Allan Songer Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Back again under yet another moniker! Hi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 "So am I to understand that you, like many, subscribe to the fallacy of "Golden Ears"." How do you get that from my post? You are making very big stretches... " I was simply trying to point out how vociferous and frenzied many people today react when confronted with the prospect that just because something is "old" it need not be suspect and in need of upgrade or replacement with the new and better incarnation, and that my friend is naive. That is all. " You are posting this on a message board where many are big supporters of speakers that were designed over half a century ago.... Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFine Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 6:37:37 PM sfogg wrote: "So am I to understand that you, like many, subscribe to the fallacy of "Golden Ears"." How do you get that from my post? You are making very big stretches... " I was simply trying to point out how vociferous and frenzied many people today react when confronted with the prospect that just because something is "old" it need not be suspect and in need of upgrade or replacement with the new and better incarnation, and that my friend is naive. That is all. " You are posting this on a message board where many are big supporters of speakers that were designed over half a century ago.... Shawn ---------------- You are changing the subject yet again. I acquiesce to your enlightenment. WCF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 I don't understand what we're arguing about. We agree that CDs are a more accurate method of delivery. On the other hand, we agree that redbook 44.1Khz CDs are inadequate, because even a frequency of 11Khz (which is very audible) is only sampled 4 times/second when recording at 44.1KHz. The answer to this is very simple -> DVD Audio (and less so with SACD) with a 192KHz sampling rate (where an 11KHz tone is sampled more than 17 times/second) and 24-bit depth, which allows for a much wider dynamic range than either CDs or vinyl can handle well. I think that the reason we're still arguing is because some of us have not yet realized that it's the terrible mastering of CDs and SACDs/DVD-A disks that gives digital a bad name. Some of the best modern music is compressed to mush. I have a CD by Keane - "Somewhere only we know", where the mean dynamic range of the 1st track is an AMAZING 2.91dB!!!!!! On the other hand, one of the tracks on Coldplay's "Parachutes" CD has a mean dynamic range of 15dB and the mean dynamic range of Bach's Double Violin Concerto that I have is over 24dB. Because LPs have a much wider dynamic range on average, they may sound better, in addition to the inherent benefits of continuous analog sampling that we have already discussed. The only way for digital technology to sound better is for the technological advances to actually be UTILIZED. What's the good of having a 100+ dB theoretical dynamic range of a DVD-A disk, if the mean dynamic range of the recording is 5dB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 6:32:35 PM Allan Songer wrote: Back again under yet another moniker! Hi! ---------------- Hmmm.... General David Sarnoff? Wilma Cozart Fine? WOW!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCFine Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 7:11:16 PM meuge wrote: I don't understand what we're arguing about. We agree that CDs are a more accurate method of delivery. On the other hand, we agree that redbook 44.1Khz CDs are inadequate, because even a frequency of 11Khz (which is very audible) is only sampled 4 times/second when recording at 44.1KHz. The answer to this is very simple -> DVD Audio (and less so with SACD) with a 192KHz sampling rate (where an 11KHz tone is sampled more than 17 times/second) and 24-bit depth, which allows for a much wider dynamic range than either CDs or vinyl can handle well. I think that the reason we're still arguing is because some of us have not yet realized that it's the terrible mastering of CDs and SACDs/DVD-A disks that gives digital a bad name. Some of the best modern music is compressed to mush. I have a CD by Keane - "Somewhere only we know", where the mean dynamic range of the 1st track is an AMAZING 2.91dB!!!!!! On the other hand, one of the tracks on Coldplay's "Parachutes" CD has a mean dynamic range of 15dB and the mean dynamic range of Bach's Double Violin Concerto that I have is over 24dB. Because LPs have a much wider dynamic range on average, they may sound better, in addition to the inherent benefits of continuous analog sampling that we have already discussed. The only way for digital technology to sound better is for the technological advances to actually be UTILIZED. What's the good of having a 100+ dB theoretical dynamic range of a DVD-A disk, if the mean dynamic range of the recording is 5dB! ---------------- Thank you! Hallelujah! WCF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 " because even a frequency of 11Khz (which is very audible) is only sampled 4 times/second when recording at 44.1KHz. " That isn't correct. 