High resolution audio(not impressed)

[lindsayt]

Lindsayt,

Difficult to know where to start, but I think you are misunderstanding how analogue systems work.

By definition, the dynamic range of the 16 bit coding system used on a CD results in a 96dB range - thats the ratio of the loudest to the quietest signal that the system can reproduce. It is all usable. You seem concerned that for quieter signals less bits get used, and therefore the quality of the signal is worse.

Thats all true - but thats exactly the same for analogue.

An analogue signal is the summation of the wanted signal and a noise component. In just the same way as quieter signals in a digital system don't use all the bits and sound worse, quieter signals in an analogue system have worse signal to noise ratios than a louder signal.

It is the responsibilty of the recording engineer to ensure that the master makes the best use of the dynamic range available. This is one of the valid uses of compression. No good having the cannon fire in the 1812 overture at 0dBfs and the rest of the piece down in the mush - whether it is analogue or digital. The engineers have to compress and adjust the gain accordingly to fit the signal into the sweetspot of the recording system.

You say the 96 db dynamic range of CD is all usable.

I say I very much doubt it is all useable from a high fidelity point of view. IE having a recording with a full 96 db dynamic range where the quietest parts actually sound like a good recreation of the original.

And no it's not exactly the same for analogue.

Distortion with CD's will increase as recording levels decrease.

Distortion with vinyl increases as you get very close to maximum possible levels and increases as you get close to background noise levels. Between those points distortion decreases.

And it's also not just the size of the distortion, it's the nature of it too.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that the 96 db dynamic range of CD is all usable. And then you say that you agree with me that "quieter signals in a digital system don't use all the bits and sound worse". Therefore, from a high-fidelity point of view the supposed 96 db dynamic range of CD may not be all useable as it will sound too distorted at the lowest recording levels.

The sort of thing I would expect to start disappearing from CD's as the recording levels become too low is all the low level detail, the timbre of the instruments. All the little sonic clues that add up to a grand piano sounding like a grand piano and not an upright nor a cheap electric piano.

And, what's more it may not be mainly a scientific / mathematical problem with CD. It may be an engineering one. It may be that the ADC's are not good at faithfully transducing low volume music signals. Or it may be that the amplification that comes straight after the analogue conversion in commercially availabe DAC's and CD players struggles to faithfully reproduce the lowest volume signals.

I would want to go to a live performance of the 1812 with canons with a calibrated sound meter to measure the actual dynamic range before stating whether compression is required or not. It's possible that both CD and Vinyl can capture the full dynamic range at the listening position of such a performance without any compression whatsoever.

 

[Frank Harvey]

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

David,

How's the research coming along?

Slowly, but getting there.

 

[The_Lhc]

Lindsayt,

Difficult to know where to start, but I think you are misunderstanding how analogue systems work.

By definition, the dynamic range of the 16 bit coding system used on a CD results in a 96dB range - thats the ratio of the loudest to the quietest signal that the system can reproduce.  It is all usable. You seem concerned that for quieter signals less bits get used, and therefore the quality of the signal is worse.

Thats all true - but thats exactly the same for analogue. 

 

An analogue signal is the summation of the wanted signal and a noise component. In just the same way as quieter signals in a digital system don't use all the bits and sound worse, quieter signals in an analogue system have worse signal to noise ratios than a louder signal.

It is the responsibilty of the recording engineer to ensure that the master makes the best use of the dynamic range available. This is one of the valid uses of compression.  No good having the cannon fire in the 1812 overture at 0dBfs and the rest of the piece down in the mush - whether it is analogue or digital.  The engineers have to compress and adjust the gain accordingly to fit the signal into the sweetspot of the recording system.

 

You say the 96 db dynamic range of CD is all usable.

I say I very much doubt it is all useable from a high fidelity point of view. IE having a recording with a full 96 db dynamic range where the quietest parts actually sound like a good recreation of the original.

 

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

 

[BigH]

CD has the ability to sound technically better than vinyl. It should do, it's a far more modern technology than analogue. Whether it does or not depends on how well its capabilities are exploited. Unfortunately, not particularly well except for a few good examples here and there.

Of course, looking at the comparisons from a technical point of view is one aspect - listening to how well each format reproduces a performance by purely listening is quite another. For this experience, there are no 'measurements'.

..... there you go again, mixing up the format with the recording.

Just because there are better sounding recordings of a given track available on LP rather than CD, doesn't mean LPs are a better format.

Did I say that?

