And how do all those reflections disappear before they hit the mic? Have you ever recorded anything? Do you think recording engineers know nothing about reverberation?
Not this again. There are several people here that have shown that the average CD on the average CD player ( even in a PC ) has very few (maybe 5) uncorrectable read errors per CD. So whole songs can and do go buy with no errors. "struggle by the CD player" ?? You get errors or you dont. Clean your CDs.
As for binaural recordings, if you want to really see what they can do, EQ the recording to match your ear canel EQ. (Small mics way in your ear, then FREQ sweep.) Or even better, make prostetic ears that are identical to yours and put them on the dummy head. Then it will be like being there. (if you dont do this , the closer the dummys ears match yours the more realistic the sound will be.)
But a warning. Most people think dummy head recordings done from the best seat in the house have too much reverberation, too much audience noise, not enough high end, not enough detail, and a head blocking the horn section. Its surprising how people filter all this out at the show, but immediatley notice this from a recording. You cant have your cake ...
But a warning. Most people think dummy head recordings done from the best seat in the house have too much reverberation, too much audience noise, not enough high end, not enough detail, and a head blocking the horn section. Its surprising how people filter all this out at the show, but immediatley notice this from a recording. You cant have your cake ...
I assume this to be the case, as the CD medium can be very good.
I thought you had done a lot ripping, no?
I have. (100+ sound effects CDs for work, as well as a lot of music) Its usualy at high speed ( which is what the lasers in modern PC CD drives are optimized for), and all I hear is the CD player changing speeds (no chugging unless the disc is damaged or dirty) to keep the buffer full.
Last edited:
The capitals mean a generic you, and it dosnt really mater who or how many, your just testing peoples preferences. Why is a fact trolling?
Well that's usually what I get, too. But there is the odd CD, even brand new, that takes forever to rip. The drive seems to have a hard time reading it. Once on it's on the hard drive, no worries. Also sometimes the ripper refuses a a track or two. I remove the CD to find the tiniest of smudges or dirt. Strange when some big scratches might not bother it.
My point was, they aren't perfect. Nor are the readers. But it is quite possible to get bit perfect copies in most cases. But this topic has been beaten to death, already.
If you ask your test subjects: which sounds better, A or B. The only data your getting is there preference (what THEY think sounds better). Now if you you can switch between a live performance and A and B and ask which sounds more like the live performance A or B then your getting closer, but its still not a perfect test because you also have to consider the mic to final media chain. For example if the live performance is bass heavy to the right the CD can reproduce this while the LP will not, if the vocals have a lot of siblance, ditto, if the instruments have freqs above 22k than the other way around. I think you get the point.
Last edited:
But in most cases it just doesn't matter. If we are talking about music, not a literal transcription.
Kind of a contradicting statement.
Ive never had a new disc not completely rip.
And yes lets not beat it anymore.
Not sure what you mean. I guess Im taking the original question as what is more accurate LP or CD. Not what sounds better, which is objectively meaningless because all that counts is your own subjective view, and to end this thread all we need to do is take a vote.
Last edited:
Exactly the same suggestion I did about a month ago, for the reasons that 1) both technologies in well designed embodiments are close enough for a discussion that runs for so long 2) both technologies have scope for improvement.
To this I would like to add that both technologies are becoming obsolete at a remarkeable rate. There will be afficionados to cherish the shining mechano-electrical machines these technologies spawned for generations to come, but the future is to non-spinning information carriers.
Therefore, I can't reference because I am writing this right now, a thread some pages ago drew my attention. Citing from memory what was put down in a huge font: how better is a high end music server than CD.
Because this addresses the question. More bits per unit of time is better, but also more expensive. How can we be assured that in the future, we get high end bitrates into our sound systems. Or will we be relegated to a 128Kb/sec world?
And if your like me and believe the repro chain should not add or take away anything, so you can hear as close as possible what the recording engineer/producers/musicians heard in the mix, including the distortions they add (processing) (this is what they want too). If you were to look at a reproduction of a Picasso wouldnt you want the colors as close as possible to the original or heavy on the red because you prefer reds? . IMHO Accurate is more important than a subjective "GOOD". Pano, dont you want people to hear your recordings the way you intended? I am starting to think I am the exception among audiophiles, not the norm.
If on the other hand, you want it to sound the way you want it to sound, knock yourself out and add all the distortions you want, just dont try to tell others that it is better.
Last edited:
By voting with your dollars. After the my first itunes download, I wrote apple a letter that asked them why I was paying full price for half the quality, and then said I would not buy another song till it was lossless. Now if 5% of the rest of there customers did likewise things would change. Bandwidth is not the problem. Look how big the free movie trailers from there site are. The other problem is the young are used to MP3s and lots of them even prefer them to the CD. (they "sound better") Hmmm sounds familiar.
When 'better' actually means 'sounds better' why not? Do you have a problem with people saying it sounds better?
To some people "better" means more technically correct. To others it means "sounds more like the real thing."
Both are valid, it's a matter of taste. It's good to know your goals.
Both are valid, it's a matter of taste. It's good to know your goals.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.