Jump to content

The best 'source' for music? Download 24 bit? Vinyl? Or ?


Recommended Posts

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 2:19 AM, Chris A said:

PWK had a response that I believe appropriate:

 

Bullshit-Button-Lapel-1-Facebook-bw.jpg

 

Unfortunately, we have little common ground to communicate on this subject if "hi-fi has no meaning" is anything but rhetoric.  I come to this website--of all audio websites available on the web--because the concept of hi-fi still has specific meaning from its founder.  "Anything goes" is the end point of your arguments.  That's clearly a fashionable concept nowadays.  For me, it's just incorrect.

 

This is precisely what PWK was saying to do.  In my experience as a trained musician, I find that there exist musicians that automatically listen closely to others as they play and continuously adjust with virtuosity, and those that don't.   The latter I find are largely playing instruments requiring electricity...and notably in garages.  I find it takes little actual ability to play that genre.  At least 99.99% of that music isn't art.  It also has no meaning to "hi-fi" in my experience.

 

The former type that listen carefully invest years of their lives to their art and are uniformly gifted individuals in their art form--from their beginnings as musicians. Some play with absolute pitch (many, in fact).  Where musicians play with real ability together, it is the essence of acoustic jazz and other genres of improvisation, and in "art music" as you have alluded to true "art".

 

It is the concept of what music sounds like in their mind's eye that guides them all.  No trained and proficient musician that I've listened to is without this ability to recall and compare instantaneously what their music sounds like, and continuously adjust.  To suggest that we're individually incapable of doing this is to me suggesting that all are tone deaf.   I find that to be incorrect in practice.

 

I own only Klipsch loudspeakers in order to reproduce this type of music--not the everyday musical doggerel of ordinary quality that fills the broadcast airwaves--of which a stock auto sound system can easily reproduce.

 

Chris

 

Sigh... The notion that musicians who play instruments that don't require electricity are the only ones who "listen closely to others as they play and continuously adjust with virtuosity..." is flatly false. Perhaps it is your experience that this is so, but it is most definitely not mine. (I am also a trained musician, with over 55 years of experience playing percussion, which, BTW, does not require electricity.) In my personal experience, the classically-trained musicians that have attempted to create in improvisation-based ensembles in which I've been a member have tended to be weak improvisers with little ability to conceive original music in real-time in the absence of previously-composed material. However, I wouldn't extrapolate this into a general statement about all classically-trained musicians being poor improvisers any more than I would make a patently false generalization about 99.99% of musicians playing instruments requiring electricity in garages. As for any of this being "art" or not, neither of us is able to define that term for anyone but themselves, since neither of us has been appointed the International Arbiter Of Taste And Aesthetic Judgment for the world outside of their own mind.

 

To get back to "hi-fi", it's clear that you (and PWK) have appropriated the term to strictly apply to the faithful reproduction of recordings of music that is made by people playing unamplified instruments together in real-time. In my post on page 3 I explained why it's not really even possible to know if Audio System A is reproducing Recording A faithfully or not, because we don't know what Recording A really sounds like, since we weren't present when it was recorded. (And, because the work of art Audio System A is attempting to faithfully reproduce is not the experience of being in the room where and when the music was being performed, it is the master recording of that performance. They are two different things.) The best that Audio System A and Recording A can ever do is to create the illusion that you are present in the room where and when the music was being performed. And different people can be satisfied by different illusions.

 

Of course, the above meaning of "hi-fi" doesn't even consider that most people use their audio systems to reproduce music that was not created strictly by people playing unamplified instruments together in real-time; they listen to music that is an amalgam: a portion of it is made by people playing a mix of unamplified and amplified instruments together in real time, another portion of it is made by people playing unamplified and amplified instruments at other times (and sometimes in other places), and another portion of it is made by people playing purely electronic instruments. These elements are assembled into a final work that doesn't even exist as sound until a listener hears it through loudspeakers or headphones. Whether or not this final work can be called "art" is really immaterial to the discussion (unless you want to insist that "hi-fi" is only for one kind of music, and the rest of us don't simply don't count).

