Audiophile witch hunt or basic common sense?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

Kenneth Fernandes

Well-known member
Mar 2, 2024
142
14
95
Visit site
Lots of bands still record to tape, and it's more trendy than ever. But very few mastering studios still use it. So I can only imagine that most tape becomes a wav once the mix is finalised.
A standalone large OLED touchscreen mixing console with responsive feedback could play an important role, so the audio signal from analogue instruments and vocals are converted digitally only once and then digitally mastered and recorded and stored in the highest possible digital formats for the most linear analogue to digital conversion.
 

twinkletoes

Well-known member
Yes, CD was produced to give higher quality sound. It preserves more of the original recording, while vinyl doesn't. I can't believe you think early CDs were analogue. It's a digital format. CD has the resolution to capture most of the information held on tape. It's a closer approximation than vinyl. Vinyl cannot hold the same amount of information as CD. When you transfer an analogue recording to vinyl, it doesn't have the capacity to hold this information. CD is able to hold more information transferred from analogue tapes. It really is incredible that people still insist vinyl is a better format than a more recent one, such as CD. People don't like CD, because it reveals the limitations of poor recordings, while vinyl will flatter these shortcomings. If you don't like CD, you're listening to poor recordings. New studio recordings on CD sound amazing and are totally wasted on vinyl. Every single technical aspect of CD is superior to vinyl. These are facts and I still believe the reason people are fixated with vinyl is because of the ritual and 'lifestyle' associated with this format. People bang on about the sleeve notes and the packaging. That's fine if you are into this stuff, but it doesn't add anything to the sound quality.
Technically, CDs are neither digital nor analog. However, they can be considered both simultaneously. Until read and compiled by a computer, CDs are essentially nothing.

It is not solely because CDs sound better that CD where created, increased durability was a massive driving force with CD’s development. they also have numerous industrial applications as we all know. The primary factor was their cost-effectiveness and speed of manufacture and thats the bottom line. Its could have easily been a poor VHS type product but it just so happened they actually sound pretty good.

Vinyl records cannot store the same amount of data we no know this everybody knows this. However, CDs and digital media have been repeatedly compromised by the “loudness wars.” While I am not suggesting vinyl is a superior format, the limitations imposed by the format make it a more preferable medium in some cases. For instance, Death Magnetic’s vinyl pressing actually sounds better than its 2000s CD release. The CD is unlistenable by comparison.

New studio recordings on CD sound amazing and are totally wasted on vinyl.” Are they? As mentioned above, it is not always a given. It is not as straightforward as that. I have music that sounds great on pre recorded mini discs, even the early examples of which are extremely compressed to fit on the medium. Even the humble cassette had its moments and Id put them up against CD counter part and challenge you to tell them apart.

Additionally, I own some modern vinyl that sounds incredible. Leftfield’s “Rhythm and Stealth” is much better sounding than its 1998/1999 CD release. DJ Shadow’s “Introducing” received an incredible remaster on vinyl that is not available on CD and there is no ticks or pops again id challenge you to tell what medium its being played back on in blind test. But granted there are some CDs that sound out of this world but in my experience especially in the POP mainstream its a rare experience.

It is evident why individuals prefer vinyl records over streaming services. Contrary to popular belief, it is not solely driven by nostalgia, as many individuals in their thirties grew up with digital music and transitioned to low-quality streaming options iTunes for example. The primary reason for vinyl’s appeal lies in its superior sound quality compared to streaming services like Spotify. For these individuals, CDs are considered “old hat,” while vinyl represents a novel and tactile experience that most of those 30 somethings have never experienced.

Some may argue that streaming services offer a more convenient and accessible listening experience. However, it is important to note that vinyl offer a unique and immersive listening experience, you cant just skip to a track and dot around all over the place, you have to listen you have to engage. The mechanical needle employed in vinyl playback contributes to the overall sound quality, allowing for greater control over the listening experience allowing you to tune to taste. So yes it does add to the sound quality experience.

