Julf wrote:
I am not sure about what you mean with pressing when talking about
digital files. The differences tend to be down to different EQ and
compressing choices.
I guess I was talking about the care engineers take when digitizing the
master tapes. There's more than one way to skin a
Archimago wrote:
I was originally going to respond to the 24/192 discussion with this but
thought it more apt to start a new topic instead of tangential hijacking
:-)
I wonder if we've had a good / serious discussion here around the
question of what as audiophiles we're trying to
Mnyb wrote:
I with you there get the good recording regardless of format if
available in different formats just choose by practicalities I for
example consider everything above 24/96 complete overkill but i want a
lossles file .
I was very saddened when I discovered that I can't reliably
gatzou wrote:
Interesting thread...
I am a big fan of Ray Charles (I know very well his records) and I am
quite an old school ears guy (preferring old uncompressed (dynamically)
standards to modern production).
But I find this Genius love company quite well produced for a modern
prod,
probedb wrote:
So you compared a lossy rip of a CD which maybe from a different
release/master with a new lossless CD rip and you expected them to sound
the same? Was this a proper ABX test? I'm guessing not.
The comparison is completely invalid as a test of lossy vs lossless. The
only
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I think, you guys lost the OP. If at all OP is still reading, my
suspects are 1) amp 2) SB Touch. Just swap out with a more high-powered
amp and see if the speakers open up. Currently, I know my magnepans on
the wall are not being driven well by Panasonic receiver.
darrenyeats wrote:
I've had some contact lately with people in the business and often the
mastering for vinyl and digital is done by different people. The people
doing the digital mastering are very conscious of the sound for airplay.
This simple fact is probably doing the most damage. It
Mnyb wrote:
There are also artistic choices done by the mixing engineer and
producer.
A modern recording may be beyond reproach technically , but the actual
sounds put on to it may sound as you discribe .
Some one else on this forum made the remark that some 50's microphones
had a bit of
JJZolx wrote:
Brisker sound doesn't register. What's that mean??
Livelier might mean better transients, but I still think you're
describing (or influenced by) the performance rather than the
recording.
One thing I've always disliked about many of the old Ray Charles
recordings is that
netchord wrote:
how am i wasting my money? are you suggesting i shouldn't own a
transporter? that aif files are more expensive than FLAC?
Basically, it's the same argument as when someone goes to a fancy
restaurant. People pay for the luxurious experience, to be subjected to
an
I've downloaded Ray Charles's album Genius Loves Company in hi rez
hoping to enjoy the music as well as the much touted high quality
'audiophile-grade' recording. Well, the music was a-okay (although I
prefer Ray's older material), but the sound quality left me cold. I must
say I much prefer the
JJZolx wrote:
I question whether the sound quality is worse. But there's no question
that the older performances are superior and more lively.
I found the sound on this hi rez album to be somewhat dull and
non-engaging. The late '50s/early '60s recordings have brisker, livelier
sound,
Julf wrote:
No, the money seems to be in making people think it is extremely
difficult and requires very expensive and esoteric gear.
True, but if someone can demonstrate that it's easy to achieve high
level of quality without spending a lot of money, that would be an offer
that is difficult
darrenyeats wrote:
I have experienced two moments of pure magic in audio ... both on CD ...
but I believe this is circumstantial.
In my opinion, believing vinyl is superior is like believing the earth
is flat! That your experience is the opposite isn't a problem, I can
well believe it,
Julf wrote:
Your ears tell you that you like the music. My measuring instruments
tell me why you like it. The first part is needed to enjoy music, the
second part is needed to design the equipment for reproducing music.
Horses for courses.
That's a very good way to put it.
garym wrote:
only slightlysee other thread on myth of louder being better in
listening comparisons for why.
Wow, I didn't know that. That's pretty crafty, I must say. If true, it
could mean that we've been most likely manipulated by many audio
sheisters. For example, I remember attending
darrenyeats wrote:
Annoyingly for some modern recordings the vinyl release is less
dynamically compressed than the CD. Certainly not most of the time, but
some of the time ... and I've not noticed it going the other way.
Now, I am not advocating buying a turntable! On this, I definitely
SuperQ wrote:
And this is where you're missing the actual point. You're comparing two
different tracks of different content. Sure, they might be the same
song, and even come from the same source multi-track, but the mastering
is different. You seem to prefer the higher dynamic range
darrenyeats wrote:
I agree ... and I am arguing the reason is the crippled CD releases put
out in some cases!