 

If PWK were alive today I'd be happy to discuss this with him (doing so would no doubt be one of the highlights of my entire life), but we do live in a world of rubber yardsticks — more correctly, in a world where each of us carries their own yardstick. Yours is correct for you, PWK's was correct for him, and mine is correct for me. If I forced you to use mine you'd be no happier than I would be if you forced me to use yours.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hsosdrummer said:

To get back to "hi-fi", it's clear that you (and PWK) have appropriated the term to strictly apply to the faithful reproduction of recordings of music that is made by people playing unamplified instruments together in real-time.

If it cannot do this, then you have something...that I'm not interested in...

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I left the worlds of vinyl and mag tape in 1986 and 'went towards the light' of the CD... and still enjoy it better than I ever did vinyl or tape. Most of my selections are 'older', as I am about to turn 69, and I try to stay with non-remastered, my favorite example of why being my original 1986 CD of Paul Simon's 'Graceland' album, a classic, vs the highly compressed later re-masters, namely, the 25th anniversary version which sounds louder, of course, but sounds like a totally different mix, too.  I like having the 'compact' physical copy, too - and I know that Murphy was an optimist - and that all hard drives will eventually fail - and there goes your media. When my 'hardware' fails, I get another CDP!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2017 at 7:41 PM, hsosdrummer said:

 

As I said, different people are satisfied by different illusions.

You have put forward some interesting statements.  I agree that if we are not in the studio, it is impossible to sit at home or in someone else's studio and say we have faithfully reproduce the music.  It is also impossible to say that my definition of accuracy is correct.  The best that I can do is to have a system that reproduces a flat response so that when I reproduce it on my system, the Hi's and Lo's are not exaggerated or attenuated.  I can do a few other thing like minimizing reverb, excessive bass decay but, these are things to doing with my room and system and not the source.

 

To the heart of the OP question on what is the best source, multiple sources need to be in the tool box!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

I am fairly new to this hobby (my wife already says I'm nuts) and it is clear to me that the quality (my definition of quality) is a combination of the physical source of the music (digital, tape, vinyl, etc) and the way that the music was mastered/engineered. I have every source on hand except reel to reel and can say without a doubt that the same song can sound better or worse on the same media (ie vinyl, digital) as it can on different types of media. Some music sounded so bad on my system that I was looking for a hardware upgrade to only find out that the same song on a different release sounded awesome so clearly it isn't the hardware. 

 

Along that line, does anyone have an opinion on HD Tracks? Not the website but the so called "audiophile" digital files. I recently bought Fleetwood Mac's Rumours (Super Deluxe) in AIFF at 96kHz 24 bit. I listened to it back to back with the normal MP3 from iTunes and the difference is night and day. Much greater range and stronger bass. I also bought IRobot in 192kHz 24 bit and the difference is not as great vs the record (naturally better than mp3 IMO). I am not going to repurchase my entire music library but for those special albums I am wondering if it is worth it? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derrick said:

I agree.

 

I am fairly new to this hobby (my wife already says I'm nuts) and it is clear to me that the quality (my definition of quality) is a combination of the physical source of the music (digital, tape, vinyl, etc) and the way that the music was mastered/engineered. I have every source on hand except reel to reel and can say without a doubt that the same song can sound better or worse on the same media (ie vinyl, digital) as it can on different types of media. Some music sounded so bad on my system that I was looking for a hardware upgrade to only find out that the same song on a different release sounded awesome so clearly it isn't the hardware. 

 

Along that line, does anyone have an opinion on HD Tracks? Not the website but the so called "audiophile" digital files. I recently bought Fleetwood Mac's Rumours (Super Deluxe) in AIFF at 96kHz 24 bit. I listened to it back to back with the normal MP3 from iTunes and the difference is night and day. Much greater range and stronger bass. I also bought IRobot in 192kHz 24 bit and the difference is not as great vs the record (naturally better than mp3 IMO). I am not going to repurchase my entire music library but for those special albums I am wondering if it is worth it? 

 

it is not a hobby , but a life style....New does not = better...

old does not = better.....  

you have multiple formats to choose from..

a bad recording is a bad recording..no matter the source...

