I've read some of the stuff here and I have to admit, most of it is over my head!! But I think you will be able answer my question quite simply... Many years ago, as CD's were taking over I had the opportunity to buy a Reader's Digest record set of Montavani and his Orchestra. Of, course I never played it very much and knew I would want to digitize it some day. I did that this last week. I used GrooveMechanic, which I don't seem to see mentioned too often but appears to be a very sound piece of software and worth paying for. G/M repairs clicks, rumble etc. and I am very pleased with the result. I went on to convert to VBR MP3's for my phone but want to keep the best audio for home use. So I burned the WAV's to a CD using MS Media Player (thinking that this should be a simple process which even MS couldn't screw up!!) Now I know my current speakers aren't that great but there is a REAL difference in the sound quality here! What's going on? Is there a better way to do this? Thanks,
Here is a fair description, without method of removing all harmonics, on how music is stripped of as much data as possible to be able to compress the information on a cd, dvd, mp3 etc.
Understanding Audio Data Compression: MP3s, AACs, and more - Blog - Universal Audio
Listening to Beatles on vinyl is far superior to CD.
My preference and taste of course but bass is from the centre on a record not to one side, as on a cd.
Understanding Audio Data Compression: MP3s, AACs, and more - Blog - Universal Audio
Listening to Beatles on vinyl is far superior to CD.
My preference and taste of course but bass is from the centre on a record not to one side, as on a cd.
Thanks Jon, Learned most of that as I was digitizing a bunch of Vinyls last week. But didn't understand the CD part of the problem that you refer to! I had noticed that I was getting better sound off my LP's than from a CD (had a CD of Mantovani also) and when I started I thought I would get cleaner sound by downloading FLACs from the web. But I was surprised to notice that I got noticeably better results, even from old, scratched LPs. (Plug for GrooveMechanic again!!) and was coming to believe that the FLACs must be from CD's that were inferior (maybe MP3 source) recordings. So I was interested to see your comment about sound being split on CD's! How bad is that and can if it be eliminated? (got to check if I can play WAV's!!!) OBTW. If you are a Beatles fan (who isn't?) you should try to get your hands on "The Beatles 1962 - 1970" by King's Road. It's not that they are better that the Beatles but they are VERY good and their recording is MUCH better. Looks like you can buy for about $10 on Amazon right now - if they are too worn I can send you decent WAV's from mine. WORST EVER PRESENT... The Beatles - Live at the BBC !!!! AHhh, Yeah.. Never made it to the Cavern - the Jacaranda was our fav haunt!
And what sort of data compression do you think is used on a CD?
It must be truly remarkable if it can redo the panpotting of bass done by the recording console.
In the 60's it was not unusual to mix an instrument in one of the channels. Consoles had just several channels and tape recorders had 3 tracks max. It is interesting to read about adventures of early recording engineers recording loud electric instruments. It is quite possible that bass guitar on some Beatles recordings was recorded in one channel (left or right). But those early engineers were heroes. One of my favorite was Gus Dudgeon of Decca Records. Find some Decca John Mayall LP and hear for yourself. (For instance Crusade) Such clarity yet so much character. No sterility at all. Such excellent recordings with such imperfect recording equipment. Much to learn from those guys.
When I make CDs from my vinyls I use Audacity (without compression). Frankly I am surprised how good digital transfers sound, almost better than LPs itself. And I am not the only one that have such impression.
When I make CDs from my vinyls I use Audacity (without compression). Frankly I am surprised how good digital transfers sound, almost better than LPs itself. And I am not the only one that have such impression.
I have the slight suspicion that Jon is comparing the original mono vinyl version with a cd version of the stereo album.
You get that one-channel bass a lot with early stereo records which were recorded and mixed in studios not properly equipped for stereo ie 3 or 4 track recorders and single output consoles without panpots. They just did what they could to get on the stereo band wagon.