While personal preferences play a role in media consumption, it is undeniable that vinyl records provide a more substantial support for artists compared to streaming services. By purchasing CDs or vinyl records, individuals can directly contribute to the success of lesser-known artists and thats a great thing and maybe thats major contributor to vinyl resurgence as its been suggested many dont listen to there purchases, treating them more like posters than media so there's that.

As I said above its just another Bob trying to tell me/us how to enjoy our hobby.
 
Last edited:

Kenneth Fernandes

Well-known member
Mar 2, 2024
142
14
95
Visit site
You might be wrong....
Just like different music genres there could be two distinctive and separate groups. One is the analogue group with artists and composers producing music solely for analogue music on vinyls. And the second digital group with respective music artists and composers who produce and distribute their music only on digital platforms. That way the music awareness among masses would be phenomenal with discrete likeness to individual artists pertaining to those separate groups.
 
Just like different music genres there could be two distinctive and separate groups. One is the analogue group with artists and composers producing music solely for analogue music on vinyls. And the second digital group with respective music artists and composers who produce and distribute their music only on digital platforms. That way the music awareness among masses would be phenomenal with discrete likeness to individual artists pertaining to those separate groups.
There are indeed companies that still record using analogue production onto vinyl, unfortunately they are limited in the genres they produce and, as such, it's an expensive business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenneth Fernandes

good_enough

Well-known member
Mar 12, 2016
123
81
18,670
Visit site
Yes, CD was produced to give higher quality sound. It preserves more of the original recording, while vinyl doesn't. I can't believe you think early CDs were analogue. It's a digital format. CD has the resolution to capture most of the information held on tape. It's a closer approximation than vinyl. Vinyl cannot hold the same amount of information as CD. When you transfer an analogue recording to vinyl, it doesn't have the capacity to hold this information. CD is able to hold more information transferred from analogue tapes. It really is incredible that people still insist vinyl is a better format than a more recent one, such as CD. People don't like CD, because it reveals the limitations of poor recordings, while vinyl will flatter these shortcomings. If you don't like CD, you're listening to poor recordings. New studio recordings on CD sound amazing and are totally wasted on vinyl. Every single technical aspect of CD is superior to vinyl. These are facts and I still believe the reason people are fixated with vinyl is because of the ritual and 'lifestyle' associated with this format. People bang on about the sleeve notes and the packaging. That's fine if you are into this stuff, but it doesn't add anything to the sound quality.
Recency of invention has nothing to do with anything - MP3s are also a more 'modern' format than LPs.

The comparison on 'quantity of information' is a knotty one. On the one hand the dynamic range of LPs is lower than CDs, meaning that you'd only need 11 or 12 bits to capture it. On the other, LPs can deliver frequencies up to 40KHz which would require a 80KHz sampling rate to capture (simple maths).

So a pristine well pressed LP could deliver the equivalent of a 80Khz/12 bit digital recording, versus the CD's 44Khz/16 bit. The situation is complicated because the all-analogue recording path would be targeted (naturally) at that golden 20 to 20 range, meaning that the upper frequencies are tailed off. In other words you get a tapered profile above 20KHz on a LP and an absolute hard stop at 22KHz on the CD, with only silence above.

Up to you whether you want to argue the toss about which has more 'information'. But the difference in sample rate soon adds up - if you said an LP was only reproducing up to 25KHz, then that's a 50KHz sample rate, and you're comparing 50,0000 x 12 bits per second versus 44,000 x 16 bits per second. Again simple maths says if you get 29KHz out of the LP, you have the same data rate or 'information' as your CD. Whether that matters two hoots is in the ear of the listener. Coincidentally my Hana cart is rated to 30KHz meaning that on a level, straight road, it just pips your CD on data rate. Who'd have thunk it?

I would suggest that quality of reproduction equipment plays more of a factor than any of this. On good kit you can hear a poorly mastered CD and a well mastered first pressing LP and prefer the latter to the former. Or vice versa. I've said it once and I'll say it again - the only answer to the question 'which is best, CD or LP?' is 'Which CD? And which LP?'.

Those of us blessed with decent replay equipment for all formats exploit the facility to pick up music here there and everywhere. If buying new recordings I invariably buy CD (unless there's something distinctive about packaging, or it's vinyl only).

