when i listen to Dark side of the moon on vinyl i can hear them fade out the tracks in between songs as the tape his rolls off, that fine detail is masked on cd, it just sounds like background hiss, not tape noise.
I've listened to studio masters, tape and digital and they both sound more like vinyl in their represenation of space and insturument acoustic and decay than cd does.
Cd is stilted in terms of detail and resolution in comparisson.
It's not that i like vinyl more than cd, as a medium i orignally had no preference between them.
however experience has shown me that a good record will beat any cd of the same album. and i have at least 50 album on both media.
maybe it is noise on vinyl shunting the level up past some internal hearing limit and my brain being able to extract the noise from the rest of the music, maybe not, i don't care.
if the record industry decided to offer lossless 24/96 or higher as the new music carrier for quality, i'd be all over it, but they aren't and until they increased the quality somehow my experience of cd remains unchnaged by your exposure to unavailable studio masters.
I've listened to studio masters, tape and digital and they both sound more like vinyl in their represenation of space and insturument acoustic and decay than cd does.
Cd is stilted in terms of detail and resolution in comparisson.
It's not that i like vinyl more than cd, as a medium i orignally had no preference between them.
however experience has shown me that a good record will beat any cd of the same album. and i have at least 50 album on both media.
maybe it is noise on vinyl shunting the level up past some internal hearing limit and my brain being able to extract the noise from the rest of the music, maybe not, i don't care.
if the record industry decided to offer lossless 24/96 or higher as the new music carrier for quality, i'd be all over it, but they aren't and until they increased the quality somehow my experience of cd remains unchnaged by your exposure to unavailable studio masters.
sq225917 said:
That's where the problem lies in comparisons, and why I gave the example that I did in my previous post. The fact you can't hear the tape hiss fade away on the CD was because it was removed during the mastering process, either manually with a fader, or electronically with a noise gate. There is also Eq and compression added to the analog 2 track, by a different engineer, on different equipment, using a different monitoring system. Apples and oranges.
What you are comparing in your example are 2 completely different masterings of an analog 2 track master.
You are not (sic)comparing analog vs digital formats as a recording/playback medium.
Cheers
which seat were you sat in when they mastered dark side of the moon?
you are just guessing what they did to remove the tape hiss based on your experience of studio practice, you have no idea what was actually done.
and if that's the case then why is it, that the tape hiss exists, on my original vinyl release, my Mofi release and my 30th anniversary release, but doesnt convey the same insight into the recording process on any cd version i've ever heard.
The tape hiss is still there on the cd, but at a lower level and with a different shape, it's less spiky, it contains less info, and tells me nothing about the recording.
maybe all cd engineers remove the tape hiss because they think it will make cd sound better, less like vinyl, when all they are actually doing is trimming band sof info from the recording.
you are just guessing what they did to remove the tape hiss based on your experience of studio practice, you have no idea what was actually done.
and if that's the case then why is it, that the tape hiss exists, on my original vinyl release, my Mofi release and my 30th anniversary release, but doesnt convey the same insight into the recording process on any cd version i've ever heard.
The tape hiss is still there on the cd, but at a lower level and with a different shape, it's less spiky, it contains less info, and tells me nothing about the recording.
maybe all cd engineers remove the tape hiss because they think it will make cd sound better, less like vinyl, when all they are actually doing is trimming band sof info from the recording.
Oops. Sorry.
What I meant to say was they "probably" tried to remove the tape hiss during the CD mastering, and it sounds like the mastering equipment added self noise during the re-mastering.
In any event, it sounds like it was a poor mastering job. There are plenty of examples of that.
Cheers
What I meant to say was they "probably" tried to remove the tape hiss during the CD mastering, and it sounds like the mastering equipment added self noise during the re-mastering.
In any event, it sounds like it was a poor mastering job. There are plenty of examples of that.
Cheers
yeh the cd version sucks, less detail and compressed dynamics compare to the vinyl versions.
I wonder why they would purposely do that.
I wonder why they would purposely do that.
I have a hunch that compressed recordings sound better on boomboxes/car radios than live recordings. Unfortunately, they sound much worse through a 'hifi'. Kind of makes me feel like I'm fighting an uphill battle.
Daygloworange said:
It doesn't ACTUALLY increase the detail, it just enhances your sense of hearing for low level detail. It's a real enough effect with sound science behind it. Fundamentally, the brain like randomness.