You get that one-channel bass a lot with early stereo records which were recorded and mixed in studios not properly equipped for stereo ie 3 or 4 track recorders and single output consoles without panpots. They just did what they could to get on the stereo band wagon.
Ivan, One thing I do know is that Audacity is best for CD's but if you want to get a good recording from an old LP try GrooveMechanic, NOT sellin'. just Sayin'... The algorithms (or whatever you call them) in G/M are specifically engineered for Vinyl and will do a MUCH better job of cleaning up an old LP. G/M is NOT recommended for CD's, however - use Audacity! I am now noticing the split a lot. Seem to have the bass on one side the mid-tone on the other and voice in the middle. Wish I could find that old Hi-Fi test record of steam trains!!!! 🙂 What Jon says seems right! The Mantovani LP and WAV don't sound like they are split, but the CD does! HOWEVER, am beginning to believe that my computer's built-in sounds card might be better than my high-end, '80's amp!!!
I'm curious about what differences you find between an LP and your recording of it burned to CD. Let's say you did not try to fix the pops and clicks in Groove Mechanic. I am curious about what differences you are hearing when it gets to CD.
Do you hear a difference between your computer playback and the CD you make?
Do you hear a difference between your computer playback and the CD you make?
Pano,
I do not use computer for listening to the music because fan inside makes a lot of noise and the noise is noise be it electrical or mechanical. It ruins subjective impression. So I can't say anything about the difference LP vs. PC. But when I use Audacity for digital transfers to CD (without compression) the sound is clearer and has more authority. The reason could be that with Audacity I can control the level of the signal. That has a profound effect on subjective impression. Higher level always gives more exciting sound, higher level of detail and more authority. After years of subjective tests I came to the conclusion that gain level has a profound effect on the sound of any amplifier. Higher gain always gives subjective impression that I described. This is somewhat counter- intuitive because with higher gain noise floor is higher but it seems that it does not hurt the sound one iota. (High signal level simply kills the noise) Higher gain brings the described advantages with any amp topology.
See, Japanese amps sound (in general) much better than most UK, US and European amps. The reason is that Japanese engineers concluded that power amp gain lower than 35dBs simply does not sound good. Producers in other countries cling to the idea that absolute imperative is to get as low distortion as possible and as low noise as possible. They value specs more than anything.
Higher gain sound much better than lower gain in any amp. You can try it for yourself, just change the gain setting resistor in some amp and hear the difference. Japanese producers never use gain lower than 35 dBs in power amp sections of integrated amps and never use a gain lower than 10dBs in preamp sections. That is too high overall gain, but the amps sound much better with it. To mitigate the problem with headroom (too loud sound with low setting of volume pot) Japanese producers use high value pots (100 - 200k) between pre and power amp sections and put 1M resistor after the pot. This is not technically perfect solution but it sounds better.
Charles,
Good point. Original mono LP recordings are unsurpassed in subjective terms.
I do not use computer for listening to the music because fan inside makes a lot of noise and the noise is noise be it electrical or mechanical. It ruins subjective impression. So I can't say anything about the difference LP vs. PC. But when I use Audacity for digital transfers to CD (without compression) the sound is clearer and has more authority. The reason could be that with Audacity I can control the level of the signal. That has a profound effect on subjective impression. Higher level always gives more exciting sound, higher level of detail and more authority. After years of subjective tests I came to the conclusion that gain level has a profound effect on the sound of any amplifier. Higher gain always gives subjective impression that I described. This is somewhat counter- intuitive because with higher gain noise floor is higher but it seems that it does not hurt the sound one iota. (High signal level simply kills the noise) Higher gain brings the described advantages with any amp topology.
See, Japanese amps sound (in general) much better than most UK, US and European amps. The reason is that Japanese engineers concluded that power amp gain lower than 35dBs simply does not sound good. Producers in other countries cling to the idea that absolute imperative is to get as low distortion as possible and as low noise as possible. They value specs more than anything.