Old stuff I frequently buy on LP if I see something I like, and I don't feel short-changed on sound quality.
 

Jasonovich

Well-known member
Next years’ RSD special: The Rolling Stones @ Abbey Road, straight to DSD 😁

Can’t do 512 though, my Linn only does 256 🥲
Sounds fab Matt.
DSD256 v DSD512 hardly any difference. SACD or DSD64 big difference.
Really love this format, silky smooth.
Apart from www.nativedsd.com I think it's starting to create interest.
 

Fandango Andy

Well-known member
New studio recordings on CD sound amazing and are totally wasted on vinyl.
Are you talking classical and jazz recordings? A lot of modern pop and rock sounds really poor. They are mastered for earbuds, smart speakers and in car. Dynamic range is forgotten in favour of volume, and the idea of a soundstage is alien. 60s and 70s music was recorded so much better. And when you bring jazz into the equation, the 50s too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DougK1

Fandango Andy

Well-known member
Technically they where digitally recording in the 60's but im not sure if any of that was available for the consumer
They were proud of their digital masters!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20250117_022302_edit_669198373081220.jpg
    IMG_20250117_022302_edit_669198373081220.jpg
    77 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_20250117_022311_edit_669179186952577.jpg
    IMG_20250117_022311_edit_669179186952577.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 1
  • IMG_20250117_022456.jpg
    IMG_20250117_022456.jpg
    122.4 KB · Views: 1
  • IMG_20250117_022357.jpg
    IMG_20250117_022357.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: twinkletoes

manicm

Well-known member
New upcoming albums too should be recorded and released on DSD. It would be exceptionally great!

It will never happen. DSD recording equipment is very expensive, and to master it requires DSD-PCM-DSD conversion anyway.

DSD hardware is great though, high end Marantz digital/disc sources and others have illustrated that DSD upsampling can benefit vanilla PCM files/streams/CDs.
 

Jasonovich

Well-known member
It will never happen. DSD recording equipment is very expensive, and to master it requires DSD-PCM-DSD conversion anyway.

DSD hardware is great though, high end Marantz digital/disc sources and others have illustrated that DSD upsampling can benefit vanilla PCM files/streams/CDs.
Yes that is a big hurdle, still, market opportunities are to be had if there is a demand and we all know, companies will charge a premium for it. Currently, they're milking vinyl enthusiasts and until the cow runs dry, they'll probably switch to DSD but vinyl is such a good thing now, it'll be some time before we see DSD dot on the radar.

NativeDSD I believe have their own DSD recording studios and this seems to work on a small scale, if only other business entities done the same, this will create the momentum for big corporate companies to further invest in the format, though not sure if these big music labels still exists?

Streaming companies offer FLAC and this has been around a long time before it became de'facto for Hi-Res but Capitalism needs stimuli for people to keep spending money, not sure DACs or Streamers with DSD capability has reached a certain point that it makes sense to invest in the format but in my own personal opinion, I think it will happen eventually. When, who knows?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kenneth Fernandes

twinkletoes

Well-known member
Yes that is a big hurdle, still, market opportunities are to be had if there is a demand and we all know, companies will charge a premium for it.

NativeDSD I believe have their own DSD recording studios and this seems to work on a small scale, if only other business entities done the same, this will create the momentum for big corporate companies to further invest in the format, though not sure if these big music labels still exists?

Streaming companies offer FLAC and this has been around a long time before it became de'facto for Hi-Res but Capitalism needs stimuli for people to keep spending money, not sure DACs or Streamers with DSD capability has reached a certain point that it makes sense to invest in the format but in my own personal opinion, I think it will happen eventually. When, who knows?
You might be right that the file system will be used and rebranded, but the brand name and physical media are basically dead.