Darren
True. But even the best digital master can be outdone by the best analog
master. For that to happen, you'd need to get lucky and nail a really
good pressing. Which is like
Stratmangler wrote:
The Chesky stuff may well be beautifully recorded, it's just a shame
that it's devoid of anything worth listening to.
Ah well!
I've always been mystified by the claims that Chesky is beautifully
recorded. Maybe it's a good product to be used to test one's system, but
I've
Julf wrote:
You do realize that most pickups have distortion 1%, very limited
frequency range, and wow flutter that makes any jitter measurements of
digital gear look rather petty...
I don't listen to music with measuring instruments, I use my ears
instead. Some people think that's silly,
mlsstl wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on the issue of the best analog being
superior to the best digital.
I've been lucky enough to have been in some studios over the years and
heard direct mike feeds and the analog open reel playback. There is
always a loss. Tape has its own issues
mlsstl wrote:
This is NOT what was being discussed just a few posts back.
Rather it was about taking the same recording and playing it back at two
ever so slightly different playback levels. Most people prefer the one
that is slightly louder even if they can't perceive the volume
darrenyeats wrote:
Hmm, the slightly louder 24 bit is heard as slightly better if compared
A/B, yet the difference might not be enough to be consciously noticed.
Yes, you've sold the conspiracy theory to me now!
Darren
Is the trick to winning to make them only slightly louder, or to make
garym wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the above statement. It is actually quite
easy to achieve decent digital sound reproduction. I agree it may be
hard to achieve decent analog vinyl reproduction. But somehow, I feel
like I've entered a time machine and it has taken me back to 1986
mlsstl wrote:
Yes, you can generally pick up a lot of info about a LP by looking at
the markings in the plastic just outside the label, but...
1. If you are buying a new record, there is no way to see this info
prior to purchase. I don't think a record store would be very happy with
you
A fairly pervasive urban myth has been percolating among the community,
and this myth has to do with the unfounded assumption that louder always
gets perceived as better sounding. In my particular case, and in a few
other cases I know of, the exact opposite is true. When comparing
side-by-side
Zombie wrote:
Oi! What about the question:
Since I'm considering purchasing some of the remastered Beatles LPs, I
was wondering if anyone had a chance to compare two or more of the same
LPs?
(Personally I'd go for the mono mixes, unless they have made a miracle
with the dull beatles
cliveb wrote:
That isn't how placebos work. You don't get to consciously choose
whether you're going to give them a chance. They operate at a deep,
subconscious level in the mind. And to suggest that the placebo effect
works everywhere *except* audio is just silly.
I agree, nice catch.
Julf wrote:
Well, in my student days we were toying around with the idea of selling
a power filter that would block the radioactive electrons from nuclear
power plants from entering your house. I am sure it could be repurposed
to produce purified audiophile electrons too.
Yeah, and that's
Since I'm considering purchasing some of the remastered Beatles LPs, I
was wondering if anyone had a chance to compare two or more of the same
LPs? What used to happen back in my old vinyl days is that each and
every LP, even the ones from the same manufacturer/same batch, used to
sound
Julf wrote:
I would love to hear how you can remove noise and distortion afterwards.
And I am pretty sure a lot of audio manufacturers would love to hear it
too...
Suppose you need a clean blank canvas to paint on. And all you can get
is a dirty, stained one. What you have to do then is
Archimago wrote:
Since there was little if any difference between the 16 and 24-bit 44kHz
releases in 2009, one should not expect any meaningful improvement even
if 192kHz IMO.
Little if any difference between the 16 and 24 bit releases? I disagree.
Listen to Words of Love from Beatles for
ralphpnj wrote:
A well designed and well made power supply should be doing exactly that
and providing the equipment with clean, well regulated power. And that
is exactly why power conditioners are part of the audiophile belief
system.
Here's how it works:
Power conditioners are known
garym wrote:
are you talking about the CD version (16bit) from the Stereo Box release
(or the older CD version)
and of course, the mastering could be different between the 16 and 24
releases. To compare the value of 16 and 24bit differences, one would
need to downsample the 24bit track
garym wrote:
It does if you are an editor of The Absolute Sound or other audiophile
publications that can make up things out of whole cloth. And it works
if you sell $5,000 USB cables (your bank account gets a lot bigger!)