11kHz is sampled at 44,100 times a second... just like 100hz is... just like 20kHz is. Per Nyquist a wave must be sampled at least at two points (per the waves period) to be accurately captured. That means if you sample at 44,100 hz you can capture a wave that occurs 20,000 times a second because it is below that above requirement. "I think that the reason we're still arguing is because some of us have not yet realized that it's the terrible mastering of CDs and SACDs/DVD-A disks that gives digital a bad name" That is an excellent point. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 My mind does not, cannot, will SIMPLY not automatically erase the 'ticks,' 'pops,' and 'crackles,' on LP records. They drive me crazy, especially in quiet passages of music. Moreover, it's not something I want to accept as being part of 'normal' playback in listening-to and enjoying music. I think records CAN sound VERY good, especially compared to CDs recorded in the early 80's, but I have seen digital technology change markedly in that last several years; and if I am able to find, get, or otherwise obtain sound that approximates average vinyl recordings, and indeed in my opinion often surpasses them -- AND without the to-me-very-distracting-and-unmusical-sounds of LP surface imperfections -- I will surely take recent generation CDs over average records. In my opinion and in a comparative sense, a needle scraping its way through a record groove is not necessarily an indication of a superior playback format. On a microscopic level, do you know the amount of friction and heat this produces? I also use primarily vacuum tube amplification technology which is quite old, as are my horn speakers. I have to say, however, that I would be short-changing myself and missing out on an extraordinarily large amount of music listening enjoyment if I did not or indeed would not ackhowledge the fact that this latest experiment in multiple channel playback did not sound better than anything I have heard. It's a personal right and choice. I would also rather prefer to not have responses that sarcastically suggest I thus go out and now buy 15 subwoofers or 30 side and rear amplifiers and speakers -- simply because I made a statement about what I liked concerning the use of a derived center channel. With that said, maybe it's possible to enjoy both formats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 I enjoy both formats every single day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolbyscat Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 I find it hard to believe any of you enjoy your musical experiences in any way,if all of what your writing about is floating around in your heads every time you listen to a CD or LP. But hey what do i know.To quote Allan Songer"remind me again why any of this matters" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 7:58:23 PM dolbyscat wrote: I find it hard to believe any of you enjoy your musical experiences in any way,if all of what your writing about is floating around in your heads every time you listen to a CD or LP. But hey what do i know.To quote Allan Songer"remind me again why any of this matters" ---------------- The problem is that what I decribed in my post actually PREVENTS me from enjoying some of my music as much as I'd like. I have never tried vinyl (largely for financial reasons) and only use digital media. I am thus intimately familiar with its shortcomings. And every time that I hear a good song turn into mush without a semblance of a soundstage to due to dynamic compression and clipping, I cringe, knowing how much better it would sound if the engineers were not trying to squeeze every last decibel of loudness out of the materials. It's extremely frustrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 1:17:22 PM sfogg wrote: Some of what gives vinyl its pleasant playback isn't in spite of its inaccuracys... it is directly because of them. There have been tests done where an A/D and D/A stage were put into the middle of an analog playback system and very outspoken analog supporters were tested to see if they could determine when the 'digital' was in the middle of the chain vs. when it was bypassed. That they failed to be able to hear the difference again points to the accuracy of digital. ---------------- For a parallel example, adding distortions to a guitar produces a whole new wealth of sounds that we find pleasing to our ears...I think the sound of a guitar through an oversaturated tube amp is probably one of my most favorite guitar sounds. I don't think there's anybody that'd go so far as to say that's wrong though because the amp isn't exhibiting accurately the true sound of the guitar... Let's suppose for a second that the digital waffle is "the perfect recording medium" and that people still prefer their vinyl rig over it. Since the waffle is perfect, anything going in is the same as what comes out of it. Why then don't the vinyl listeners record their rigs onto the waffle technology? It should sound the same. Likewise, if you've got an album