High resolution audio(not impressed)

[lindsayt]

...I'm affraid there's no substitute but to read, re-read, mull concepts over then read again until understood.

When it comes to hi-fi I think there's no substitute for listening. Listening to a wide variety of recordings on a wide variety of equipment.

That's because of the amount of statements that I've read that have not been born out when I've had a chance to listen to the same thing.

There's no substitute for listening and forming your own opinions.

And yet when I propose this I get personally insulted by the likes of LHC.

 

[TrevC]

You haven't heard distortion, but you may have heard an accentuated treble response that makes sibilance in the recording more noticeable. Or you might just have bright speakers.

No, no and no to all your assumptions, in my own system, and at dealers some CD players were clearly more equal to others in otherwise the exact same system. And when I say sibilance i mean to the point of ears being hurt. I always took along Scary Monsters when I was in the market to purchase.

Sibilance distortion is a treble distortion that only happens when an album is cut too loud or the stylus is incapable of accurately tracking the groove. It simply doesn't happen on CD players.

 

[BigH]

...I'm affraid there's no substitute but to read, re-read, mull concepts over then read again until understood.

When it comes to hi-fi I think there's no substitute for listening. Listening to a wide variety of recordings on a wide variety of equipment.

That's because of the amount of statements that I've read that have not been born out when I've had a chance to listen to the same thing.

There's no substitute for listening and forming your own opinions.

And yet when I propose this I get personally insulted by the likes of LHC.

I agree but people have different opinions, tastes etc, what is someone meat is another's poison. Some people love vinyl and others don't. Listening is best, reading does not add much for me. Interestingly in a hi-res blind test, hifi reviewers were the worst group at picking the correct sample as hi-res which I think says quite a lot.

 

[busb]

...I'm affraid there's no substitute but to read, re-read, mull concepts over then read again until understood.

When it comes to hi-fi I think there's no substitute for listening. Listening to a wide variety of recordings on a wide variety of equipment.

That's because of the amount of statements that I've read that have not been born out when I've had a chance to listen to the same thing.

There's no substitute for listening and forming your own opinions.

And yet when I propose this I get personally insulted by the likes of LHC.

I agree but people have different opinions, tastes etc, what is someone meat is another's poison. Some people love vinyl and others don't. Listening is best, reading does not add much for me. Interestingly in a hi-res blind test, hifi reviewers were the worst group at picking the correct sample as hi-res which I think says quite a lot.

I'll risk the accusation of being repetitive: the mastering is far more important than the bit rate/depth. I've enjoyed MP3s or rather, the music from them! Although I feel that CDs are capable of a superior sound to records, I personally have no issue with people playing & enjoying vinyl. I might take issue when they misrepresent digital audio theory though (without making it personal).

 

[TomSawyer]

I'll risk the accusation of being repetitive:

1. the mastering is far more important than the bit rate/depth. I've enjoyed MP3s or rather, the music from them!

2. Although I feel that CDs are capable of a superior sound to records, I personally have no issue with people playing & enjoying vinyl.

3. I might take issue when they misrepresent digital audio theory though (without making it personal).

Forgive me editing the quote, but to try to form some kind of consensus on this thread, this sums up my position exactly:

1. Absolutely

2. Agree, depite preferring vinyl as an overall experience

3. As an engineer, I enjoy joining in technical debate but, likewise, would never intentionally get personal. However, despite my degree, chartered status and 25 years (so far) in industry, I concede that there are people on here who have forgotten more about digital electronics that I've ever known. It's one thing to argue whether speaker A sounds better than speaker B, it's another to argue whether a sound wave can be accurately reconstructed from a 16-bit 44.1kHz sample.

 

[MajorFubar]

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.

So basically what you're saying is you prefer the distorted sound vinyl gives you (loudness-war aside). That's fine but don't kid yourself that it's anything to do with superiority. Likely every single one of those albums will have been mastered digitally, and what you hear from the vinyl version is the digital master file impacted by the dozen-or-more distructive processes required to get it from the cutting engineer's PC to the cables coming out the back of your turntable. Theoretically the CD version has the potential to be a bit-for-bit replica of the exact master file with no loss and no degredation.

 

[MajorFubar]

you just don't get any sibilance distortion on CD in my experience.