Higher gain sound much better than lower gain in any amp. You can try it for yourself, just change the gain setting resistor in some amp and hear the difference. Japanese producers never use gain lower than 35 dBs in power amp sections of integrated amps and never use a gain lower than 10dBs in preamp sections. That is too high overall gain, but the amps sound much better with it. To mitigate the problem with headroom (too loud sound with low setting of volume pot) Japanese producers use high value pots (100 - 200k) between pre and power amp sections and put 1M resistor after the pot. This is not technically perfect solution but it sounds better.
Charles,
Good point. Original mono LP recordings are unsurpassed in subjective terms.
Pano, It's subjective of course, but the CD seems to be more "tinny" and some of the percussion is raised to an almost annoying level. I just tried it with my phones and set the amp to all mid settings. Of course if I play back on the computer only MS media player will play the CD and I have never liked that much (may be just 'cause I don't care for MS!!) Ivan, I understand (enough of) you say and I think I got good results with a program called MP3Gain. It's freeware and it also does "album gain". It doesn't work on WAV files though and I would really like to be able to do that before burning a CD. Any Ideas?
I've used audacity on a number of occasions to digitize vinyl with an M-Audio 2496 and gotten excellent results. My records are in good enough condition that I don't feel the need for any processing.
I'm often surprised at how good the needle drops actually sound when compared to the original vinyl. I record at 44kHz/16 bit or 88.2/96kHz/24 bit
I don't often burn CDs as I use a media server and a portable player.
I'm often surprised at how good the needle drops actually sound when compared to the original vinyl. I record at 44kHz/16 bit or 88.2/96kHz/24 bit
I don't often burn CDs as I use a media server and a portable player.
Thanks for the answers guy. I was just wondering if it was something being done by the burning software. You do have to be a little careful with levels and such, so maybe that's it.
Unfortunately, subjective impressions, which feature in just about all postings, mean nothing other than they have an entertainment value.
If you look at capturing vinyl to CD as a chain of processes, each link in the chain has the potential for loosing some of the original sound.
Vinyl to cart. same loss in both CD and direct listening. Remove from comparison.
Cart/pre-amp. Same loss.
Analog to digital conversion. Use special software or general-use (Audacity)? Processing to remove rumble can reduce bass. Processing to remove ticks/pops can remove treble. Processing to remove tape hiss can also remove music. Possible cause of reduced quality?
Compress to MP3. Based on many blind tests, may cause audible loss.
Burn to CD, if done to standard audio CD, no compression, should be no loss. Change in volume level, though, can very easily cause perceived difference in quality.
Action Plan: Test using different software for capture. Test matching levels very carefully.
My personal experience is that I can not hear any difference in quality between vinyl and my vinyl rips saved to FLAC.
Vinyl to cart. same loss in both CD and direct listening. Remove from comparison.
Cart/pre-amp. Same loss.
Analog to digital conversion. Use special software or general-use (Audacity)? Processing to remove rumble can reduce bass. Processing to remove ticks/pops can remove treble. Processing to remove tape hiss can also remove music. Possible cause of reduced quality?
Compress to MP3. Based on many blind tests, may cause audible loss.
Burn to CD, if done to standard audio CD, no compression, should be no loss. Change in volume level, though, can very easily cause perceived difference in quality.
Action Plan: Test using different software for capture. Test matching levels very carefully.
My personal experience is that I can not hear any difference in quality between vinyl and my vinyl rips saved to FLAC.
Hi,
I was recording vinyl onto cd via computer starting back in 1998.
I used a PC with a Soundblaster Live sampling rate of 44.1kHz and SoundForge software which was the best for this and may still be as I haven't done this in decades now 🙂
I still have the CD's and they are stored on hard drives in WAV, the original recordingformat I used.
These recordings seemed to capture the essense of vinyl, they sound great and I still listen to them today.
I realised way back then that it was the production and mastering of CD's that was the main problem and the medium itself was capable of capturing all or nearly all of a vinyl recording.
