Sound engineers have been learning that CD needs different mastering than LP.
But, Jan, do not underestimate digital residuals and jitter, very different from wow and flutter in human perception.
LP has a lot of shortcomings, which are probably not that irritating as signal correlated noises, jitters, phase modulations and other digital shortcomings.
But, Jan, do not underestimate digital residuals and jitter, very different from wow and flutter in human perception.
LP has a lot of shortcomings, which are probably not that irritating as signal correlated noises, jitters, phase modulations and other digital shortcomings.
Come on, guys, get real. Most LPs these days are not directly mastered from the output of some analog mixing console and analog sources. They are in fact mixed from a digital source, usually one with a slightly higher bit and sampling rate than 16/44.1.
So what that means is that the signal on the LP also went through a DAC at some point (and coming to think about it, an ADC is also just a DAC and a comparator). If you distrust DACs and digital playback, you might also scrap most CDs these days.
And chocoholic, do me a favor and read a text on signal theory. You remind me of this guy who travelled around German university town and put up one-man marches against quantum physics. His point was that matter just couldn't be 99.9% hollow and hence quantum physics had to be mistaken...
So what that means is that the signal on the LP also went through a DAC at some point (and coming to think about it, an ADC is also just a DAC and a comparator). If you distrust DACs and digital playback, you might also scrap most CDs these days.
And chocoholic, do me a favor and read a text on signal theory. You remind me of this guy who travelled around German university town and put up one-man marches against quantum physics. His point was that matter just couldn't be 99.9% hollow and hence quantum physics had to be mistaken...
capslock said:
We surely know.
I have a lot of LPs, starting from some 1960 (Columbia, Verve Decca), through early digital PCM era till nowadays. And you can tell the difference. Guess what is worst ....
I do not prefer LPs for classical music, as they lack from recordable dynamic range. In fact I do not prefer LPs, But I understand some advantages they have for human perception.
And - CDs are about correct (proper) replay, which is not easy at all!! (So our experiences may differ a lot).
Even in several last years there are excellent converters (digital filters) and players. It is more difficult to get "enough" from CD than from SACD and DVD-A.
And good mastering is of course needed (Bob Ludwig).
I am not sure and I am only guessing (as almost everyone).
Anyway, aliases must be avoided by steep anti-aliasing filter, both on A/D and D/A side. A/D side is, as known, 64 x 44.1 sigma-delta. Then decimation to 44.1, so filters are digital for both at A/D and D/A converters, with analog filter at the output behind D/A.
Digital filters, their algorithms and spectral purity (background) are surely one of the cases.
(as almost everyone).Anyway, aliases must be avoided by steep anti-aliasing filter, both on A/D and D/A side. A/D side is, as known, 64 x 44.1 sigma-delta. Then decimation to 44.1, so filters are digital for both at A/D and D/A converters, with analog filter at the output behind D/A.
Digital filters, their algorithms and spectral purity (background) are surely one of the cases.
lumanauw said:
Live musical instruments have quite high spectral content up to 40kHz (look at my SACD and LP spectral files). Ultrasound signals probably intermodulate on ear non-linearity, producing audible frequencies. You cannot hear ultrasound frequencies alone, but you can probably hear their intermodulation products with "audio range" frequencies.
P.S.: But I do not think that this is the only reason that makes a difference.
The following thread explains why commercial CDs sound so different than commercial LPs:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78783
The mix found in CDs is just not the same as in LPs, and it's usually heavily compressed to make it sound louder in boom boxes.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78783
The mix found in CDs is just not the same as in LPs, and it's usually heavily compressed to make it sound louder in boom boxes.
lumanauw said:
Hi David,
Maybe not -
There was at least one company that thought 16/44 wasn't good enough, (Decca?), they wanted it up'd to 20/44 at least. I think, just like any technology, there are tradeoffs that are considered and in this case playback time was the issue (they wanted to fit a symphony into one disk, don't remember which particular symphony and it happened to be ~70 minutes long).
Also, why would Sony et al introduce SACD (well, ok, aside from reducing bootlegging)?
The kinds of distortions / problems between LP and CD are very different (i.e analog distortions versus digital), and perhaps the bottom line is, the 'problems' with CD are just more annoying to the human ear.
