atrocity wrote:
CueTools can also detect pre-emphasis.
Just to make it more confusing, the flag can be (IIRC) in either the TOC
or subcode. dBpoweramp and EAC detect one but not the other.
I've got a Japanese black label pressing of The Dark Side of the Moon
(one of the first CDs I
Gandhi wrote:
DETECTION
dBpoweramp
CueTools can also detect pre-emphasis.
Just to make it more confusing, the flag can be (IIRC) in either the TOC
or subcode. dBpoweramp and EAC detect one but not the other.
I've got a Japanese black label pressing of The Dark Side of the Moon
(one of
RonM wrote:
When CDs were young, they were often not very well done. Especially
when recorded digitally with early equipment. For instance, Ry Cooder's
Bop 'Till You Drop was the first major label release that was all
digital and it just does not sound very good. It's not hard to imagine
Found some history here .
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/early-pop-rock-full-digital-recordings.211920/
And here .
http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J
OT fell free to direct me to another tread if one exist .
Really old CD's can have pre-emphasise aplied they then the CD player
used its de-emphasis filter to counteract ?
( a rise in the treble to avoid noise in the recording equipment , the
subsequent damping of it in the playback system )
Mnyb wrote:
What happens when we rip such CD I suspect that this info gets lost ? Do
you know a way to regognises this a marking on the cd case , put it in a
25 year old CD player and watch the de-emp ligth come on ?
Is there a de-emp filter for foobar or dBpower amp etc ?
*Filters*
Mnyb wrote:
What happens when we rip such CD I suspect that this info gets lost ?
You are correct that it gets lost. Some rippers that detect it can add
a tag into the data, or apply de-emphasis, but there isn't a standard
tag (that I'm aware of) that allows automatic de-emphasis at playback.
The only defacto standard that exists is imho the FLAGS PRE info that
can be part of a CUEsheet. EAC detects and adds it a while now. I guess
foobar can add de-emphasis on the fly with a plugin on playback.
XLD for example couldn't detect it a while and implemented it pretty
late.
itunes applies
Mnyb wrote:
The following would be interesting to do .
Pop in some really old cd in your current system does it still sound
horrible .
Early CDs did not sound universally bad. One of the first CDs I bought
was Pictures at an Exhibition on Telarc (Cleveland Orchestra, Maazel).
It sounded
cliveb wrote:
Early CDs did not sound universally bad. One of the first CDs I bought
was Pictures at an Exhibition on Telarc (Cleveland Orchestra, Maazel).
It sounded fabulous back in the 1980s and still sounds fabulous today.
My first CD player was a Philips 104 - which I believe was
Mnyb wrote:
Pop in some really old cd in your current system does it still sound
horrible .
Dig up some really old CD player conect it to your current system does
it still sounds as bad as remembered .
There were definitely some really awful early digital recordings. Some
of the DDD
I do think it's a bit of a culture/future shock when cd was released .
We where simply used to how the vinyl sounded and vinyl is not really
the same as good analog ( reel to,reel tape is ) . And maybe just maybe
there was something to digital ready after al ;) some equipment
migth not have
I started collecting records as a kid in about 1975, and only started
collecting CDs about 1987. CDs were a godsend for classical music --
particularly large symphony works with a large dynamic range -- because
you didn't have to worry about the surface noise inevitably accumulate
no matter how
pablolie wrote:
i started the very arduous process of scanning covers and booklets in
high quality, both for CDs and LPs. to this day i am shocked that some
people don't complain about a $10 download often not including a PDF.
i wonder if it's legal to start a public library of art cover
pablolie wrote:
my pleasure - i shall find a way to share the rest. cover art and
booklets are a gateway to find more music you love - by knowing
composers, musicians, producers... by reading the cover in a record
store i used to find related music, a method that seldom failed... i
don't
cliveb wrote:
Let me start by stating that I fully understand and acknowledge that
vinyl is a deeply flawed and inaccurate medium. ...