I was recording vinyl onto cd via computer starting back in 1998.
I used a PC with a Soundblaster Live sampling rate of 44.1kHz and SoundForge software which was the best for this and may still be as I haven't done this in decades now 🙂
I still have the CD's and they are stored on hard drives in WAV, the original recordingformat I used.
These recordings seemed to capture the essense of vinyl, they sound great and I still listen to them today.
I realised way back then that it was the production and mastering of CD's that was the main problem and the medium itself was capable of capturing all or nearly all of a vinyl recording.
Here, experienced with recording 192/24 bit vinyl. sounds different because the DAC all bad.
I will be laughing the day that I can hear a DAC as good as a good needle like ortofon m2 black
I will be laughing the day that I can hear a DAC as good as a good needle like ortofon m2 black
Back at the very beginning of CD production in the UK I visited a building within 1.5 miles of Heathrow Airport. The building had about 14 floors and was one of the highest in that location. On about floor level 6 or 7 was an office rented by a recording technician who was working with digitalising classical music back-catalogue from 15ips 2 track masters.
First, the room itself had very little acoustic treatment and standing waves were very obvious. The internal & external walls were thin brickwork infills on a steel frame. The equipment comprised a Studer B67 (or similar), Quad power amps, a very simple and limited two track desk with the speakers being a pair of Rogers mid-size (8" bass units?) which were placed on the back of a light office desk within 12" of a large (double glazed!!) window facing that day's approach flight path to the nearby airport! Descending large airliners were passing within half a mile and possibly only 50' higher than the window. I was totally at a loss as to how this guy could possibly do anything approaching an adequate job.
Don't forget this was back-catalogue being re-issued in CD format at a time when it was essential for the record companies to display as large a digital catalogue as possible. The availability of proper facilities, engineers etc was extremely limited; it is probable that those who were putting out such work to freelancers had little audio knowledge and did not check out these freelancers' facilities or abilities.
Obviously matters have changed for the better since those days...back then most of those early transfers were truly dreadful. Yet there were a few companies producing high quality work, but these were mainly small dedicated record companies such as ECM.
Not content with messing up the transfer of analogue recordings to CD format, the companies had the brainwave to then to 'digitally remaster' analogue masters, and then re-convert these wonders of engineering capability to analogue disk!!! Maybe that was no more than an attempt to manipulate the record buying public's opinion away from the vinyl record to the CD format!
First, the room itself had very little acoustic treatment and standing waves were very obvious. The internal & external walls were thin brickwork infills on a steel frame. The equipment comprised a Studer B67 (or similar), Quad power amps, a very simple and limited two track desk with the speakers being a pair of Rogers mid-size (8" bass units?) which were placed on the back of a light office desk within 12" of a large (double glazed!!) window facing that day's approach flight path to the nearby airport! Descending large airliners were passing within half a mile and possibly only 50' higher than the window. I was totally at a loss as to how this guy could possibly do anything approaching an adequate job.
Don't forget this was back-catalogue being re-issued in CD format at a time when it was essential for the record companies to display as large a digital catalogue as possible. The availability of proper facilities, engineers etc was extremely limited; it is probable that those who were putting out such work to freelancers had little audio knowledge and did not check out these freelancers' facilities or abilities.
Obviously matters have changed for the better since those days...back then most of those early transfers were truly dreadful. Yet there were a few companies producing high quality work, but these were mainly small dedicated record companies such as ECM.
Not content with messing up the transfer of analogue recordings to CD format, the companies had the brainwave to then to 'digitally remaster' analogue masters, and then re-convert these wonders of engineering capability to analogue disk!!! Maybe that was no more than an attempt to manipulate the record buying public's opinion away from the vinyl record to the CD format!
Not content with messing up the transfer of analogue recordings to CD format, the companies had the brainwave to then to 'digitally remaster' analogue masters, and then re-convert these wonders of engineering capability to analogue disk!!!
can you give one example of such a record?
can you give one example of such a record?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.