You bet, because those people are lying for living. But we, the
garym wrote:
yeah, not clear myself on all the different versions. But to do any
actual testing, you'd have to create the mp3 and 16bit from the same
source (the 24bit). Otherwise, too many confounding variables. Note I'm
not suggesting that you *need* to do thisjust that your
Wombat wrote:
I often see here re-sampling and dithering used a bit confusing. If you
lower the samplerate from lets say 192kHz to 44.1kHz you do resampling.
If you go from 24/44.1 to 16/44.1 you don´t resample, you only reduce
bit-depth. Both actions should involve dithering.
Btw. Did you
garym wrote:
And I take it based on what I've read, that for the early albums, the
Mono mix was the one George Martin and the Beatles cared about and
worked hard on. The stereo mix was done as an after thought.
(plus, I originally heard these songs on a transistor radio tuned to the
AM
ralphpnj wrote:
Another example of an audio myth with roots in good science and bad
logic. Cleaning dirty, inexpensive and poorly made interconnects results
in a slight improvement in the sound therefore thoroughly cleaning
already clean, expensive and well interconnects MUST result in
Wombat wrote:
There are many ways to reduce bit-depth, must be even possible on a MAC
:)
SoX should work fine.
Don´t worry about correct dither to much with this Beatles stuff the
noise in the lower bits must be already high enough to self-dither for
the most parts.
Just reading
garym wrote:
good perceptual codecs (lame mp3 and AAC for example) were designed to
throw away the info you can't hear (that's why these are
perceptual...throw out the content that human beings can't hear
anyhow). Don't feel bad, this is the way it is supposed to be! Very few
people can
Anyone had a chance to listen to the newest Beatles reissues on vinyl?
I've read a few mutually contradictory reports and was wondering whether
it was worth buying some of those LPs?
heisenberg's Profile:
Hello there,
I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing regular 16
Julf wrote:
Claims of major differences from some minuscule improvements in the
reproduction chain after the audio has passed through tens if not
hundreds of opamps, half a mile of cable, and been filtered and
processed through N layers of digital processing are very much like the
claims of
ralphpnj wrote:
My response is to ask you a question: why is it that only in the field
of digital audio are two digitally identical data streams, by which I
mean two data streams that contain the exact same digital data being
transmitted or sourced slightly differently, e.g. wifi versus
garym wrote:
A good high bitrate lossy file should be transparent to the listener
(for most music...i.e., not problem samples, etc.). Perhaps the 16 vs
24 files you are comparing are from different masters while the 16 bit
vs 320kbs lossy are from the same master. The 24/44.1 tracks you
garym wrote:
The fallacy of comparing the digital picture files example to issues
with digital music files has been previously discussed at these forums
(been a few years I believe, but a search should find some of the
threads...)
Just because the 'fallacy' has been discussed doesn't mean
garym wrote:
edit: and no one in the current discussion has said that different DACs
(analog chain) can't sound different (and certainly speakers can sound
very different). The discussion is more around whether the bits that
arrive at the front end of the DAC (before the analog conversion)
ralphpnj wrote:
No. Changing a power cord would NOT be the equivalent of filtering the
water it would be the equivalent to replacing the piping between the
sink and the water supply pipe in the wall. A filter would be the
equivalent of something like the PS Audio Power Plant.
Agreed
garym wrote:
or rather *may* sound better.
Thanks for correcting me. Yes, absolutely, MAY sound better (I've heard
some sickeningly expensive gear that made digitized music actually sound
worse!)
heisenberg's Profile:
garym wrote:
of course. different DACs, different amps/preamps/speakers/room
treatments
True, but also, everything else staying equal, I've heard improvements
when going from a PC-based configuration to a SBT configuration. Both
systems pumping same bits into the same DAC, via same
garym wrote:
Yes, as mnyb often points out in his posts here, there are cheap chinese
wallmart CD players that can sound better than some badly designed
high-end gear. NOS DACs anyone?
Just the other weekend my wife and I strolled into a newly open
neighbourhood high end audio store and
garym wrote:
Sorry, you're completely wrong here. But I'm guessing you registered
here just to troll a bit. Enjoy.
Well, why don't you correct me then? Slapping a label on someone just
because they may have exhibited some misunderstanding isn't helping the
case, is it?
54 matches
Mail list logo
