whereas the general digital release has more dynamic range compression.
Some prefer the louder bass versus more dynamic deeper bass found on the LP. That having been said if the general digital release did not exhibit the DR compression then that would be the superior version.

Those that like the vinyl format, the minor spike in interest will wane sooner than later just it does with all retro trends. For pete's sakes freaking cassette is making a minor comeback. VHS is next I suppose.

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shoveling it.
KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #201 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 08:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post
Personally Daft Punk RAM sounds better with the LP mastering whereas the general digital release has more dynamic range compression.
Some prefer the louder bass versus more dynamic deeper bass found on the LP. That having been said if the general digital release did not exhibit the DR compression then that would be the superior version.

Those that like the vinyl format, the minor spike in interest will wane sooner than later just it does with all retro trends. For pete's sakes freaking cassette is making a minor comeback. VHS is next I suppose.

I gotta try this one again. I was pretty sure that in this case it was a different master, but I didn't like the LP as compared to the CD. I don't think I've ever said that before.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #202 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 08:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,709
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 625
The 24bit version is no better than the 16bit version, similar situation with a lot of "HiDef" tracks. Just wasted space. One of my friends prefers the digital version, likes the bass better for instance, yet there other masters he also prefers the LP version versus an overly compressed digital one.

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shoveling it.

Last edited by KMFDMvsEnya; 11-27-2016 at 08:38 PM.
KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #203 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 08:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,488
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 501 Post(s)
Liked: 1212
Records are the BEST!!
Dude111 is offline  
post #204 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 09:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,855
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5333 Post(s)
Liked: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by barfle View Post
I can think of one. Multi-channel. The original redbook spec for CDs does allow for a four-channel recording, but as far as I know, none have ever been produced, and I doubt that even my Oppo BDP-105D would know what to do with one.
There are many Quad CDs in the two most prevalent formats: SQ and QS. You could attach a quad decoder to the stereo outputs of your Oppo to hear them properly, but I would argue that since the exact same disc spinner you already own can not only play CDs but also multi-channel DVDs/BDs/SACDs you might consider the modern day surround decoder, i.e. a Dolby Digital/DTS AVR, and not limit yourself to only buying recordings that are many decades old in order to get those rear speakers working. There are also more recordings to choose from as in tens of thousands.

Surround sound has advanced quite a bit since the days of quad, and not just in the number of channels and an additional, dedicated LFE channel.

P.S. If anyone tells you there's "magic" in quad recordings that the new multi-channel formats "just can't replicate" they are full of baloney.

Last edited by m. zillch; 11-27-2016 at 11:32 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #205 of 271 Old 11-27-2016, 11:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Carlsbad, Ca.
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 291 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post
Those that like the vinyl format, the minor spike in interest will wane sooner than later just it does with all retro trends. For pete's sakes freaking cassette is making a minor comeback. VHS is next I suppose.
Vinyl and turntable sales show it to be much more than a minor spike in interest. This is evident if you do a little looking into the subject.
Scotth3886 likes this.
SoCalCyclist is offline  
post #206 of 271 Old 11-28-2016, 01:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,321
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1792 Post(s)
Liked: 1484
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosejr75 View Post
ts appeal much in the same way tubes can add something to the sound.
Yeah, tubes add noise and distortion.
m. zillch likes this.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #207 of 271 Old 11-28-2016, 06:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,709
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalCyclist View Post
Vinyl and turntable sales show it to be much more than a minor spike in interest. This is evident if you do a little looking into the subject.
Unless it sustainably exceeds 25% market share then it remains a niche novelty that retains an esoteric demographic that bolsters certain sales numbers but anything else at this point that exaggerates this reality is no different than the noise inherent to the format.

By all means enjoy the format but it benefits no one to overstate the current trend or perpetually misrepresent the fidelity capacity of an inherently imperfect, imprecise, and continually deteriorative medium.
m. zillch and erhurd like this.

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shoveling it.

Last edited by KMFDMvsEnya; 11-28-2016 at 08:19 AM.
KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #208 of 271 Old 11-28-2016, 08:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
TornadoTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hill Country, Texas
Posts: 7,901
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1950 Post(s)
Liked: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post
Compress the master and you'll get a compressed vinyl record as well. My point is that with direct to disc or tape mastering the available dynamic range wasn't more than with digital, it was less. Modern recordings and modern re-masters of old recordings that are overly compressed aren't that way because they have to be. It's because producers want them that way.
I'm talking about a MFSL or CBS MasterSound pressing made on masters from long ago vs. the new, compressed masters. My LPs were pre-loudness wars. I have not bought an LP in well over 20 years. probably well over 30 years.
TornadoTJ is offline  
post #209 of 271 Old 11-28-2016, 08:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,229
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3997 Post(s)
Liked: 2464
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post
I'm talking about a MFSL or CBS MasterSound pressing made on masters from long ago vs. the new, compressed masters. My LPs were pre-loudness wars. I have not bought an LP in well over 20 years. probably well over 30 years.

I haven't bought one since Saturday. Or ... more like ten of them.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #210 of 271 Old 11-28-2016, 09:01 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,855
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5333 Post(s)
Liked: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post
Yeah, tubes add noise and distortion.
I believe the proponents call it "tube rush". It's sort of like when your ice cream cone falls to the ground and gets covered with dirt. That's called "natural sprinkles".
KMFDMvsEnya likes this.
m. zillch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off