analogman Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/LPsvsCDsDynamics.php Enjoy (or cry), Analogman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Laughing and crying. Great info -- thanks. Even better that I understood what I was reading! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analogman Posted December 5, 2004 Author Share Posted December 5, 2004 ---------------- On 12/5/2004 1:37:16 AM DeanG wrote: Laughing and crying. Great info -- thanks. Even better that I understood what I was reading! ---------------- I enjoyed it. Analogman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Good link - thanks. Sadly I understood almost all of it - I think I need a new hobby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 the author's conclusions are pasted in below: so what's your take on the author's conclusions? reasonable doubt for why some folks prefer LP's? Conclusions It appears that the vinylphile claims are not as outrageous as they seem: LPs do have a usable dynamic range far greater than the measured dynamic range would suggest, and LPs consistently have higher relative dynamics over digital formats. But it is also true that LPs have higher distortion levels which translate to ultrasonic frequency harmonics. The question is: is the higher relative dynamics of LPs an indication of higher accuracy, or are LPs exaggerating transients and dynamics? I'm not sure, and I would welcome comments. If LPs have higher distortion and are exaggerating dynamics, it may explain why the apparent "benefits" of LPs translate even into LP recordings, and potentially explain why LPs of digital recordings sound better than their CD equivalents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Being well acquainted with Vinyl and CDS, I will state that there is more dynamic Range available for an LP than is used. Part of that reason is the consumer. They do not wish to get up and down to adjust volume levels. The same is true of CDs. Another part is Speaker Protection. There is a threshold to which the DR is limited to for tweeter and woofer protection if the full DR is used. Another limiting factor to BOTH LP and CD is possible airplay. It's not always known which song will get airplay time. Stations also do not want their listeners changing volume levels - especially when driving. Then there is the old theory that louder is better. But with LPs, upon careful listening to each instrument, there is a slight difference. This is not meant to inflame a which is better, truer etc. flame. What YOU prefer IMO is the best. I have my tastes, my hearing and my beliefs. All statements but for the DR of LPs are applicable to both mediums. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 "so what's your take on the author's conclusions?" I just skimmed the article but the noise floor comparison looks flawed. The author didn't appear to make any sort of attempt to match the levels from the two different sources into the sound card. If one is turned down relative to the other it will change the noise floor measurements. One of the big problems with making other comparisons like this is in the source material. Unless you use test pressings it is very hard to get a good handle on what is going on. For example you could easily have a situation where a DVD-A has less dynamic range then a CD if the mix itself on the DVD-A is compressed while the CDs mix is set to maximize the dynamic range there. Does that mean CD has more dynamic range then DVD-A? Of course not... just that this DVD-A is mixed with less dynamic range then the comparable CD. Or on the flip side a DVD-A might be made from the exact 44.1kHz master that the CD was made from. The two under comparison would look nearly identical... yet that doesn't mean the format of CD is the equal of the DVD-A format. Just that in these discs the material on them wasn't optimized to take full advantage of each format. "reasonable doubt for why some folks prefer LP's?" They simply prefer the 'sound' of LPs.... and LPs do have their own 'sound.' One of the things many vinyl lovers complain about is CDs sounding 'flat.' And they can in comparison to vinyl... that is because there is a phase shift between the L/R channels with vinyl playback that can act sort of a like a low level interaural cross cancelation (Carver's Sonic Holography, Lexicon's Panorama) Nothing wrong with preferring that BTW. Mark, "in CD as it just turns out to be, the higher the frequency, the FEWER the samples that can be made. And at 20Khz only one sample can be made. " 2 samples are made at 20kHz. And 2 samples are all that is needed to accurately reproduce the waveform per Nyquist. Play a 20kHz test signal from a CD and compare it against a 20kHz test signal from vinyl and compare them on a scope and look at a FFT of each. "Considering that the human ear is very forgiving and very tolerant of bass distortion (where the CD should excel), but very unfogiving about treble distortion" I've always seen the opposite of that. Distortion in the bass is far more audible then higher up because distortion in the bass covers far more notes/octaves then high up in frequency. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lipinski Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 My two cents are probably worth less than that. but, I'm an engineer and proficient at turning a topic into charts and graphs like this article as well as any. However, the author's conclusion in the ends doesn't tie his information to people and their ears. So, what has he done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I understood it but it makes my brain hurt. Can I go home now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lipinski Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I hear ya colterphoto1. almost made my hair catch on fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Some good comments here, guys. My take on it was that it wasn't a very scientific test. I have my doubts that even inscrutable scientific methodology could hope to quantify such a thing as aesthetic preference. Noting a difference or two between mediums, then making the leap to causation of preference is a bit of a stretch in my book. I think unbiased (is there such a thing?) anecdotal evidence may go further towards discovering the truth here than work like this. I have a feeling the large majority of us will shrug our shoulders, think, "so what?", and go back to our preferred media relatively unaffected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Could the tolerance of bass response be factors of bass being omni-directional along with the human ear being able to detect sounds better at 1000 HZ ? One other thought is that people are not as familiar with bass. A bass Fiddle player or bass guitar player player may notice the distortion. They are more "in tune" with the bass. In most reordings the bass is subdued when compared to the other instruments in Acoustic i.e. philharmonic. Bass is also dropped back in amplified bands, unless doing a solo. Unless you have good equipment, individual notes are difficult to pick out say as opposed to a lead guitar. I agree that the noise floor is higher with vinyl. It can be minimized by very good masters, and very good vinyl such as Mobile Fidelity was known for. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Mark, "I can't recall the explicit test, but I think people can't detect 10% distortion at 100Hz with anywhere near the accuracy they can detect 10% at 1KHz when two-tone tests are done. " I was thinking your earlier statement was with regards to much higher then 1kHz since you had referenced 20kHz in that post. I was also thinking HD not IMD. HD at say 100Hz is going to be a lot more audible then the harmonic distortion of a 20kHz wave... the harmonics of the 20kHz wave are going to be well above the capacity of human hearing as well as probably above the capabilities of most tweeters to even reproduce it. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 How could this be a fair comparison? Vinyl is 40-bit at the molecular level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I stopped reading after the second graph. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Looking at graphs ain't the same as listening to it. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Yeah my brain is full too. An intersting read, and the comparison plots were intersting as well. Not a bad article. But I kind of drifted a bit util I forced myself to read it like I really cared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.