Yeah, these teens with their "ZOMG!!!! I CN FIT MILLNZ 96K MP3" is the driving force. Not to mention dollar store earbuds with 100Hz-5KHz response.
I'll admit that those "mix" CD's found in impulse shopping lanes in stores are really badly mixed or recorded, but sound better than a THX mastered recording truncated into an MP3 >.<
I'll admit that those "mix" CD's found in impulse shopping lanes in stores are really badly mixed or recorded, but sound better than a THX mastered recording truncated into an MP3 >.<
I am looking for a turntable right now.
As I listen to much 60's and 70's music... my plan is to make my own 24/96 recordings from mint vinyl.
I have a DVD-A made from a quadraphonic Dark Side of the Moon disc. It's actually quite close in quality to the commercial SACD made from another set of tapes.
The difference in volume between CD's made in the 80's and today is amazing.
And it makes me cry that bands that should know better (eg. Rush) allowed their albums to be mastered overly loud.
As I listen to much 60's and 70's music... my plan is to make my own 24/96 recordings from mint vinyl.
I have a DVD-A made from a quadraphonic Dark Side of the Moon disc. It's actually quite close in quality to the commercial SACD made from another set of tapes.
The difference in volume between CD's made in the 80's and today is amazing.
And it makes me cry that bands that should know better (eg. Rush) allowed their albums to be mastered overly loud.
mpmarino said:
Really? I'm double sad then. I just ordered two 180g "audiophile" pressings of the Snakes and Arrows album. While I haven't liked most Rush since they experimented with keyboard. I really think their last album returned to the Rush that fans want.
Saw them live in KC and even the knew stuff sounded great.
So I just wasted money on vinyl albums that sound identical? Great!@!
Attachments
I did the same thing. I found the cd unlistenable at home (it's great on my factory car stereo) so I got the LP hoping for a revelation. It's such a good album it's worth trying to get good sound.
Unfortunately on an a/b comparison they sound the same to me - maybe you will be happier. please report back.
I've been watching a lot of Rush DVDs. R30 in particular sounds better than most of the studio albums IMHO. Is it possible to strip the audio and make a CD??
edit:http://www.glump.net/dokuwiki/howto/audio_only_dvd_ripping_guide
Unfortunately on an a/b comparison they sound the same to me - maybe you will be happier. please report back.
I've been watching a lot of Rush DVDs. R30 in particular sounds better than most of the studio albums IMHO. Is it possible to strip the audio and make a CD??
edit:http://www.glump.net/dokuwiki/howto/audio_only_dvd_ripping_guide
Nice player daveis!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Daveis said:
Hi Daveis and fellow discophiles
Have you tried listening to the output from your phonographs with the pickup resting on a stationary record and while music is playing in the room!
It reminds me of my Son's main Fender Amp that sounds so "alive!". The reason is 6 6L6 output valves mounted all-a-jangle 4 inches from 200 watt speakers!
He swears by it and the hi-fi amp I have built for him is "not right".
I expect what you criticise about modern cds is the dynamic range, which cuts the live transient peaks because "sounds louder" sells better (especially to those who have already damaged their hearing).
A thread on Hydrogenaudio did a comparison of the Red Hot Chili Peppers latest album Stadium Arcadium. Its available on vinyl and CD. The CD mastering was notorious for overly compressed bad sound. The LP sounds quite natural.
There's a set of comparisons of the CD and LP versions. Sadly, the comparison uses 124kb MP3's to make its point. Well 128kb and less MP3's sound bad to begin with so its hard to hear the difference.
But even with the low bitrate MP3 what comes across is that drums are completely messed up by compression. The other thing is that the LP mix sounds relaxed and easy on the ears. I will admit that when I first heard the CD version it sounded ok to me. I had to switch back and forth about 3 times before the CD version started to sound annoying and the LP version was preferred.
I suspect these musicians don't cry foul because their hearing is so damaged after playing loud shows they can't hear how bad their mix is.
Now WHY do they compress music for the radio? Can't the radio engineers compress the music before broadcast? Can't my car stereo have a built-in compressor? Then when I'm at home I listen to good music?
The usual explanation that they did it so it sounds loud on radio in the car doesn't doesn't make any sense. How hard is it for the radio stations to use their own compressor/loudness booster?