Correct. It's not even possible. You can't over-saturate a digital signal by having too much bass or treble etc. It either runs out of numbers and it clips, or it doesn't. Though it's very possible for poorly-designed replay electronics (DAC) to sound shrill and unlistenable, or for the master file to have a frequency imbalance which causes it to sound harsh.

 

[BigH]

Vinyl has so many variables, cds are more consistent.

 

[BigH]

Vinyl has so many variables, cds are more consistent.

 

[nopiano]

you just don't get any sibilance distortion on CD in my experience.

Correct. It's not even possible. You can't over-saturate a digital signal by having too much bass or treble etc. It either runs out of numbers and it clips, or it doesn't. Though it's very possible for poorly-designed replay electronics (DAC) to sound shrill and unlistenable, or for the master file to have a frequency imbalance which causes it to sound harsh.

Agree with the listen-ability of CDs.

I still find that replay of analogue master CDs, that is ADD or AAD, is a good test of a CD player. I favour CBS recordings, such as old Simon and Garfunkel performances, which can sound pretty nasty, but have lots of music that can be unearthed by a great player.

 

[manicm]

You haven't heard distortion, but you may have heard an accentuated treble response that makes sibilance in the recording more noticeable. Or you might just have bright speakers.

No, no and no to all your assumptions, in my own system, and at dealers some CD players were clearly more equal to others in otherwise the exact same system. And when I say sibilance i mean to the point of ears being hurt. I always took along Scary Monsters when I was in the market to purchase.

Sibilance distortion is a treble distortion that only happens when an album is cut too loud or the stylus is incapable of accurately tracking the groove. It simply doesn't happen on CD players.

I don't believe that, a poor DAC or transport can cause a whole lot of things.

 

[lindsayt]

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.

So basically what you're saying is you prefer the distorted sound vinyl gives you (loudness-war aside). That's fine but don't kid yourself that it's anything to do with superiority. Likely every single one of those albums will have been mastered digitally, and what you hear from the vinyl version is the digital master file impacted by the dozen-or-more distructive processes required to get it from the cutting engineer's PC to the cables coming out the back of your turntable. Theoretically the CD version has the potential to be a bit-for-bit replica of the exact master file with no loss and no degredation.

I can't put the loudness war aside. Putting the loudness war aside would be like saying England are the best football team in Europe, putting their match against Iceland aside.

It's everything to do with superiority. Superiority in the real world. Superiority easily demonstrated by a series of listening tests.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Go ahead and try it yourself.

Go and buy a selection of the best selling UK albums from each year from 2000 to 2015.

Compare them and come back here and tell me which version, CD or vinyl sounds more distorted to your ears. Distorted in the broadest sense of the term.

I like to listen to the very best recreation of commercial recordings that I can get. For 21st century best selling albums that means I should seek out the vinyl versions and not the CD versions for the least amount of audible distortion.

 

[manicm]

you just don't get any sibilance distortion on CD in my experience.

Correct. It's not even possible. You can't over-saturate a digital signal by having too much bass or treble etc. It either runs out of numbers and it clips, or it doesn't. Though it's very possible for poorly-designed replay electronics (DAC) to sound shrill and unlistenable, or for the master file to have a frequency imbalance which causes it to sound harsh.

It's not about having too much treble or bass, it's about high frequencies not being reproduced properly. I've had DVD/CD players that were bright, were dull, but have also possessed/auditioned a few that were sibilant as hell. My NAD CDP that I had briefly was not a bright player (my Pioneer DVD was a much brighter deck), but was sibilant as hell - it handled some vocals atrociously.

 

[busb]

I will take sibilance on records but not on CDs under advisement - not having really listened to them for a good few years. A brief google certainly confirms the issue.

I'm trying to get my head around what can cause sibilance apart from poor mics & poor mic technique on the part of the singer. As for vinyl, I can only speculate that the cantilever is going into resonance with transient high amplitude HF which would surely be very dependent on the complience that would not be helped by any electrical impedance mismatch. Anyone?

 

[nopiano]

I will take sibilance on records but not on CDs under advisement - not having really listened to them for a good few years. A brief google certainly confirms the issue.

I'm trying to get my head around what can cause sibilance apart from poor mics & poor mic technique on the part of the singer. As for vinyl, I can only speculate that the cantilever is going into resonance with transient high amplitude HF which would surely be very dependent on the complience that would not be helped by any electrical impedance mismatch. Anyone?