Cheers!
Clem
Hi, EVA,
The 2 pictures here are interesting http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=906097#post906097
if the CD is mastered at lower volume (less peaking) will it sounds the same as LP?
The 2 pictures here are interesting http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=906097#post906097
if the CD is mastered at lower volume (less peaking) will it sounds the same as LP?
What matters is that the signal recorded into CDs is not the same signal as the one recorded into LPs. Furthermore, CDs usually contain a different mix with different EQ, done at a different time and with heavy compression (to make it very loud -and harsh- within the available dynamic range). That's like comparing apples to oranges.
In order for any valid comparison to take place, both discs have to be recorded from exactly the same signal (which is usually achieved by doing it at the same time and in the same place, something very unlikely to happen).
In order for any valid comparison to take place, both discs have to be recorded from exactly the same signal (which is usually achieved by doing it at the same time and in the same place, something very unlikely to happen).
Eva said:
Eva IMHO has a valid point.
I recently spent some time reading digitised LPs and various CD issues of the same album into a DAW and it is obvious that versions are mastered to entirely different standards. Even 'identical' CDs show differences, the question not being whether recent editions are slammed into 0dBFS but rather *how much* of the signal is clipped.
In some cases this was obviously done as part of the on-going loudness race. In other cases I wonder whether it simply was not the well-intended but ill-guided attempt of the mastering engineer to 'optimise' the medium's dynamic range by clipping off 'just a tiny handful' of peaks (*), throwing out the natural flow and dynamics of the music in this process.
---
Doing so is very tempting when you are sitting at a DAW. It is also something that was entirely impossible in the pre-DAW days, and thus something that was never done on LP.
Re anti-aliasing filters:
there are several options at the CD mastering stage that can be used to alleviate the problems with crappy ADC chips (in studio gear, yes!) and with crappy CD player implementations. All of these solutions trade something for something.
Absence of the discrete pre/post echo (see Lagadec) requires filters with a monotonic frequency response.
A shorter total filter impulse response (for the time-smear freaks) requires filter with a wider transition band. One could sacrifice passband for this. I have designed filters that are ruler flat out to 15kHz, then roll off to -140dB at 20kHz or 22kHz. -3dB is at around 18 or 19kHz. Impulse width is 400-500us, as opposed to the 1000us generally encountered for CD audio.
The treble loss is IMO insignificant. But then I can't hear above 15kHz anymore
One could do similar with a transition band from 15kHz to ... 24kHz or even higher. Yes, this allows a limited amount of aliasing. But the aliasing components all fall in the very top range of the treble band, while the ear cannot discern discrete pitch above ~12kHz. So the perception of the aliasing is only a slight brightening of the treble as a whole. dCS do this. The result can be an even shorter impulse width.
This is all a far cry from equiripple half-band filters, but still trivial on a powerful PC with Matlab or Octave.
These techniques are slowly being adopted in top-end pro ADCs (only those where the AA filtering is entirely in the hands of the manufacturer of the instrument, as opposed as carved in silicon) and in Digital Audio Workstation software and plug-ins.
there are several options at the CD mastering stage that can be used to alleviate the problems with crappy ADC chips (in studio gear, yes!) and with crappy CD player implementations. All of these solutions trade something for something.
Absence of the discrete pre/post echo (see Lagadec) requires filters with a monotonic frequency response.
A shorter total filter impulse response (for the time-smear freaks) requires filter with a wider transition band. One could sacrifice passband for this. I have designed filters that are ruler flat out to 15kHz, then roll off to -140dB at 20kHz or 22kHz. -3dB is at around 18 or 19kHz. Impulse width is 400-500us, as opposed to the 1000us generally encountered for CD audio.
The treble loss is IMO insignificant. But then I can't hear above 15kHz anymore
One could do similar with a transition band from 15kHz to ... 24kHz or even higher. Yes, this allows a limited amount of aliasing. But the aliasing components all fall in the very top range of the treble band, while the ear cannot discern discrete pitch above ~12kHz. So the perception of the aliasing is only a slight brightening of the treble as a whole. dCS do this. The result can be an even shorter impulse width.