There's a set of comparisons of the CD and LP versions. Sadly, the comparison uses 124kb MP3's to make its point. Well 128kb and less MP3's sound bad to begin with so its hard to hear the difference.
But even with the low bitrate MP3 what comes across is that drums are completely messed up by compression. The other thing is that the LP mix sounds relaxed and easy on the ears. I will admit that when I first heard the CD version it sounded ok to me. I had to switch back and forth about 3 times before the CD version started to sound annoying and the LP version was preferred.
I suspect these musicians don't cry foul because their hearing is so damaged after playing loud shows they can't hear how bad their mix is.
Now WHY do they compress music for the radio? Can't the radio engineers compress the music before broadcast? Can't my car stereo have a built-in compressor? Then when I'm at home I listen to good music?
The usual explanation that they did it so it sounds loud on radio in the car doesn't doesn't make any sense. How hard is it for the radio stations to use their own compressor/loudness booster?
Why do radio stations and everyone else always compress? It must be a question of signal to noise ratio.
The dynamic range of hearing is 120 db or so but most means of getting the music to us find it hard to better 60 db. The ultimate lower limit is thermal noise, acoustic noise during the recording and intermodulation distortion in the microphones.
The dynamic range of an orchestra, live, is around 80 db assuming a VERY quiet audience and 100 db peak orchestral level (120 db is threshold of pain)
In your listening room at home the ambient noise is unlikely to be less than 35 db (even if you live in the unspoiled countryside)
so even with an at-home dynamic volume expander (lots of problems) at a preferred listening level of 80 db (very loud) you could experience only a 45 db dynamic range.
For an orchestra playing at peak 100 db level you could only thern hear 30 Hz to 20KHz and at 70 db 70 hz to 16 KHz. Even at the ear's most sensitive frequency the dynamic range woud be 50 db
The dynamic range of hearing is 120 db or so but most means of getting the music to us find it hard to better 60 db. The ultimate lower limit is thermal noise, acoustic noise during the recording and intermodulation distortion in the microphones.
The dynamic range of an orchestra, live, is around 80 db assuming a VERY quiet audience and 100 db peak orchestral level (120 db is threshold of pain)
In your listening room at home the ambient noise is unlikely to be less than 35 db (even if you live in the unspoiled countryside)
so even with an at-home dynamic volume expander (lots of problems) at a preferred listening level of 80 db (very loud) you could experience only a 45 db dynamic range.
For an orchestra playing at peak 100 db level you could only thern hear 30 Hz to 20KHz and at 70 db 70 hz to 16 KHz. Even at the ear's most sensitive frequency the dynamic range woud be 50 db
there's no sense in this....
I always see manufacturers bragging their CD player does 120db SNR, they make really good digital gear for recording studios and then the "technicians" and producers go and mess it up while recording.
before all this, I wondered, why do most people concerned with hifi want vinyl while CD is "technically" superior....now I know why.
I always see manufacturers bragging their CD player does 120db SNR, they make really good digital gear for recording studios and then the "technicians" and producers go and mess it up while recording.
before all this, I wondered, why do most people concerned with hifi want vinyl while CD is "technically" superior....now I know why.
I have two discs. One is a DVD-A made from quadraphonic vinyl recording of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. The other a recently made SACD.
The SACD should be much better, but it isnt. That kind of proves to me that good vinyl was equal to SACD. Think about that. Vinyl is as good as not just CD, but SACD.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want or think everyone should go back to vinyl discs.
And as I understand things, Rush's vinyl release of their recent album doesn't sound any better than the CD. Not that it technically should sound better. Just that there was the hope that either different people or a different mindset was used when the vinyl versions was mixed.
The SACD should be much better, but it isnt. That kind of proves to me that good vinyl was equal to SACD. Think about that. Vinyl is as good as not just CD, but SACD.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want or think everyone should go back to vinyl discs.
And as I understand things, Rush's vinyl release of their recent album doesn't sound any better than the CD. Not that it technically should sound better. Just that there was the hope that either different people or a different mindset was used when the vinyl versions was mixed.
It is NOT hard for them actually, most of them DO it foir years !
So there is really no reason for compressed dynamics apart from those ones listening to their music in noisy environments whitout using any radio.
So we have to blame all those who are listening to their MP3 etc in buses, trains, subways ......
Regards
Charles
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.