Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry (Read 171860 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #25 –
Quote from: apastuszak on

I just want to rip the CD layer.  In theory, it should be the same master as the SACD layer,

Unfortunately that theory is not always true.    Famous case in point, Dark Side of the Moon.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #26 –
Care to elaborate?  What happened with Dark Side of the Moon SACD?

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #27 –
Not sure about that specific disk, but different mastering between the formats on DVDA/SACD does happen.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #28 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Not sure about that specific disk, but different mastering between the formats on DVDA/SACD does happen.

Oh, that I am sure of.

And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.

I'm just curious about some examples in the wild of this.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #29 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.
Cough, cough, *MQA*, cough, cough
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #30 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: apastuszak on
And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.
Cough, cough, *MQA*, cough, cough

You mean that lossy compression method that audiophiles somehow believe is the ONLY loss compression on the planet that sounds better than the lossless original?

If Stereophile magazine says it's true, it must be true.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #31 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
You mean that lossy compression method that audiophiles somehow believe is the ONLY loss compression on the planet that sounds better than the lossless original?
Remastering can, maybe, possibly, be beneficial...
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #32 –
How does mastering for lossy compression actually work?
I.e. with a lossy compressor down the line. Do they simply filter such that artefacts are less likely?

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #33 –
Quote
How does mastering for lossy compression actually work?
I've never heard of that, but it would depend on the mastering engineer (or the mastering engineer's client).     It's the encoder's job to optimize the compression of whatever you feed it.    

It would be a bad idea to compromise sound quality to get "better compression".    Similarly, it's usually a bad idea to "tweak" your LAME settings....   The developers have already put-in a lot of effort to optimize the default settings for the best overall compromise.

I believe the lossy version is usually the same as the CD version.    "High resolution" releases may  have less compression.   The vinyl master may  have some additional filtering to remove the very-low frequencies, and to make sure the low frequencies are mono, etc.

Apple recommends a high-quality high-resolution master for iTunes (AAC).

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #34 –
Sure looks like this topic got lost in the weeds.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #35 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
Care to elaborate?  What happened with Dark Side of the Moon SACD?

CD side was mastered with more compression than the DSD stereo. 

https://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/index.html

They come from the same *master tapes*, if that's what you meant.  But the *mastering for disc* varied by final digital format (PCM vs DSD). 


Quote
And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.

ahem

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #36 –
Btw another vinyl myth that could probably use busting is 'if you clean an LP with an alcohol solution, you will *remove its protective coating*'.

what 'protective coating' would that be?

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #37 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Btw another vinyl myth that could probably use busting is 'if you clean an LP with an alcohol solution, you will *remove its protective coating*'.

what 'protective coating' would that be?

I definitely have to call bullshit on that myth as well as I've actually cleaned a record that way.  Probably started by some company that sells LP cleaner.  Vinyl is a very tough plastic, so there is zero need to have a protective coating on it.  Although I wish CDs had the coating Blu-Rays have after seeing how some people mishandle them.  I'm not the type of person that abuses their stuff but I'm not exactly trusting of letting others handle or touch my things.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Chibisteven on
Quote from: krabapple on
Btw another vinyl myth that could probably use busting is 'if you clean an LP with an alcohol solution, you will *remove its protective coating*'.

what 'protective coating' would that be?

I definitely have to call bullshit on that myth as well as I've actually cleaned a record that way.  Probably started by some company that sells LP cleaner.  Vinyl is a very tough plastic, so there is zero need to have a protective coating on it.  Although I wish CDs had the coating Blu-Rays have after seeing how some people mishandle them.  I'm not the type of person that abuses their stuff but I'm not exactly trusting of letting others handle or touch my things.

... here's a currently online example of this:

"The most contentious of the lot and one that will have a few readers and some hi-fi journalists up in arms is pure, isopropyl alcohol (as opposed to the remnants of your last vodka and tonic). This stuff can be disastrous for vinyl. The problem is, it also lies within many commercial record cleaning products, so look carefully at the ingredients before you use them. Pure alcohol strips away much of the rubbish and gunge from grooves – which is great – but it also removes the protective coating that rests on the groove walls/floor. I don’t mean the oft talked about ‘release agent’ that a record pressing plant utilises and is often left to bung up vinyl grooves, either. Once that essential protective layer is gone, music sounds harsh and brittle. I’ve done a series of sound tests to prove this phenomenon. Initially, alcohol-cleaned records sound great. After the third or fourth clean, they sound terrible. By then, though, it’s too late and your record has been irretrievably scarred." ~ https://thevinylfactory.com/features/8-easy-and-affordable-ways-to-clean-your-vinyl-records-by-hand/
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #39 –

My friend who owned a record store for many years explained to me that the vibration of a stylus is an exact representation of the soundwave imprinted on a record that drives a speaker. It is a full frequency analog wave that creates the sound where digital recording is a sample of the wave. You can take high frequency samples but it will never be a continuous wave like analog. He said the AAD or the ADD CDs were best. I prefer AAD. He also told me it wasn't the internet that killed the record store, it was the CD. He said vinyl records had a 10% defect rate. So if you had Janet Jackson records that didn't sell you could send some back with subsequent orders. He said CDs had something like a .003 defect rate so the stores got stuck with a whole bunch of unsold inventory.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #40 –
Quote from: Sunzu on
the vibration of a stylus is an exact representation of the soundwave imprinted on a record that drives a speaker. It is a full frequency analog wave that creates the sound where digital recording is a sample of the wave. You can take high frequency samples but it will never be a continuous wave like analog.
It is fitting to the "vynil myths" theme.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Sunzu on
My friend who owned a record store for many years explained to me that the vibration of a stylus is an exact representation of the soundwave imprinted on a record that drives a speaker. It is a full frequency analog wave that creates the sound where digital recording is a sample of the wave. You can take high frequency samples but it will never be a continuous wave like analog.
If you (and your record store owning friend) want to really understand how digital audio works, you need to watch this video:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
 

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #42 –
Your friend doesn’t have the foggiest.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #43 –
"Once that essential protective layer is gone, music sounds harsh and brittle.”

There’s your first clue. Ignoring the predictable unimaginative placebophile bullshit description, it should have instead been along the lines of loss of detail, as I imagine degradation would affect the higher frequency content first.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #44 –
Quote from: greynol on
Your friend doesn’t have the foggiest.
Hah, I told him that for years. He was always bagging on the CD until I had him listen to my new car stereo. He had to admit it sounded incredible then I told him that it doesn't even have a CD player, he was listening to an MP3 I made from a CD lol. Same with another 'audiophile' friend of mine. He said ' it must depend on the signal processor'. I personally think Sony makes the best processor.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #45 –
Quote
Same with another 'audiophile' friend of mine. He said ' it must depend on the signal processor'. I personally think Sony makes the best processor.
It's the amp & speakers.  ;)  

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #46 –
[/QUOTE]It's the amp & speakers.  ;) Alpine S-A55V amp, Alpine S65c & S65 speakers, JL Cp108lg-w3v3 sub 😁

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #47 –
You mean the DAC. Transparent DACs have been a commodity item for many many years now.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #48 –
Quote from: greynol on
You mean the DAC. Transparent DACs have been a commodity item for many many years now.
I'm referring to clear audio. It is a proprietary sound field developed by Sony.

Re: How accurate is the Vinyl Myths wiki entry

Reply #49 –
Quote from: cliveb on
If you (and your record store owning friend) want to really understand how digital audio works, you need to watch this video:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

If this forum had an upvote button, I would now hold-press it. Awesome video, and I am not even through. Nice presentation, accessible yet accurate content!
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020