 

you should start a account with discogs ..

https://www.discogs.com

catalog your music collection...

then pick and choose your format...

older recordings I would find vintage vinyl.

I prefer vintage vinyl than remastered new version vinyl..

 

storage , cleaning , and handling vinyl...a must know how..

setting up your turntable properly

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/ttadjust.html

 

https://www.discomusic.com/10-things-not-to-do-to-your-vinyl-records

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Derrick said:

A lifestyle! I like that. If you're not in, you're in the way!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

vinyl is a commitment ....you have to play the side through..

no stops...handle with care , clean ,store propery..

 

the same goes for your turntable..make sure it's covered when

not in use ..lube turntable. clean stylus..replace stylus or cartridge..

when needed..

 

but a good turntable...or a rebuilt vintage turntable..which should

he your best value...buying or selling..

 

http://vinylnirvana.com/vintage-turntables-for-sale/ 

also restores thorens and ar tables

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-07-14 at 7:21 AM, Stainz said:

I left the worlds of vinyl and mag tape in 1986 and 'went towards the light' of the CD... and still enjoy it better than I ever did vinyl or tape. Most of my selections are 'older', as I am about to turn 69, and I try to stay with non-remastered, my favorite example of why being my original 1986 CD of Paul Simon's 'Graceland' album, a classic, vs the highly compressed later re-masters, namely, the 25th anniversary version which sounds louder, of course, but sounds like a totally different mix, too.  I like having the 'compact' physical copy, too - and I know that Murphy was an optimist - and that all hard drives will eventually fail - and there goes your media. When my 'hardware' fails, I get another CDP!

 

I'm with you. I had a pretty extensive vinyl collection back in the 80s but became an early CD adherent back in 84 ( NAD player). I like the sound and don't miss the never ending work of turntables. Have yet to jump into the digital file world, the formats change to often for my liking and I don't want to buy another copy of the White Album to quote Tommy Lee Jones. I do however listen to some pretty good good sounding internet radio through my Apple TV from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2017 at 2:14 PM, dirtmudd said:

 

 

I am really not convinced on your record vinyl data. Why would a cutter head designer create a cutter head to to record 3000% higher (60 KHZ) than required, higher than 17KHZ the average limit of human hearing capability?

JJK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, HD Tracks has good and bad files to download from a SQ perspective.  If it was poorly mastered, making it HD will not correct that.  I have not used HD Tracks in a long time and use some other sites.  I am happy with being all digital and have not seriously considered converting to other media.

 

You also have to look at what you listen to.  A lot of what I listen to is current music and is not on vinly or RR.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2017 at 2:41 PM, JJkizak said:

 

I am really not convinced on your record vinyl data. Why would a cutter head designer create a cutter head to to record 300% higher (60 kHz) than required...?

JJK

 

On 7/15/2017 at 4:05 PM, dirtmudd said:

 

I'm sorry to say that this is actually a bit amusing--and scary when you think about it a bit further. 

 

I mean...the tape recorders of that era for the recording of Crime of the Century in 1974 at Ramport Studios and Trident Studios had specifications that topped out at about 20 kHz.  The high frequency stuff that is shown in that link above therefore...has to be all high frequency noise

 

I've also read about cutting heads that have no analog control loops, instead using digital control only (i.e., stepper motors cutting digitally stepped tracks into the vinyl itself).  The fidelity of these disc masters cut using these "cost cutting" cutter heads are not exactly what I'd consider hi-fi.  The much higher quality analog cutting heads have apparently become extremely rare/expensive--due to the prior complete shutdown in production lines of vinyl cutting lathes. 

 

So the stepper (digital) motor versions were apparently introduced to keep the costs down for these "quick buck" restart vinyl shops that have bought up old (read: worn-out) phonograph record manufacturing equipment.  You've got to see the YouTube videos of these little shops--I wouldn't pick up any dropped food off the floor...there might be pathogens resident in the grooves in their old linoleum tiles. They're actually relying on the material properties of vinyl itself to smooth out the jaggies with these "digital cutters".  It makes me shiver just to think about what this is doing to a phono stylus and attached cartridge, whether or not the stylus is actually able to track those jaggies (i.e., stepped edges in the spiral vinyl grooves introduced by the digital stepper motors).