A New Scientist magazine article from 2006 outlined the effects of stochastic resonance, some of it relevant to hearing.....
www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020324.300-noises-on.html
Has anyone heard the DVD-A version without additional processing supposedly taken from the quadrophonic master tape at 48/24 . It is a bootleg and that raises moral questions I know but purely on a technical viewpoint out of all of my SACD's, DVD-A's and CD's it is probably my best digital recording. And it reveals quite starkly how much processing has been used on the 30th anniversary SACD to make it "sound better".sq225917 said:
Daygloworange said:
I thought this had long been established.
See sbrads' post for more info. It's also true in the visual domain.
And speaking of visual, if you ever get to see an "Eastman print" of a film, you're in for a treat. This is a print struck directly from the master. Looks nothing like the murky, grainy stuff you see at your local cinema. Sort of the master tape of the film world.
simeon_noir said:
simeon_noir, are you referring to this release?
"Dark Side Of The Moon
From the original 1/2" Master Tapes
This is the real deal, not the usual Q8 or SQ versions with all their limitations (limited bandwidth on the Q8, Matrixed surround on the SQ etc) but a genuine transfer from the original master tapes. Finally you can hear Alan Parsons mix as it was always intended to be heard in studio quality audio. The only "liberty" we have taken here is an additional .1 track. You can make up your own mind as to whether or not it is a worthwhile addition.
It also features all new artwork in both sections specially created for this DVD-Audio release.
The disc will play on all DVD players, as it is a DVD-Audio/Video "hybrid" containing the following:
Audio_TS
MLP Lossless at 24/96 Resolution in 4.1
Video_TS
DTS from 24/48 Source files
Dolby Digital from 24/48 Source files"
panomaniac said:
I couldn't find this link before, but here it is........it's a demo of the effects of stochastic resonance in the visual domain. Set a couple of parameters, try noise level = 120, delay = 16ms then look at the detail!
www.fizyka.umk.pl/~duch/ref/demos/Szum-obraz/
panomaniac said:
Ok guys, I'll check it out. Thanks for the links.
It sounds a little far fetched, but part of the way dithering works in digital audio is to randomize anomalies into noise.
Cheers
sbrads said:
Most excellent! I was going to say that you need the right noise at the right levels - but that demo page says far more than I ever could. Cool! Thanks for the link.
(Wonder if an audio demo could be made?)
An example from my days as a video projectionist.
I would try to defocus the projector so that the raster lines - and later pixels - would just blend together. Smooth it out. I liked it - but NO ONE else did. "It's not sharp!"
You could not see the raster lines or pixels at normal viewing distances, but they did somehow add to the perceived detail. Noise?
BTW - have any of you had experience downloading and burning the Linn Records 24 bit files to DVD?
The test tracks play fine on my computer, but I'd like to try some on DVD-A.
Any experience with burning? What software and steps did you use?
Sorry for the OT.
The test tracks play fine on my computer, but I'd like to try some on DVD-A.
Any experience with burning? What software and steps did you use?
Sorry for the OT.
And yet, since the late 70's/early 80's, most recordings are digitally mastered. That is why most of the problems (IMO) are due to the mastering process. Take (please!) the recent crap that comes out under the 'remastered' heading - the problem must be that many recording engineers can't hear the digital clipping this causes.
Vinyl>CD
Panomaniac
Have a look at : http://www.cirlinca.com/products.htm
I downloaded "Claire Martin-Too Darn Hot" in 24/96 .flac.
I then downloaded the 2007 version of .flac, and converted the file back to .wav. Using Solo DVD-Audio Authoring , I then burned a DVD-A which sounded very good indeed, when fed into my Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 (modded) via SPDIF at the ORIGINAL resolution. The program permits 5 copies with the trial version, so you can decide if you like it or not.Their website actually mentions that some people use their program to burn DVDs from downloaded Linn Record's files. This would seem to be an excellent program to use for archiving vinyl to DVD-A. (assuming you have a DVD-A capable DVD player !) The program will also upsample lower resolution files to 24/96 for you.
BTW, I was recently reminded of one of the reasons why I gave up on vinyl.
I rediscovered a CD that I had burned ,( using a very good phono stage) from the album "The Divine Miss M-Bette Midler" It has buggerall dynamic range, due to the common practice back then, of severe dynamic compression , so that they could fit more on each side of the LP !
SandyK
Panomaniac
Have a look at : http://www.cirlinca.com/products.htm
I downloaded "Claire Martin-Too Darn Hot" in 24/96 .flac.