only on the digital waffle format, then I see no reason you can't make an LP out of it and get your "vinyl" sound back. Since there's no such thing as a digital waffle, let's bring my scenario down to real life: Have any of you guys experimented with those cool tape adapters that let you plug the headphone out of your discman into the tape player in your car? A long time ago, I brought one of these devices into a very decent studio and did some tests. I recorded some live music (acoustic piano and drums and then a guitar and bass through their lineout). I then simultaneously recorded my mix onto both an audio cassette and Digital Audio Tape (DAT is essentially equivalent to a CD). I then took the audio cassette recording and recorded it onto another DAT and then I took the original DAT and recorded it onto another audio cassette. I noticed that both of the conversions sounded very similar; however the DAT converted to cassette had lower noise and was less muddy (probably because I chose to optimize the DAT's volume going into the cassette). Lastly, I took the output from the DAT and ran it through the tape adapter and listened to the output from the Tape Deck. What I discovered here was all the benefits of the DAT (low noise floor and all that) with the added benefit of the "analog warmth." Keep in mind that I was using very nice equipment...you won't notice any of this in your car or with a crappy tape player (i've tried it already). I think I might try conducting this test again though...this thread has made me interested again. I think I was around 13-15 years of age when I did that test which brings to mind another thing I wanted to bring up in light of this thread. I am only 20 years old and still have "perfect hearing" (or so my ENT tells me). I can hear up to 22kHz on a good day when my allergies aren't killing me (i noticed some of you totally can relate) and I personally dislike listening above 95dB and I feel pain above 110dB. Yet I have grown up listening mostly to digital mediums (I do have a lot of live acoustical musical experience...both my parents sing, mom is a piano major and I played piano when I was younger and then viola as I got older). However those of you that are older, say over 40 (notice I didn't say old) have grown up listening to analog devices...whether it be cassette, LP, or the radio (I never listen/ed to the radio). Your bodies grew up hearing the music behind the medium and chances are you're still accustomed to the inheritant tonalities present in those mediums. I personally cannot ignore the hissing and popping and I've tried my hardest...even forcing myself to listen for hours. 2" reel to reel doesn't have any of that, but nothing is distributed in that format and it'd be too clumsy for me anyway (btw, when I mentioned analog has a shorter shelf life, I was mostly referring to "tapes"...I probably shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that when the topic was LP which doesn't suffer from this in a good environment). Anyways, my point is that culture has a huge factor in the mediums we choose to indulge in. I grew up with digital so I don't "hear" the problems associated with it (I do hear them, but I can easily ignore them). A lot of the people on this forum grew up with analog and thus it's fair to say they have an easier time ignoring the flaws while enjoying any other "benefits" they might find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Very informative discussion. Maybe I came on too strong. To settle things, I'll have to make 10 generations of copies of Windows or some big program, and see how it runs. Then I'll have to make 10 generations of copies of a music CD and see how it sounds. I'm not getting into the digital versus vinyl thing. My main gripe about vinyl is history. In the college days I'd play some things to death and damage to the vinyl was inevitable. I also am not getting into the merits of DA. It would be nice to do an ABX comparison. That seem unworkable presently. Best, Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 I think compression is getting a bad rap here. That "Parachutes" CD is actually quite good sounding. I've listened to it a dozen times over the past week. It sure doesn't suffer from over-compression, regardless of any dynamic range measurements. I really think we're barking up the wrong tree by condemning compression in a wholesale manner. Much of our favorite music would be pretty unlistenable if not for some compression along the way, whether on an individual track or judiciously applied to the stereo bus. This knee-jerk "Oh, they screwed up in the mastering process" bit doesn't hold water for me. Ever think that someone just made a bad record, and the mastering guy did the best he could with it? A professor once told me, "You can't polish a turd". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 11:10:39 PM bclarke421 wrote: A professor once told me, "You can't polish a turd". ---------------- ROFL I must confess that I actually own a polished turd. It's a piece of petrified dinosaur dung that my dad found while rock hunting. It's fun to gross people out by licking it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 11:30:34 PM DrWho wrote: ---------------- On 12/8/2004 11:10:39 PM bclarke421 wrote: A professor once told me, "You can't polish a turd". ---------------- ROFL I must confess that I actually own a polished turd. It's a piece of petrified dinosaur dung that my dad found while rock hunting. It's fun to gross people out by licking it ---------------- Nice! I'd put that up on the meter bridge!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 11:10:39 PM bclarke421 wrote: I think compression is getting a bad rap here. That "Parachutes" CD is actually quite good sounding. I've listened to it a dozen times over the past week. It sure doesn't suffer from over-compression, regardless of any dynamic range measurements. ---------------- You misunderstood me - I was COMPLEMENTING the mastering of "Parachutes", when I compared the 15dB range of Coldplay with the <3dB range of Keane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 8:13:57 PM DrWho wrote: I think I was around 13-15 years of age when I did that test which brings to mind another thing I wanted to bring up in light of this thread. I am only 20 years old and still have "perfect hearing" (or so my ENT tells me). I can hear up to 22kHz on a good day when my allergies aren't killing me (i noticed some of you totally can relate) and I personally dislike listening above 95dB and I feel pain above 110dB. Yet I have grown up listening mostly to digital mediums (I do have a lot of live acoustical musical experience...both my parents sing, mom is a piano major and I played piano when I was younger and then viola as I got older). However those of you that are older, say over 40 (notice I didn't say old) have grown up listening to analog devices...whether it be cassette, LP, or the radio (I never listen/ed to the radio). Your bodies grew up hearing the music behind the medium and chances are you're still accustomed to the inheritant tonalities present in those mediums. I personally cannot ignore the hissing and popping and I've tried my hardest...even forcing myself to listen for hours. 2" reel to reel doesn't have any of that, but nothing is distributed in that format and it'd be too clumsy for me anyway (btw, when I mentioned analog has a shorter shelf life, I was mostly referring to "tapes"...I probably shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that when the topic was LP which doesn't suffer from this in a good environment). Anyways, my point is that culture has a huge factor in the mediums we choose to indulge in. I grew up with digital so I don't "hear" the problems associated with it (I do hear them, but I can easily ignore them). A lot of the people on this forum grew up with analog and thus it's fair to say they have an easier time ignoring the flaws while enjoying any other "benefits" they might find. ---------------- Very, VERY good point. Of course, in an ideal world, one would own both analog and digital formats and would thus have the ability to discern the benefits and drawbacks of both via first-hand experience. All regardless of age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 ---------------- On 12/8/2004 11:40:43 PM meuge wrote: ---------------- On 12/8/2004 11:10:39 PM bclarke421 wrote: I think compression is getting a bad rap here. That "Parachutes" CD is actually quite good sounding. I've listened to it a dozen times over the past week. It sure doesn't suffer from over-compression, regardless of any dynamic range measurements. ---------------- You misunderstood me - I was COMPLEMENTING the mastering of "Parachutes", when I compared the 15dB range of Coldplay with the <3dB range of Keane. ---------------- A thousand pardons... I'm guilty of skimming there, I must admit. My point remains, though. I think 15-20dB of DR is more than a lot of folks realize. Of course, with the right repro scenario, 30-40dB is really quite another story... I am a follower of Mssr. David Moulton on this matter. I had the good fortune of a practicum taught by him early on that crystallized the issue in my mind. Interested parties can Google away. The guy is really with it, and very influential, especially in the Northeast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Erik, "I would also rather prefer to not have responses that sarcastically suggest I thus go out and now buy 15 subwoofers or 30 side and rear amplifiers and speakers -- simply because I made a statement about what I liked concerning the use of a derived center channel." You didn't take my comments seriously did you? I was only gently teasing you as you were progressing seemingly one speaker at a time to a full surround sound setup. You were the one that introduced the possibility of rears as I recall - before I stepped in with the 9.2 setup stuff. Everyone is kinda free to go their own way with music reproduction - and there are less limits now on what can be done than there have ever been before. From mono to multi, analogue to digital, SS to tube, vinyl to MP3 - whatever it takes to get you there.... 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.