Well you did say this:

"Once compared a highly regarded £1,000 CD player to a Pioneer PL12D - guess which sounded "better"?

CD is now worthless, it is a throwaway format. If CDs sounded as good as hi-res downloads, more would buy them, prices would be up (along with profit margins), downloads would only be 16/44 (because there would be absolutely zero detectable difference to higher sampling rates and bit depths), and the embarrassing vinyl comeback may well not be happening. "

You also said something like with every vinyl you have compared to cd the vinyl sounded better.

 

[Frank Harvey]

@BigH

You're quoting odd sentences from different posts that aren't necessarily relevant to the whole thread, only to specific comments made here and there by others.

As I have said previously, I haven't really found any CDs that leave vinyl standing. I mentioned earlier that one I compared sounded as close as I have ever heard the two formats (Rain Tree Crow). Some records are a little less defined in the bass, like Boards Of Canada, but higher up, particularly in the mid frequencies, the whole experience is a little different.

CD is worthless. It's been around for over 30 years now and the market is saturated with them. You'll find plenty for a quid or less, and if you want to sell them to MusicMagpie, you'll be lucky to get 20p. Unless of course, you havesomething limited or unique. Vinyl has been around longer, but early presses are still worth money, unlike CD. I will no longer buy CDs for anything over a fiver unless it is something I really want or need.

 

[GustavAP]

@BigH

You're quoting odd sentences from different posts that aren't necessarily relevant to the whole thread, only to specific comments made here and there by others.

As I have said previously, I haven't really found any CDs that leave vinyl standing. I mentioned earlier that one I compared sounded as close as I have ever heard the two formats (Rain Tree Crow). Some records are a little less defined in the bass, like Boards Of Canada, but higher up, particularly in the mid frequencies, the whole experience is a little different.

CD is worthless. It's been around for over 30 years now and the market is saturated with them. You'll find plenty for a quid or less, and if you want to sell them to MusicMagpie, you'll be lucky to get 20p. Unless of course, you havesomething limited or unique. Vinyl has been around longer, but early presses are still worth money, unlike CD. I will no longer buy CDs for anything over a fiver unless it is something I really want or need.

I have one question to this statement as you quite often throughout this thread has mixed up use-value with exchange-value, but in this one it became emphasized so clearly. Should we as listeners to music be concerned with anything but the use-value of a recording? In this sense, if we are not distributers, we should be overwelmly happy about "the worthlessness" of the CD. This is why i'm happy with digital storage since I can have a really high use-value coupled with a non-existant (in many cases) exchange-value as i'm not buying music to sell it on!

But sure, for those who use recordings more as a lifestyle attachment, exchange-value is highly relevant, as it both affirms their status as collectors as well as is a possble source of income.

 

[BigH]

@BigH

You're quoting odd sentences from different posts that aren't necessarily relevant to the whole thread, only to specific comments made here and there by others.

As I have said previously, I haven't really found any CDs that leave vinyl standing. I mentioned earlier that one I compared sounded as close as I have ever heard the two formats (Rain Tree Crow). Some records are a little less defined in the bass, like Boards Of Canada, but higher up, particularly in the mid frequencies, the whole experience is a little different.

CD is worthless. It's been around for over 30 years now and the market is saturated with them. You'll find plenty for a quid or less, and if you want to sell them to MusicMagpie, you'll be lucky to get 20p. Unless of course, you havesomething limited or unique. Vinyl has been around longer, but early presses are still worth money, unlike CD. I will no longer buy CDs for anything over a fiver unless it is something I really want or need.

I quite like "worthless" cds because I can buy lots of music for little money. Just remember lps were pretty worthless a while ago, people were chucking them away, its just because its trendy now to have vinyl. A lot of young buyers don't even have a turntable. Throughout this whole post you have been implying that hi-res and vinyl are better than cds. If its the same master I doubt you could tell hi-res from a cd. I agree I don't spend a lot of money buying new cds, I just buy the odd one like ECM jazz. There have been quite a few complaints about some lps just using the digital master, even from companies like HDTracks, so I would say unless the lp has been mastered for vinyl it will not sound better in fact I would say its worse because you have the same music but with all the vinyl flaws. Actually you are wrong about some cds they are worth a lot, try getting Diament mastered Led Zepp. cds cheap or virtually any Japan issued ones.

 

[BigH]

@BigH

You're quoting odd sentences from different posts that aren't necessarily relevant to the whole thread, only to specific comments made here and there by others.