This is all a far cry from equiripple half-band filters, but still trivial on a powerful PC with Matlab or Octave.
These techniques are slowly being adopted in top-end pro ADCs (only those where the AA filtering is entirely in the hands of the manufacturer of the instrument, as opposed as carved in silicon) and in Digital Audio Workstation software and plug-ins.
I have read some interesting threads on some Pro Recording Engineering forums.
While I tend to agree a good analogue source will always slaughter a good CD source, a good CD source can be a hit and miss affair as its so full of false assumptions and misinformations.
Most engineers will monitor a modern recording following A/D and then back via D/A conversions, often via headpones or near field monitors. It is reasonable to assume that they, having seen and hear the original acoustic performances know what is right and wrong from the original.
Really good converters have never been afordable to consumers so they master the end product to delivery a desired result on the basis of what consumers are likely to be playing it back on.
However, impressive and affordable D/As are recently are now available like the Lavry DA10, the Altmann Attraction dac.
While I tend to agree a good analogue source will always slaughter a good CD source, a good CD source can be a hit and miss affair as its so full of false assumptions and misinformations.
Most engineers will monitor a modern recording following A/D and then back via D/A conversions, often via headpones or near field monitors. It is reasonable to assume that they, having seen and hear the original acoustic performances know what is right and wrong from the original.
Really good converters have never been afordable to consumers so they master the end product to delivery a desired result on the basis of what consumers are likely to be playing it back on.
However, impressive and affordable D/As are recently are now available like the Lavry DA10, the Altmann Attraction dac.
clem_o said:
IMHO:
...when Philips and Sony settled the standard of 16bit/44kHz, they settled it to a level, which they rated as good enough to satisfy 80% of possible customers. And they where perfectly right. CD wiped out LP almost overnight, because it is so practical and good enough for most people. And as they have an excellent marketing, they won the race even in sound comparison, because if you compare cheap systems, most often the cheap CD players sound more acceptable than an old scratchy LP on a poor player. These guys know exactly what they are doing.
Business in large scale, not just making happy some freaks like us.
Just the other week, I was talking with James Lock about some of the subjects being discussed here...
He said that in the beginning of the digital era, many digitalisations of old material was careless, and because of that, the same work on LP or cd sounds totally different, because at that time, it was pertinent to have more and more titles available to the public.
Some of the discs you buy now at the stores are the same careless jobs done earlier.
Adding to that, the degradation of master tapes dictates that some of those fantastic recordings are lost forever.
That’s what I call the perfect sound forever…
This append on a quality driven company like Decca. Now think of what happen at regular recording companies.
So just because it is the same performance on CD and LP don’t expect the same quality, and I have to agree with some post made on this thread. Mastering dictates almost everything.
Lock was very vehement in bashing accountants for destroying the audio industry, and unfortunately I have to agree with him… Only money counts theses days.
A personal remark is that, my cd player blows away any turntable a ever heard (and I have heard some pretty expensive ones), even my won LP setup, on a good recording, but I have to admit that many recording just sound better on LP.
To those who don’t know James:
http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&q=james+lock+decca&meta=
Regards
rick
He said that in the beginning of the digital era, many digitalisations of old material was careless, and because of that, the same work on LP or cd sounds totally different, because at that time, it was pertinent to have more and more titles available to the public.
Some of the discs you buy now at the stores are the same careless jobs done earlier.
Adding to that, the degradation of master tapes dictates that some of those fantastic recordings are lost forever.
That’s what I call the perfect sound forever…
This append on a quality driven company like Decca. Now think of what happen at regular recording companies.
So just because it is the same performance on CD and LP don’t expect the same quality, and I have to agree with some post made on this thread. Mastering dictates almost everything.
Lock was very vehement in bashing accountants for destroying the audio industry, and unfortunately I have to agree with him… Only money counts theses days.
A personal remark is that, my cd player blows away any turntable a ever heard (and I have heard some pretty expensive ones), even my won LP setup, on a good recording, but I have to admit that many recording just sound better on LP.
To those who don’t know James:
http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&q=james+lock+decca&meta=
Regards
rick
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.