Even now, when a needle-drop gets played over the Transporter it somehow
grabs my attention that many CD sourced files don't.
There has to be something
coverlib.com has lots of cover art including booklets.
Win7Pro(x64)[3.3Ghz i5, 8GB RAM, 120GB SSD system, 15TB storage], LMS
7.9.0 - Logitech Squeezebox Classic V.3 - Cambridge Audio DacMagic -
NAD C160 - 2 x NAD C272 - Quad 22L2
I have two turntables - one in the Living Room and one in my Office - I
am in the process of digitising my mainly 70s vinyl collection into
FLAC. I have no idea when I will finish and still buy the odd vinyl.
In the office I stick an album on, click record in VinylStudio and carry
on working on
pablolie wrote:
i started the very arduous process of scanning covers and booklets in
high quality, both for CDs and LPs. to this day i am shocked that some
people don't complain about a $10 download often not including a PDF.
i wonder if it's legal to start a public library of art cover
i started the very arduous process of scanning covers and booklets in
high quality, both for CDs and LPs. to this day i am shocked that some
people don't complain about a $10 download often not including a PDF.
i wonder if it's legal to start a public library of art cover and
booklets, or if
pablolie wrote:
i wonder if it's legal to start a public library of art cover and
booklets, or if music companies would come after it.
http://www.albumartexchange.com - just covers and no booklets, though.
atrocity's
ralphpnj wrote:
Lots of cover art can be found just by doing a simple google or bing
image search.
And thanks for the lovely pdf of the Joe Henderson CD. I have this CD
ripped into my music library but without the booklet and now, thanks to
you, I have a beautiful pdf of the booklet.
my
Archimago wrote:
Interesting comment about the links and Muso.
I tried Muso about a couple years back. Nice idea and features but I
didn't buy it because I rarely played the music off the Windows
machine.
There could be a lot of work done to improve the virtual cover/booklet
ralphpnj wrote:
One of muso's features is that one can view the jpgs and pdfs that are
located in the album folder, either within the album folder or a scans
subfolder. To do something similar using a tablet one needs to have a
program that can access and read the album folder on the
Archimago wrote:
Suppose when we play a song, if the app has a link to the source
directory so I can just click on the JPEG art to see them... That would
be a simple way to do it? Would LMS allow the tablet app to show JPEGs?
This is exactly how muso works.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio
paulster wrote:
You can't compress the crap out of vinyl
Of course the you can compress the crap out of the digital master and
cut that. Having vinyl as the medium doesn't guarantee that excessive
digital compression hasn't been used somewhere in the production chain.
If we're talking about
Julf wrote:
'iZotope vinyl'
(https://www.izotope.com/en/products/effects-instruments/vinyl/)
Does it simulate the other things like frequency dependent channel
separation ,phase variations and a slight acoustic feedback :)
The background noise has an interesting feature it has something akin
Mike Sargent wrote:
I think I'm off to the patent office.
'iZotope vinyl'
(https://www.izotope.com/en/products/effects-instruments/vinyl/)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that
Julf wrote:
'iZotope vinyl'
(https://www.izotope.com/en/products/effects-instruments/vinyl/)
That's what I get for trying to be clever. Build a better mousetrap and
nature will build better mice.
Mike
Mike Sargent's
ralphpnj wrote:
...
This post got me to thinking about an area where digital audio continues
to fall way short of it's vast potential. I'm referring to the lack of
hyper-linking within a digital audio music library. For example by this
I mean the ability to be listening to Miles Davis'
i still have my turntable in storage, because i have about 10 LPs i
didn't digitize yet. i wonder if that procrastination was an excuse to
simply keep it.
ah the old days. mixing friends a tape would take over the hours, from
pristinely played LP to compact cassette. it meant something. but
audio53 wrote:
Do we really need all of this distraction while listening to music? I
realize it is all 'different strokes for different folks', but I can't
imagine the value of spending my listening time clicking through a bunch
of hyperlinks.