I then downloaded the 2007 version of .flac, and converted the file back to .wav. Using Solo DVD-Audio Authoring , I then burned a DVD-A which sounded very good indeed, when fed into my Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 (modded) via SPDIF at the ORIGINAL resolution. The program permits 5 copies with the trial version, so you can decide if you like it or not.Their website actually mentions that some people use their program to burn DVDs from downloaded Linn Record's files. This would seem to be an excellent program to use for archiving vinyl to DVD-A. (assuming you have a DVD-A capable DVD player !) The program will also upsample lower resolution files to 24/96 for you.
BTW, I was recently reminded of one of the reasons why I gave up on vinyl.
I rediscovered a CD that I had burned ,( using a very good phono stage) from the album "The Divine Miss M-Bette Midler" It has buggerall dynamic range, due to the common practice back then, of severe dynamic compression , so that they could fit more on each side of the LP !
SandyK
The Loudness War and CDs
That is one of the main reasons why I consider going back to vinyl.
The other big reason is that I still cannot find CD copies of all music I want.
CD copies could be so much better than they often are. It seems that vinyls were very carefully mastered but many new CDs are not.
More bits and higher sample rate would be good too, but they are purposeless if the recordings are spoiled in the mastering process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Ouroboros said:
That is one of the main reasons why I consider going back to vinyl.
The other big reason is that I still cannot find CD copies of all music I want.
CD copies could be so much better than they often are. It seems that vinyls were very carefully mastered but many new CDs are not.
More bits and higher sample rate would be good too, but they are purposeless if the recordings are spoiled in the mastering process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
The loudness war article exactly explains why cd's are being so "poorly" mastering. We say poor, and trust me, I don't disagree, but much of the public really does prefer highly compressed music as it sounds louder and is easier to listen to. For most movie soundtracks this is also true, and many of my non-audiophile friends, they find the Dynamic range of my system, and the movies and music I like annoying, rather than a virtue. Where I revel in natural range of music, they prefer what I call background noise. They don't like when, for instance, a piece of music goes from a comfortable listening level to extremely loud and over powering (a crescendo). Not surprising really, from a relaxation or comfort standpoint who would, but it is reality. Instruments have natural dynamic range, which we take advantage of when developing music. Loudness is used just as differing tones or rhythm's are used to make the music, well musical.
As for the debate of digital and analogue, lets make no mistake, Analogue is better than digital for the reproduction of music because music is analogue, we hear in analogue, and thus when it comes right down to it, regardless of recording medium, it must be analogue at some point. Yes thats a massive over simplification of things, but I really believe that some people don't understand that very important concept. The issue is that, when encoding live analogue music (Or studio, whatever), what method allows the most amount of the information that is really there to be maintained, and reproduced. Digital encoding is a very efficient method, but is naturally flawed, as you must lose something making the transition from analogue to digital. However, is that loss, that flaw, audible. Well, yes, but is it worse than the flaws that most current analogue recording mediums have? Hard to say, and that is the real debate I believe. Analogue tape will always be a better medium for accurately recording music in my mind, but is expensive and difficult to work with. It's also a somewhat flawed format that I don't think has ever been done correctly. None the less, one of the major manufacturers of analogue recording tape has shown that tape as wide as 6" run as very fps rates, beyond any normal recording rate, say 60fps or higher, will have as wide a frequency response, and large a dynamic range, and as low distortion as modern 24 bit 192khz digital, without the inherent flaws of digital. However, that would mean that you would need miles and miles of analogue tape, massive recording decks, and manual editing. Who wants to go from Pro tools to manual splicing again, not me.
as for whether the Tape project would allow most people to hear their true qualities, no probably not. However, look at the price of that project. Anyone who has signed up for that can likely afford very good tape machines, or at least should if they don't want to waste there money. None the less, buying and refurbishing a good tape deck is not that major of an investment, and good sound can be had for not a huge outlay. I have a Tandenburg and Revox tape deck for 1/2" and a Japanese studio Technics deck capable of playing 1" and 2" tapes, but unfortunately have only been able to use it with my own recordings. I was able to refurbish all of these units in little time, and had an engineer friend help me align the tape heads. They have been perfectly reliable ever since then.