Excessive sibilance on records is more likely hi frequency mistracking, or accurate replay of previous groove damage. If you've ever tried test records for setting antiskate and downforce, you'll know what mistracking sounds like! If you haven't you should.

 

[MajorFubar]

I can't put the loudness war aside. Putting the loudness war aside would be like saying England are the best football team in Europe, putting their match against Iceland aside.

You can when my argument is about which is the better format technically. It remains a crying shame that most CDs no longer exploit the substantial benefits of the format, but that has no bearing on its obvious potential superiority.

 

[busb]

On so-called Hi Res (& up to date):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8#t=3392

 

[Frank Harvey]

David,

How's the research coming along?

I'm going to continue to research this subject where I can, as it is interesting, and some of the answers I've unearthed so far seem to mostly agree with my line of thinking, despite me not having the knowledge or facts to back anything up.

I spoke today to an industry figure on the production side of things, who has worked at some major studios, and is still very active within the industry.

On the subject of 16/44 and whether it can fully capture and convey what the human ear can hear, my thoughts have always been that it can't. I put this question to him today, to which he replied - with no hesitation whatsoever - no.

I'm not going to list the whole conversation, as some aspects were regarding other subjects (room EQ/treatment, vinyl etc) and also there's bound to be talking points on what I've already posted. I'll post other bits and bobs where and when relevant.

And no, I'm not going to name him.

 

[andyjm]

David,

How's the research coming along?

I'm going to continue to research this subject where I can, as it is interesting, and some of the answers I've unearthed so far seem to mostly agree with my line of thinking, despite me not having the knowledge or facts to back anything up.

I spoke today to an industry figure on the production side of things, who has worked at some major studios, and is still very active within the industry.

On the subject of 16/44 and whether it can fully capture and convey what the human ear can hear, my thoughts have always been that it can't. I put this question to him today, to which he replied - with no hesitation whatsoever - no.

I'm not going to list the whole conversation, as some aspects were regarding other subjects (room EQ/treatment, vinyl etc) and also there's bound to be talking points on what I've already posted. I'll post other bits and bobs where and when relevant.

And no, I'm not going to name him.

So, some mysterious guy who you can't name, who may or may not have a clue about what he is talking about, who does something or other in the industry has turned the whole world of digital sampling theory and human peception on its head.

Glad we've put that question to bed then.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I knew that'd be the attitude.

 

[Al ears]

I knew that'd be the attitude.

So did I. Sometimes I don't know why you bother David. ;-)

 

[TomSawyer]

I knew that'd be the attitude.

So did I. Sometimes I don't know why you bother David. ;-)

I can appreciate it seems negative, but in terms of moving the argument forward, David, you must appreciate that you essentially said someone who you won't name, and so we can't appraise his credentials, made some compelling points that you won't go into.

He wasn't called Nyquist was he?

 

[Frank Harvey]

He didn't come to me and say, "I've got some info for ya, but don't tell anyone who I am as I don't want to be linked to it". This guy has been involved with major studios, and has been doing this for some time, so he's very experienced - he's not a tea boy.

Funny how some throw in about how studios do things differently to home audio, and that there's no BS in the studio, but I quote one and everyone's dubious.

Those that want to listen can. Everyone else can continue as they were.

 

[The_Lhc]

He didn't come to me and say, "I've got some info for ya, but don't tell anyone who I am as I don't want to be linked to it". This guy has been involved with major studios, and has been doing this for some time, so he's very experienced - he's not a tea boy.

Funny how some throw in about how studios do things differently to home audio, and that there's no BS in the studio, but I quote one and everyone's dubious.

Those that want to listen can. Everyone else can continue as they were.

Involved with major studios in what capacity though? Did he explain how all sampling theory, proven over decades is completely wrong? Because that's what he's saying and unless he can provide the mathematics to show why the accepted theories could be so wrong then people will rightly be skeptical because he's talking nonsense.

Unless of course he's suggesting we can hear frequencies higher than 22.05khz (as that's what CD audio tops out at), in which case you should stop consulting with cats...

 

[Frank Harvey]

He explained quite a lot about digital audio, and also mentioned that the any quits theory is usually misquoted/misunderstood (I forget which he said now). One for the mathematicians, which I am not.