Well actually, if you think about it, the idea has already been reworked and repackaged many a time, DVD audio, blu ray audio. Apple is heavily promoting Atoms Music on their platform. Since SACD was capable of that, it’s nothing new. It just has a fancy new name. So, you could argue that it’s already here, well the aspect they wanted to take from the SACD platform. If that make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jasonovich

Kenneth Fernandes

Well-known member
Mar 2, 2024
142
14
95
Visit site
Yes that is a big hurdle, still, market opportunities are to be had if there is a demand and we all know, companies will charge a premium for it. Currently, they're milking vinyl enthusiasts and until the cow runs dry, they'll probably switch to DSD but vinyl is such a good thing now, it'll be some time before we see DSD dot on the radar.

NativeDSD I believe have their own DSD recording studios and this seems to work on a small scale, if only other business entities done the same, this will create the momentum for big corporate companies to further invest in the format, though not sure if these big music labels still exists?

Streaming companies offer FLAC and this has been around a long time before it became de'facto for Hi-Res but Capitalism needs stimuli for people to keep spending money, not sure DACs or Streamers with DSD capability has reached a certain point that it makes sense to invest in the format but in my own personal opinion, I think it will happen eventually. When, who knows?

Currently, if DSD is for classical and PCM is for modern pop and rock, etc., then why does the travel path of the analogue audio signal of the instruments/vocals pass through a mixing console first then to an ADC and DAW for mastering and recording?

It would be best to convert the analogue audio signal from the instruments/vocals to digital-first and then mix and master it. Rather than mix the analogue signal then pass it to the ADC/Audio Interface for digital conversion, which will have an attenuated signal from the mixing console to the ADC.
That way one would have the original value of the audio signal converted digitally and could attentate or enhance digitally based on the current project.
The result would be great in my opinion.

A single large do-it-all OLED console with tactile controls that has all input/output connection capabilities and can record, mix, master and publish audio files without having to connect to a PC/DAW or ADC could become a standard in the future.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jasonovich

podknocker

Well-known member
YouTubers can shove it up where the sun doesn't shine, most will say anything for clicks and ad revenue.

Just listen to the format you like and be done with it. You only need to please yourself.
I agree. My system sounds great for the money and I really enjoy the music I listen to. It could sound better if I invested, but it's the law of diminishing returns. How much would I need to spend to obtain an appreciable improvement in sound quality? I don't think it's worth it these days. Many people on here, like I've said before, are blinkered by bling and only see the cosmetics and expense of a product, without realising sound quality cannot go on forever. Even those people with the best hearing are wasting money by constantly chasing new formats and quite unnecessary manipulation of information and its subsequent conversion to sound. People are simply chasing unicorns, fixated with 24 or 32 bit formats at 96 or 192kHz sampling etc. There is only so much 'chopping up' of a recording you can do and then it's just numbers for the sake of it. CD has huge dynamic range potential, although many mastering techniques don't do the format justice and it can cope with the full range of human hearing. Anything more is just a waste of time and even with state of the art DACs everywhere, I can't see the point of introducing any new sound formats. I think we've reached the pinnacle of audio reproduction and anything new will need to satisfy lifestyle choices and ease of use.
 
Last edited:

twinkletoes

Well-known member
I agree. My system sounds great for the money and I really enjoy the music I listen to. It could sound better if I invested, but it's the law of diminishing returns. How much would I need to spend to obtain an appreciable improvement in sound quality? I don't think it's worth it these days. Many people on here, like I've said before, are blinkered by bling and only see the cosmetics and expense of a product, without realising sound quality cannot go on forever. Even those people with the best hearing are wasting money by constantly chasing new formats and quite unnecessary manipulation of information and its subsequent conversion to sound. People are simply chasing unicorns, fixated with 24 or 32 bit formats at 96 or 192kHz sampling etc. There is only so much 'chopping up' of a recording you can do and then it's just numbers for the sake of it. CD has huge dynamic range potential, although many mastering techniques don't do the format justice and it can cope with the full range of human hearing. Anything more is just a waste of time and even with state of the art DACs everywhere, I can't see the point of introducing any new sound formats. I think we've reached the pinnacle of audio reproduction and anything new will need to satisfy lifestyle choices and ease of use.
hey hey looks like some of my vacuous post made it way into your grey matter.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts