Sound quality research

[hg]

Reel to Reel analogue has not been the recording studio choice since mid 80s? I think you are wrong. In mid 80s most studio sound engineers were only just starting to get to grips with digital recording and it did not get off to a very good start.

Where I worked about 10-15 years ago they chucked 4 Nagra and 2 Revox tape recorders in a skip when they needed maintenance because it was a waste of money maintaining them. They kept 2 Revox machines I believe, one working and one to cannabilise just in case someone needed to use a tape. There were a few DAT recorders that were still functional but nobody had used them for a few years. No sane professional working with sound has wanted anything to do with tape for a long time. That is not the case for hobbyists and those that serve hobbyist interests.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

 

[MajorFubar]

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

Good question, and while you may get many answers, I offer you 15IPS on half-track quarter inch, which is what many studio masters were recorded at/on, using such as the most excellent Studer A820. CD might be technically better in terms of signal purity but one of the great things about tape is you can over-drive it a little to get a certain sound, which is completely different to digital-clipping on a digital machine (which just sounds horrid). It's called over-saturation and was common on rock tracks to get a big sound without over-use of compressors. In fact the tape it self offered a sort of natural compression that digital cannot, though there are many tape-emulating digital 'plugins' which attempt to get close.

 

[The_Lhc]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

 

[lindsayt]

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

In your house maybe. In mine it's not.

What sort of a reel to reel tape machine do you own and what sort of CD player?

I own a Studer A807 tape machine and a couple of Denon CD players.

7.5 and 15 ips 1/4 inch 2 track tapes sound better than vinyl and CD in my system.

 

[BigH]

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

In your house maybe. In mine it's not.

What sort of a reel to reel tape machine do you own and what sort of CD player?

I own a Studer A807 tape machine and a couple of Denon CD players.

7.5 and 15 ips 1/4 inch 2 track tapes sound better than vinyl and CD in my system.

Not sure of the price of your Denon cd player but if you played your lps on similar priced Turntable which would be better? Because I believe you have a top range turntable.

 

[lindsayt]

I have an EMT 950, an EMT 930 (paid about £2k each for them). I prefer them to my old LP12.

Paid £800 for the Studer.

Paid £15 for my Denon C630's and about £400 for the C640. I'd be all ears for a CD player that anyone thinks could beat my Studer. From the CD players I've demoed so far, I've only heard minimal improvements by spending large amounts of money on them.

 

[BigH]

I have an EMT 950, an EMT 930 (paid about £2k each for them). I prefer them to my old LP12.

Paid £800 for the Studer.

Paid £15 for my Denon C630's and about £400 for the C640. I'd be all ears for a CD player that anyone thinks could beat my Studer. From the CD players I've demoed so far, I've only heard minimal improvements by spending large amounts of money on them.

Yes I tend to agree about cd players.

Are those new prices?

I was just thinking a £100 cd player may sound better than a £100 turntable.

 

[lindsayt]

BigH, what do you think?

Do you think I could have bought a Denon C630 CD player new for £15? Or an EMT for £2000? And a Studer for £800?

If the £100 turntable was a Lenco, that was then modded, had a world class arm and cart fitted and good phono amplification then yes it would sound better than my CD player. If, on the other hand it was a £100 pile of cheap plasticky rubbish then no it wouldn't.

Turn-key turntables that sound better than the LP12 (and my CD players) start at about £300 (plus cartridge running costs) for something like a Pioneer PL71.

 

[TrevC]

BigH, what do you think?

Do you think I could have bought a Denon C630 CD player new for £15? Or an EMT for £2000? And a Studer for £800?

If the £100 turntable was a Lenco, that was then modded, had a world class arm and cart fitted and good phono amplification then yes it would sound better than my CD player. If, on the other hand it was a £100 pile of cheap plasticky rubbish then no it wouldn't.

Turn-key turntables that sound better than the LP12 (and my CD players) start at about £300 (plus cartridge running costs) for something like a Pioneer PL71.

A turntable playing a well recorded album can never sound better than a decent CD player with a well recorded CD. You have the much higher noise floor created by the roar of the vinyl and the end of side distortion to contend with, as well as the pops and clicks.

 

[BigH]

BigH, what do you think?

Do you think I could have bought a Denon C630 CD player new for £15? Or an EMT for £2000? And a Studer for £800?

If the £100 turntable was a Lenco, that was then modded, had a world class arm and cart fitted and good phono amplification then yes it would sound better than my CD player. If, on the other hand it was a £100 pile of cheap plasticky rubbish then no it wouldn't.

Turn-key turntables that sound better than the LP12 (and my CD players) start at about £300 (plus cartridge running costs) for something like a Pioneer PL71.

No I did not think the £15 Denon was new, did not know about the other items.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

Not sure how their weird maths have calculated that open-reel tape is better than CD unless they factor-in its ability to record ultrasonic frequencies that no one can hear, but there's no question that it has the potential to trounce vinyl. Even a basic domestic machine like an old Akai 4000DB will rival vinyl on every qualitative test you can throw at it, providing it's well-serviced and you use high-quality tape-stock @7 1/2IPS. Move up to such as a half-track B77 @15IPS and you've left poor old vinyl in the dust.

reel to reel has always been the best source. But its limitations are its downfall! Exc sacd/cd it was the best of all sources once..but i came across a 90s cassette tape of jaque loussier and i must say its rather fab! (why are French recordings so much better?)

I have quite a few Jacques Loussier recordings on CD and they are all incredibly good. I usually take at least one with me on a listening session for reference.

 

[Infiniteloop]

BigH, what do you think?

Do you think I could have bought a Denon C630 CD player new for £15? Or an EMT for £2000? And a Studer for £800?

If the £100 turntable was a Lenco, that was then modded, had a world class arm and cart fitted and good phono amplification then yes it would sound better than my CD player. If, on the other hand it was a £100 pile of cheap plasticky rubbish then no it wouldn't.

Turn-key turntables that sound better than the LP12 (and my CD players) start at about £300 (plus cartridge running costs) for something like a Pioneer PL71.

A turntable playing a well recorded album can never sound better than a decent CD player with a well recorded CD. You have the much higher noise floor created by the roar of the vinyl and the end of side distortion to contend with, as well as the pops and clicks.

'Better' is subjective. TT's often sound much more musical than equivalent CD players. Same with Valve Amps and SS Amps.

As for pops and clicks, - you get a similar effect from dirty or scratched CDs. Only faster and much more irritating.

Nothing is perfect. There are no absolutes.

 

[CnoEvil]

I have quite a few Jacques Loussier recordings on CD and they are all incredibly good. I usually take at least one with me on a listening session for reference.

So have I.....and they show just how good CD can sound. Brilliant.

Had him on Vinyl back in the day, so it's great the CDs sound so well.

 

[BigH]

[

As for pops and clicks, - you get a similar effect from dirty or scratched CDs. Only faster and much more irritating.

Nothing is perfect. There are no absolutes.

Its not just the pops and clicks its the noise floor.

I don't agree about cds, none of mine have that problem, even used ones i have bought rarely had a problem, sure can get get scratched cds but its fairly rare, vinyl its fairly common.

 

[BigH]

I have quite a few Jacques Loussier recordings on CD and they are all incredibly good. I usually take at least one with me on a listening session for reference.

So have I.....and they show just how good CD can sound. Brilliant.

Had him on Vinyl back in the day, so it's great the CDs sound so well.

ECM cds I have found to be excellent sound quality.

 

[shadders]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

Hi,

I think that sampling rate is how often you sample the signal level. As such, is the correct interpretation.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[lindsayt]

[

As for pops and clicks, - you get a similar effect from dirty or scratched CDs. Only faster and much more irritating.

Nothing is perfect. There are no absolutes.

Its not just the pops and clicks its the noise floor.

I don't agree about cds, none of mine have that problem, even used ones i have bought rarely had a problem, sure can get get scratched cds but its fairly rare, vinyl its fairly common.

BigH, where did I write that????

 

[lindsayt]

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

In your house maybe. In mine it's not.

What sort of a reel to reel tape machine do you own and what sort of CD player?

I own a Studer A807 tape machine and a couple of Denon CD players.

7.5 and 15 ips 1/4 inch 2 track tapes sound better than vinyl and CD in my system.

You think LPs sound better than CD, so perhaps you are mixing better and worse up. I'm talking about the format, not my own equipment, but for your information at the moment I'm using a vintage Philips CD 850 MkII. I had a Revox once but no longer own a reel to reel, but I know that all the commercially available tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips, so what music are you listening to?

TrevC, your statement is incorrect. I don't think that LP's sound better than CD's in my system. I know.

Your statement that perhaps I am mixing better and worse up is so wide of the mark, it's not even in the same postcode (as the Mighty Jingles would say).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When it comes to CD's it's a relatively stale pudding in my system.

So you "know that all the commercially available tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips"?

Well check this out:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=&_osacat=618&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H1.X7.TRS0&_nkw=7&_sacat=618

Well done, that's 3 incorrect statements that you've made in 3 sentences.

 

[BigH]

[

As for pops and clicks, - you get a similar effect from dirty or scratched CDs. Only faster and much more irritating.

Nothing is perfect. There are no absolutes.

Its not just the pops and clicks its the noise floor.

I don't agree about cds, none of mine have that problem, even used ones i have bought rarely had a problem, sure can get get scratched cds but its fairly rare, vinyl its fairly common.

BigH, where did I write that????

Sorry the quote went wrong, it was not you.

 

[BigH]

As for pops and clicks, - you get a similar effect from dirty or scratched CDs. Only faster and much more irritating.

Nothing is perfect. There are no absolutes.

I don't agree about cds, none of mine have that problem, even used ones i have bought rarely had a problem, sure can get get scratched cds but its fairly rare, vinyl its fairly common.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

Hi,

I think that sampling rate is how often you sample the signal level. As such, is the correct interpretation.

Regards,

Shadders.

Shadders it is indeed how often you sample the signal. Hence the term sampling rate (too difficult for some to understand?). Or it is in my terms how many times a stab at it is taken every second. You are right and I can't understand how anyone can think it means something else. Getting bogged down in theorums is another example of how some bypass the obvious to attempt to understand the complicated. Why the obsession with frequency response to 22.5kHz and beyond? as if that is the sole parameter to judge sound by. It is quite simple to understand if there was nothing to be gained from using higher bit depths and higher sampling rates than the bog standard 16bit 44.1kHz then there would be no point in doing it. If it happens that say 24bit 96kHz can record up to a supersonic 48kHz then it doesn't mean it will and even if it does those supersonic frequencies will be 'shelved' 'cut' filtered out. Personally I think 24bit 48kHz is more than good enough in domestic surrounds but studio recordings have to be at the best available which is I believe 32bit 192kHz.

 

[Infiniteloop]

I have quite a few Jacques Loussier recordings on CD and they are all incredibly good. I usually take at least one with me on a listening session for reference.

So have I.....and they show just how good CD can sound. Brilliant.

Had him on Vinyl back in the day, so it's great the CDs sound so well.

It's amazing what you can find in a charity shop for under a quid....