As for the debate of digital and analogue, lets make no mistake, Analogue is better than digital for the reproduction of music because music is analogue, we hear in analogue, and thus when it comes right down to it, regardless of recording medium, it must be analogue at some point. Yes thats a massive over simplification of things, but I really believe that some people don't understand that very important concept. The issue is that, when encoding live analogue music (Or studio, whatever), what method allows the most amount of the information that is really there to be maintained, and reproduced. Digital encoding is a very efficient method, but is naturally flawed, as you must lose something making the transition from analogue to digital. However, is that loss, that flaw, audible. Well, yes, but is it worse than the flaws that most current analogue recording mediums have? Hard to say, and that is the real debate I believe. Analogue tape will always be a better medium for accurately recording music in my mind, but is expensive and difficult to work with. It's also a somewhat flawed format that I don't think has ever been done correctly. None the less, one of the major manufacturers of analogue recording tape has shown that tape as wide as 6" run as very fps rates, beyond any normal recording rate, say 60fps or higher, will have as wide a frequency response, and large a dynamic range, and as low distortion as modern 24 bit 192khz digital, without the inherent flaws of digital. However, that would mean that you would need miles and miles of analogue tape, massive recording decks, and manual editing. Who wants to go from Pro tools to manual splicing again, not me.
as for whether the Tape project would allow most people to hear their true qualities, no probably not. However, look at the price of that project. Anyone who has signed up for that can likely afford very good tape machines, or at least should if they don't want to waste there money. None the less, buying and refurbishing a good tape deck is not that major of an investment, and good sound can be had for not a huge outlay. I have a Tandenburg and Revox tape deck for 1/2" and a Japanese studio Technics deck capable of playing 1" and 2" tapes, but unfortunately have only been able to use it with my own recordings. I was able to refurbish all of these units in little time, and had an engineer friend help me align the tape heads. They have been perfectly reliable ever since then.
time?
I'm surprised no one has talked about time here. I think the biggest difference between LP and CD is LP's ability to resolve time. Transients on LPs sound much 'crisper' and more life-like to me.
I don't know if that has anything to do with a clearer or more 'full bodied' soundstage, which I also hear, but to me that is the most significant difference.
I love how clean a well recorded CD sounds, but the transients always sound rounded off to me (and the soundstage loses its substance). And they make me somehow uncomfortable.
I know a guy that's done a lot of work on DACs and how they affect the temporal resolution of digital music. I've actually auditioned a DAC he designed that eliminated or reduced this time distortion (he said it's caused by the FIR filters used).
You could A/B it with a remote. It took a while to get a bead on the change but there was a definite difference in resolution. The soundstage sounded 'fuzzy' when in normal mode and everything sounded more clearly defined when his (patented?) circuit was switched in.
We were doing some hardcore A/B testing, which makes me uncomfortable, especially when sitting down with a golden-eared industry vet - so for me the magic question of whether or not we were listening to a 'digital LP' (something with the strong points of both) was never answered.
Anyway, that's always been my take on LPs. They're preserving something in the time domain that CDs fail to.
In theory, a NOS DAC would avoid this distortion (while creating other problems?), at least as it's found in DACs, but I haven't heard one so I couldn't comment.
Thanks to whoever posted that stochastic resonance link. Awesome stuff!
Peace
I'm surprised no one has talked about time here. I think the biggest difference between LP and CD is LP's ability to resolve time. Transients on LPs sound much 'crisper' and more life-like to me.
I don't know if that has anything to do with a clearer or more 'full bodied' soundstage, which I also hear, but to me that is the most significant difference.
I love how clean a well recorded CD sounds, but the transients always sound rounded off to me (and the soundstage loses its substance). And they make me somehow uncomfortable.
I know a guy that's done a lot of work on DACs and how they affect the temporal resolution of digital music. I've actually auditioned a DAC he designed that eliminated or reduced this time distortion (he said it's caused by the FIR filters used).
You could A/B it with a remote. It took a while to get a bead on the change but there was a definite difference in resolution. The soundstage sounded 'fuzzy' when in normal mode and everything sounded more clearly defined when his (patented?) circuit was switched in.
We were doing some hardcore A/B testing, which makes me uncomfortable, especially when sitting down with a golden-eared industry vet - so for me the magic question of whether or not we were listening to a 'digital LP' (something with the strong points of both) was never answered.
Anyway, that's always been my take on LPs. They're preserving something in the time domain that CDs fail to.
In theory, a NOS DAC would avoid this distortion (while creating other problems?), at least as it's found in DACs, but I haven't heard one so I couldn't comment.
Thanks to whoever posted that stochastic resonance link. Awesome stuff!
Peace
- Status
- Not open for further replies.