As I have said previously, I haven't really found any CDs that leave vinyl standing. I mentioned earlier that one I compared sounded as close as I have ever heard the two formats (Rain Tree Crow). Some records are a little less defined in the bass, like Boards Of Canada, but higher up, particularly in the mid frequencies, the whole experience is a little different.

CD is worthless. It's been around for over 30 years now and the market is saturated with them. You'll find plenty for a quid or less, and if you want to sell them to MusicMagpie, you'll be lucky to get 20p. Unless of course, you havesomething limited or unique. Vinyl has been around longer, but early presses are still worth money, unlike CD. I will no longer buy CDs for anything over a fiver unless it is something I really want or need.

You asked where did you say that.

I quite like "worthless" cds because I can buy lots of music for little money. Just remember lps were pretty worthless a while ago, people were chucking them away, its just because its trendy now to have vinyl. A lot of young buyers don't even have a turntable. Throughout this whole post you have been implying that hi-res and vinyl are better than cds. If its the same master I doubt you could tell hi-res from a cd. I agree I don't spend a lot of money buying new cds, I just buy the odd one like ECM jazz. There have been quite a few complaints about some lps just using the digital master, even from companies like HDTracks, so I would say unless the lp has been mastered for vinyl it will not sound better in fact I would say its worse because you have the same music but with all the vinyl flaws. Actually you are wrong about some cds they are worth a lot, try getting Diament mastered Led Zepp. cds cheap or virtually any Japan issued ones.

 

[BigH]

You asked where did you say that.

I asked "Did I say that?", with regards to saying vinyl was a "better format than CD".

I quite like "worthless" cds because I can buy lots of music for little money. Just remember lps were pretty worthless a while ago, people were chucking them away, its just because its trendy now to have vinyl. A lot of young buyers don't even have a turntable. Throughout this whole post you have been implying that hi-res and vinyl are better than cds. If its the same master I doubt you could tell hi-res from a cd. I agree I don't spend a lot of money buying new cds, I just buy the odd one like ECM jazz. There have been quite a few complaints about some lps just using the digital master, even from companies like HDTracks, so I would say unless the lp has been mastered for vinyl it will not sound better in fact I would say its worse because you have the same music but with all the vinyl flaws. Actually you are wrong about some cds they are worth a lot, try getting Diament mastered Led Zepp. cds cheap or virtually any Japan issued ones.

I've bought more CDs than ever before over the past few years, partly because they're cheap (used ones anyway), and partly because I can use them for home, work, and transfer them to my iPod (although I hardly use that nowadays). Unfortunately though, a lot of what I listen to isn't mainstream, nor particularly "popular", so they usually cost me £10-40, even when used - I did mention earlier than some are silly prices, and not all are less than a quid. CDs also allows me to listen to better quality than streaming services are providing. It also means I physically own the album, and it won't disappear from a streaming service's line up without me noticing, or finding out one day when I want to listen to it.

If cds are so worthless and bad why are you buying so many? So if they are better than streaming then they are hardly worthless?

 

[Frank Harvey]

If cds are so worthless and bad why are you buying so many? So if they are better than streaming then they are hardly worthless?

I've just stated clearly why I buy them!!

And I suppose it depends on the value you attach to streaming services...

 

[BigH]

If cds are so worthless and bad why are you buying so many? So if they are better than streaming then they are hardly worthless?

I've just stated clearly why I buy them!!

And I suppose it depends on the value you attach to streaming services...

If they are so worthless why do you spend money on them? So they have some worth to you then?

 

[BigH]

If cds are so worthless and bad why are you buying so many? So if they are better than streaming then they are hardly worthless?

I've just stated clearly why I buy them!!

And I suppose it depends on the value you attach to streaming services...

If they are so worthless why do you spend money on them? So they have some worth to you then?

 

[Frank Harvey]

You asked where did you say that.

I asked "Did I say that?", with regards to saying vinyl was a "better format than CD".

I quite like "worthless" cds because I can buy lots of music for little money. Just remember lps were pretty worthless a while ago, people were chucking them away, its just because its trendy now to have vinyl. A lot of young buyers don't even have a turntable. Throughout this whole post you have been implying that hi-res and vinyl are better than cds. If its the same master I doubt you could tell hi-res from a cd. I agree I don't spend a lot of money buying new cds, I just buy the odd one like ECM jazz. There have been quite a few complaints about some lps just using the digital master, even from companies like HDTracks, so I would say unless the lp has been mastered for vinyl it will not sound better in fact I would say its worse because you have the same music but with all the vinyl flaws. Actually you are wrong about some cds they are worth a lot, try getting Diament mastered Led Zepp. cds cheap or virtually any Japan issued ones.