 

Contrast all that with the cleanrooms that all optical disc plants operate at.  You could literally eat off the floors of the best facilities doing Blu-Ray--because they have to be that clean--with essentially no people inside the disc manufacturing lines themselves--they use robotic transfer lines to keep the dust out. 

 

But good luck reproducing that HF noise above 20 kHz in any case: all the Klipsch loudspeaker models that I'm aware of don't quite make 20 kHz--they all are perhaps 2-3 semitones (piano keys) lower than that frequency.  And the power bandwidth of essentially all the consumer quality preamps and amps that I've seen don't go to 60 kHz.  IIRC, they often have input HF filters to control the gain stages from above-audible-frequency oscillations (thank the lord...they're saving the hearing of our cats and dogs).

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris A said:

 

 

I'm sorry to say that this is actually a bit amusing--and scary when you think about it a bit further. 

 

I mean...the tape recorders of that era for the recording of Crime of the Century in 1974 at Ramport Studios and Trident Studios had specifications that topped out at about 20 kHz.  The high frequency stuff that is shown in that link above therefore...has to be all high frequency noise

 

I've also read about cutting heads that have no analog control loops, instead using digital control only (i.e., stepper motors cutting digitally stepped tracks into the vinyl itself).  The fidelity of these disc masters cut using these "cost cutting" cutter heads are not exactly what I'd consider hi-fi.  The much higher quality analog cutting heads have apparently become extremely rare/expensive--due to the prior complete shutdown in production lines of vinyl cutting lathes. 

 

So the stepper (digital) motor versions were apparently introduced to keep the costs down for these "quick buck" restart vinyl shops that have bought up old (read: worn-out) phonograph record manufacturing equipment.  You've got to see the YouTube videos of these little shops--I wouldn't pick up any dropped food off the floor...there might be pathogens resident in the grooves in their old linoleum tiles. They're actually relying on the material properties of vinyl itself to smooth out the jaggies with these "digital cutters".  It makes me shiver just to think about what this is doing to a phono stylus and attached cartridge, whether or not the stylus is actually able to track those jaggies (i.e., stepped edges in the spiral vinyl grooves introduced by the digital stepper motors).

 

Contrast all that with the cleanrooms that all optical disc plants operate at.  You could literally eat off the floors of the best facilities doing Blu-Ray--because they have to be that clean--with essentially no people inside the disc manufacturing lines themselves--they use robotic transfer lines to keep the dust out. 

 

But good luck reproducing that HF noise above 20 kHz in any case: all the Klipsch loudspeaker models that I'm aware of don't quite make 20 kHz--they all are perhaps 2-3 semitones (piano keys) lower than that frequency.  And the power bandwidth of essentially all the consumer quality preamps and amps that I've seen don't go to 60 kHz.  IIRC, they often have input HF filters to control the gain stages from above-audible-frequency oscillations (thank the lord...they're saving the hearing of our cats and dogs).

 

Chris

 

That reminds me of two contrasting experiences.  I got a tour of the Disney studio back when they still used the multiplane camera and several layers of "cells" (cellulose acetate sheets on which characters and layers of foreground and background were painted) separated to provide depth.  To go into the multiplane room we had to take off our jackets, put on a shower cap-like thing, and walk through a wind tunnel to blow off some of the dust.  Sometime later, I took a class called "Discover your Ears," in which we visited virtually every recording studio in the Bay Area.  Finally we visited one that had its own cutting lathe (Scully, I think).  As we walked to the cutting room, I thought, "I wonder if we'll go through a wind tunnel?"  We climbed a grimy staircase, and were ushered into a room that was full of cigarette smoke, with ashes flowing around.  The guy monitoring the lathe had a cigarette in his hand. 

 

My Khorns top out at 16KHz, as measured by REW.  Years ago, I measured them, in another room, with a borrowed RTA -- I forget the brand and model, but It may have been Audio Control -- and it picked up something at 22 Hz at, maybe 15 dB down.  Would that be high frequency distortion?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...