As was pointed out earlier a score of 65% does not adequately demonstrate that you can determine a difference.Please read this topic which also happens to be linked in the description of TOS8:http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295The rule is also specific about the use of subjective language to communicate differences. Terms like 3D, openness, air and weight are not welcome. I'm reading about how this is becoming a theoretical discussion, yet there is no theoretical basis for differences in low frequency content, nor differences at 1kHz. It reads like more pseudoscientific nonsense.Regarding dither as an additional step, has anyone adequately demonstrated that the lower 9 bits of a normalized 24 bit digitization of vinyl are comprised of something other than noise? IOW I don't see much of a case demonstrating that dithering is even necessary when preparing vinyl for a 16-bit delivery format.
near as dammit the same
Quote from: xpander on 20 February, 2012, 08:09:15 PMnear as dammit the sameWhat a stange and unnecessary idiom.
what perhaps has not been mentioned is the fact that vinyl was made in a different timeeverything was differentok if you copy vinyl onto cd / digital it will sound near as dammit the same butmost commercial cds have been mastered for CD and have been made louder and brighter in the processso i dont really care whether vinyl is better than cd or notat least if i listen to an old vinyl i know i will be hearing the way it sounded when it was releasedI cant stand the sound of remastered old musiconly now is there a school of thought that says a good remastering for CD is a perfect transfersound always changesnow its loud bright and wider than is mono compatiblei still buy old vinyls and would prefer to listen to them when listening to older (better) music
at least if i listen to an old vinyl i know i will be hearing the way it sounded when it was released
Audio System Test Record, produced by the editors of SOUND Canada, in conjunction with McGill University Records with the assistance of the National Research Council of Canada.Recording Engineer was Flloyd E. Toole and Wieslaw Woszczyk, pressing by CBS Canada, Producers both of them and Alan Lofft.The most interesting track on the record is the Anti Skating adjustment, which is not done by an empty track, but what I call dynamically by adjusting the bias so a signal mix of 1kHz and 1.5kHz produces an equal buzzing sound in both channelsm at increasing sound levels. Works great.The system used to play back is a technics SL 10 with tangential arm and a 310MC system by technics, using a add on phono section from Naim preamp with a separate powersupply by Marchand Electronics.I have used the other tonearms (MG! and SME 3 with both Denon DL 103) on Thorens TD 125 in the past with similar if not identical results.I run the phono preamp signal (RIAA equalized!) to the analogue input of the m-audio 1010lt soundcard.
I'm sure Jeff Beck would be thrilled to be sen as "new" - and Sonny Landreth to a lesser extent.
Indeed record companies used to go to a lot more trouble over their classical/jazz pressings than their pop/rock ones - virgin vinyl, less pressings per stamper etc.
Quote from: greynol on 20 February, 2012, 08:23:39 PMQuote from: xpander on 20 February, 2012, 08:09:15 PMnear as dammit the sameWhat a stange and unnecessary idiom.why?
Quote from: botface on 21 February, 2012, 10:39:19 AMIndeed record companies used to go to a lot more trouble over their classical/jazz pressings than their pop/rock ones - virgin vinyl, less pressings per stamper etc.I think that must be a US thing. In the UK, even budget "pop" re-releases from the late 1960s (on EMI labels at least) seemed to have the quality that people die for these days. Though by the 1980s the vinyl was becoming paper thin in comparison. I've never noticed a difference in pressing quality between serious classical and ephemeral pop in either decade (from the same family of labels at least).The very few 1960s US pop LPs I have are atrocious in comparison, but it's hardly a usefully large sample.Cheers,David.
Quote from: xpander on 20 February, 2012, 09:08:10 PMQuote from: greynol on 20 February, 2012, 08:23:39 PMQuote from: xpander on 20 February, 2012, 08:09:15 PMnear as dammit the sameWhat a stange and unnecessary idiom.why?Do you have any objective and verifiable evidence demonstrating that CDDA, as a delivery format, cannot 100% faithfully capture the sound of vinyl?Unless you do and until you present it, you really have no business telling anyone that they sound different, whether only "near as dammit" or otherwise.PS: Don't bother presenting arguments appealing to dogs and bats.EDIT: @xpander, don't bother answering if it will read any thing like your recent binned reply. @Gretschguy, please, not another round of this. You failed quite miserably in your last attempt.
Quote from: xpander on 20 February, 2012, 08:09:15 PMat least if i listen to an old vinyl i know i will be hearing the way it sounded when it was releasedThis is pretty fascinating (for me!)...http://www.beatledrops.com/Short clips from each released version of each Beatles album. To my ears, the originals are the best if you can hear past any clicks, noise and distortion.However, if you want to be that critical, there's always something wrong. e.g. take Gretschguy's excellent upload of "Father and Son". At 24 seconds in, on the word "away" there's distortion that you could think was Cat's voice cracking. Except if you have the CD, you can hear no such distortion, because it's not part of the original recording. It's vinyl distortion. Even 128kbps mp3 never changed an artist's intention so much - yet vinyl does it all the time. I think different people learn or choose to ignore different shortcomings.The original vinyl isn't always better. Some original vinyl is poor. Plenty of 1950s and 1960s records have stunning (almost compression-free) remixes from the 3/4-tracks or remasters from the 2-tracks available on CD which utterly trounce the original vinyl releases. I bought the original UK vinyl of "Come Dance with Me" by Frank Sinatra, but it's a pale shadow of the CD. The CD itself is a fairly straight 1980s transfer of the original tapes - nothing special, but nothing bad.Cheers,David.
you seem like a nice guy Greynol
Quote from: Gretschguy on 21 February, 2012, 11:50:53 PMyou seem like a nice guy GreynolImpressions can be deceiving. In the meantime, let's refrain from derailing this topic into yet another side-show.
We should [...] we have to figure out [...]
Essentially they suggest to master vinyl for sound quality (as best as the format can) and master digital for portable use -- to sell to folks with earbuds and ipads / ipods. That seems to explain what I'm anecdotally seeing with new digital music and others are suggesting as well.
I think that must be a US thing. In the UK, even budget "pop" re-releases from the late 1960s (on EMI labels at least) seemed to have the quality that people die for these days. Though by the 1980s the vinyl was becoming paper thin in comparison. I've never noticed a difference in pressing quality between serious classical and ephemeral pop in either decade (from the same family of labels at least).
I think if we really want CDs to sound good again we have to figure out a way that iTunes can get "portable" versions of the songs that are EQ'd and compressed for portable devices in noisy environments, while generating CDs that are meant for playback on full range systems. Hey everyone with a turntable still has a CD player, why not?
It's a big leap to assume the environment. You could be listening to a download on a train, car (luxury car, or an open top Jeep?), or on a regular stereo in a dedicated listening room. If you need compression for a noisy environment, the place to do it is in the player as an option.
Who do you prioritize? If your album is going to be squeezed, would you rather it happened in the mastering studio under your (partial) control, or in some iPhone proprietary algorithm?
In the following video, however, the loudness skirmish is dismissed by professionals as an irrelevant issue. The question begins around the 45:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=gGwaHBH4_Oo