I've bought more CDs than ever before over the past few years, partly because they're cheap (used ones anyway), and partly because I can use them for home, work, and transfer them to my iPod (although I hardly use that nowadays). Unfortunately though, a lot of what I listen to isn't mainstream, nor particularly "popular", so they usually cost me £10-40, even when used - I did mention earlier that some are silly prices, and not all are less than a quid. CDs also allows me to listen to better quality than streaming services are providing. It also means I physically own the album, and it won't disappear from a streaming service's line up without me noticing, or finding out one day when I want to listen to it.

 

[Frank Harvey]

For some reason, my computer won't let me post the usual "face palm" funnies.

 

[TrevC]

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

I have however heard a few albums that have been worse on CD than vinyl.

My simple question to the CD format is: if you're better than vinyl, show me.

It's the same with High Res. If you're better than CD, show me.

I have an example for you. Joan Armatrading first album. The Save Me track at the end of side one. I have two copies, both have horrendous sibilance distortion that is absent from the CD.

 

[manicm]

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

I have however heard a few albums that have been worse on CD than vinyl.

My simple question to the CD format is: if you're better than vinyl, show me.

It's the same with High Res. If you're better than CD, show me.

I have an example for you. Joan Armatrading first album. The Save Me track at the end of side one. I have two copies, both have horrendous sibilance distortion that is absent from the CD.

The worst, most offensive sibilance I've ever heard was always from poor CD players. Vinyl is never as nasty. People like Vlad like to say cdps all sound the same but in my experience the cheaper CDPs were nastiest. You think that Joan Armatrading is bad? Sometimes it's not the recording but the equipment. I've repeated this many times before - but try a cd like Scary Monsters - it will be listenable in a good system, but in lesser ones it will make you cower with you covering your ears in pain. Bowie's vocal lisps on this album are brutal.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Agreed. Analogue or digital, source is still important.

 

[lindsayt]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

 

[lindsayt]

I have an example for you. Joan Armatrading first album. The Save Me track at the end of side one. I have two copies, both have horrendous sibilance distortion that is absent from the CD.

End of side mis-tracking can be an issue with vinyl.

Having a clean cartridge tip in good condition may help. A 10.5" or 12" or parallel tracking arm may help too.

If I ever get the chance to compare this album on CD and vinyl in my system, I will let you know what I think.

I have no doubt that there are a certain amount of albums that do sound overall better on CD than vinyl. However, based on my experience so far, there are a lot more albums that sound better on vinyl than CD (in my system to my ears). I'd include in this list every top selling album for each year of the 21st century in the UK.

 

[The_Lhc]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

 

[shadders]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[chebby]

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

You shouldn't have written that.

Now I have this image of Dave throwing himself, prostrate, onto the shop floor, foaming at the mouth and screaming ... "Blayssed aynalowg forwah the baby JAYSUS oh lorwad !! " *

* Attempting a Slim Pickens kind of drawl.

 

[davedotco]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

I have come across this assertions when reading up on the effects of dither on a digital signal and did wonder how this could be the case.

If you have the time, a few words on the basics of this might help me understand the theory, which is I find quite complex. My brain is no longer as sharp as it once was.

 

[davedotco]

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

You shouldn't have written that.

Now I have this image of Dave throwing himself, prostrate, onto the shop floor, foaming at the mouth and screaming ... "Blayssed aynalowg forwah the baby JAYSUS oh lorwad !! " *

* Attempting a Slim Pickens kind of drawl.

is quite, errr, fundermental to certain aspects of hi-fi.

Discussion is futile, the fundermentalists beliefs are received "ex cathedra", so by definition not open to questioning.

 

[chebby]

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

You shouldn't have written that.

Now I have this image of Dave throwing himself, prostrate, onto the shop floor, foaming at the mouth and screaming ... "Blayssed aynalowg forwah the baby JAYSUS oh lorwad !! " *

* Attempting a Slim Pickens kind of drawl.

is quite, errr, fundermental to certain aspects of hi-fi.

Discussion is futile, the fundermentalists beliefs are received "ex cathedra", so by definition not open to questioning.

I meant Dave from Frank Harvey sorry.

EDIT: Ah you knew that. I'll get me coat.