I can understand your thinking about spending
Mike Sargent wrote:
I think there is serious money to be made by someone who builds a device
that sits between a CD player and an amp that introduces all of the
distortions, frequency limitations, wow flutter, etc. that vinyl has,
and then periodically adds a click or snap to the audio and
Archimago wrote:
how can anyone in their right mind even declare this kind of hypothesis
with a straight face and consider himself educated as an audio
reviewer!?
I don't think educated as an audio reviewer implies actually having to
know or understand anything... :)
I don't know what to
Let me start by stating that I fully understand and acknowledge that
vinyl is a deeply flawed and inaccurate medium. In all objective senses
it is vastly inferior to CD. I long ago gave up using vinyl for
day-to-day listening (although I still transfer LPs to digital as a
hobby).
And yet... back
cliveb wrote:
There has to be something euphonic about the shortcomings of vinyl.
Not really, you just happen to like the distortion etc that it
introduces, some people like lots of bass, some people like different
EQs. It's just that for vinyl people mistakenly associate it with a
better
Archimago wrote:
Yup... Hate it when the sound is baked in :-(
Time for a blog post on this:
'MUSINGS: The ongoing Vinyl vs. Digital debate...'
(http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/02/musings-ongoing-vinyl-vs-digital-debate.html)
Fascinating how the vinylphile's vinylphile Fremer brought
Mike Sargent wrote:
I think there is serious money to be made by someone who builds a device
that sits between a CD player and an amp that introduces all of the
distortions, frequency limitations, wow flutter, etc. that vinyl has,
and then periodically adds a click or snap to the audio and
Mike Sargent wrote:
I think there is serious money to be made by someone who builds a device
that sits between a CD player and an amp that introduces all of the
distortions, frequency limitations, wow flutter, etc. that vinyl has,
and then periodically adds a click or snap to the audio and
probedb wrote:
Not really, you just happen to like the distortion etc that it
introduces, some people like lots of bass, some people like different
EQs. It's just that for vinyl people mistakenly associate it with a
better sound. There's nothing wrong with liking the sound of vinyl at
all.
cliveb wrote:
Let me start by stating that I fully understand and acknowledge that
vinyl is a deeply flawed and inaccurate medium. In all objective senses
it is vastly inferior to CD. I long ago gave up using vinyl for
day-to-day listening (although I still transfer LPs to digital as a
ralphpnj wrote:
...This post got me to thinking about an area where digital audio
continues to fall way short of it's vast potential. I'm referring to the
lack of hyper-linking within a digital audio music library. For example
by this I mean the ability to be listening to Miles Davis'
paulster wrote:
Great blog post. I love my vinyl, but I hate that I have to love
listening to vinyl to get better quality sound out of an inferior
medium, because of the ongoing loudness wars!
Yeah. That's a tragedy IMO! As much as I can enjoy needle drops, they're
still obviously not as
Archimago wrote:
Yeah. That's a tragedy IMO! As much as I can enjoy needle drops, they're
still obviously not as good as the original direct-to-digital.
Please indulge me for a second...
/rant on!/
It's really quite sad that on the one hand we have folks like Neil Young
pushing
philippe_44 wrote:
this is math, not black magic and not open for opinion.
Ah, but what do scientists think they know about art, music and
enjoyment? :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid
paulster wrote:
True, but look at the example I posted. Unless there's a different MP3
master, you can see the small difference in DR between the vinyl and the
MP3 because of the differences in the media types, but you can also see
that they are both manifestly different from the CD.
Sure,
usc95 wrote:
I have never understood the resurgence of vinyl and the insistence of
those who swear it sounds better. Perhaps my limited budget for gear
will forever condemn me to enjoying digital music and missing the
superior pops and hiss of my youth but I don't plan on buying back in
ralphpnj wrote:
Thanks for the link! A very informative article.
Neil Young should know better. Dynamic range compression has been around
a lot longer than digital audio and the mp3 format. Dynamic range
compression has been used in radio broadcasting since at the 1960s, if
not before
Archimago wrote:
Time for a blog post on this:
Great blog post. I love my vinyl, but I hate that I have to love
listening to vinyl to get better quality sound out of an inferior
medium, because of the ongoing loudness wars!
Two track 1's and no track 2 after a scan for new and changed?
philippe_44 wrote:
this is what enjoyment should never be: rationalized. Try, experience
and the 'good' thing is what you like, at the end
Indeed. No need to try to rationalize it with pseudoscience, voodoo and
mumbo-jumbo.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Julf wrote:
Indeed. No need to try to rationalize it with pseudoscience, voodoo and
mumbo-jumbo.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100
Unfortunately much more than they do really know, I agree :) ... and
this is what enjoyment should never be: rationalized. Try, experience
and the 'good' thing is what you like, at the end
LMS 7.7.2 - 5 radio, 3 Boom, 4 Duet, 1 Touch, 1 SB2. Sonos 2xPLAY:1,
PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, JBL
philippe_44 wrote:
Unfortunately much more than they do really know, I agree :) ... and
this is what enjoyment should never be: rationalized. Try, experience
and the 'good' thing is what you like, at the end
Yes ofcourse ,but it helps to realize that a CD as container is a good
enough fit
Julf wrote:
Ah, but what do scientists think they know about art, music and
enjoyment? :)
Actually, your typical scientist knows a great deal more about art,music
and enjoyment, than the typical art or music critic knows about science.
LMS on a dedicated music server (FitPC3)
Transporter
usc95 wrote:
I found the following article an interesting read and thought some of
you might as well:
Thanks so much, what a great and interesting article!
I believe the trouble with CDs being seen as a minor product, with harsh
and cold sound, comes from the very first (affordable)
Julf wrote:
But sometimes the artist has a different idea of good than the average
audiophile. My favourite recent example is Daft Punk, who have pretty
much 100% control over the end result. Check out their DR numbers...
This is a great example, actually. Random Access Memories sounds
none of this will make me revive my Technics turntable ever. i was glad
when i was digitizing my LP collection. i will never ever spin a record
again. i made sure everything was at its best when i digitized - clean
the -nearly new- needle, microfiber brush on the record etc etc. never
saw the
I have never understood the resurgence of vinyl and the insistence of
those who swear it sounds better. Perhaps my limited budget for gear
will forever condemn me to enjoying digital music and missing the
superior pops and hiss of my youth but I don't plan on buying back in
and will have to make
I do not pretend to understand all this, but sometimes the folks making
decisions are not qualified to do so from the example above
dasmueller's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=38035
View this
Quite interesting. Thanks for posting this. I can remember one of the
1st CD's I bought was a recording of the 1812 Overture. I was able to
hear things that were not there before. Or so I thought/believe. I did
not have the same recording in the vinyl medium to do a comparison. the
precept of the
CD as a medium is arguably superior. High resolution is definitely
superior.
But, and here's the but, check out the dynamic range comparisons of
modern CD releases versus the vinyl releases at
http://dr.loudness-war.info/ and you'll see why vinyl can be a source of
much better recordings these
paulster wrote:
But, and here's the but, check out the dynamic range comparisons of
modern CD releases versus the vinyl releases at
http://dr.loudness-war.info/ and you'll see why vinyl can be a source of
much better recordings these days.
*Can* be. Often isn't. Exactly the same master will
paulster wrote:
This is a great example of a record company really getting it wrong
And for an example of a company really getting it wrong, how about Neil
Young and his Pono claiming that dynamic compression and the loudness
wars are caused by mp3?
To try to judge the real from the false
What is interesting is too see again more is better which is really
BS. As somebody else pointed out in another thread, it is confusion
between perception, psychology and theory. 16 bits @ 44.1KHz gives you a
certain quantity of information (in the meaning of information's theory)
and this is
64 matches
Mail list logo
