Questions about vinyl
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48903
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 12:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Questions about vinyl
Posted By: crimson87
Subject: Questions about vinyl
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 22:23
|
I am 21 years old and I have never heard one of my beloved records on vinyl before.This is a question mainly for the older members of PA , WHICH DIFFERENCES DO YOU ENCOUNTER WHEN COMPARING A VINYL TO A CD? Are vinyls better? Or is it pure nostalgia?
I am asking this question becouse I am due to buy ITCOTCK as a vinyl and I have my doubts
|
Replies:
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 22:32
|
Well I'm no expert and I imagine the more experienced people will pop in on this topic later, but you will now a CD has a 44100 Hz sampling rate, which according to Nyquist's Theorem (maybe I'm wrong, but I now it's one of the things to do with Nyquist) states that the maximum frequencies produced are going to be half the sampling rate i.e 22050Hz which is of course means we get the whole spectrum of the human hearing range and more.
A Vinyl, due to many factors like wear and tear etc, over time tends to have a restricted frequency range, sometimes even rolling off at around 8khz, which results in a vinyl of the same CD sounding warmer than than CD.
Hopefully someone can add to what I said  ------------- 
|
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 22:39
| that was a preety technical explanation , but I appreciate it |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 22:42
Actually, that was kinda just some of the more basic info that partly explains why vinyls sound the way they do. I can imagine a full on audio-phile with some knowledge of electronics and physics would give you something a hell of a lot scarier than what I said -------------
|
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: May 24 2008 at 22:55
|
Analogue (vinyl) has a different sound compared to digital (CD, mp3). I think people exaggerate their opinions of which is "better," it all depends on a multitude of issues. The best approach is to be open to both, since buying cheap vinyl rocks, plus I usually prefer the "analogue" sound myself, but I have a great CD player (Cambridge Audio Azur 340c) as well as a great turntable (Rega P1), so I'm generally happy unless the mix is sh*t, which usually is only the case in music I consider bad. ;) Ignore the technical stuff, since if you like analogue more, you can dig up studies that prove vinyl is superior. If you prefer digital, you can dig up studies that prove CDs are are superior. Go from experience and that alone, since studies are contradictory because disagreeing parties like to prove they are right. I might even look for/buy a cassette player soon. At book sales/flea markets cassettes seem to generally be better selection than the CDs, plus are way cheaper. Reel-to-reel is cool, but I'll wait a few years for that. I'll pass on the 8-track for now too ------------- 
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 03:31
|
I've put on weight since CDs took over, no more walks to the record deck every 20 minutes!
------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Passionist
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 03:51
| Personally, I'd never give away my vinyls. I like to refer to a survey, and a blind test that they had at a hifi magazine. Vinyl, by sound quality owned cd by far. I suppose it's true. I just love the feeling it gives me, and yeah, some cds have a really clinical sound. In fact, when I go to the store, I usually buy the vinyl rather than the cd if they have it. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 04:14
|
Speaking as someone who got into prog in the vinyl age, vinyl sucks. In a perfect audiophile world with the perfect equipment and a perfect vinyl, maybe it does sound better. Even if you do have the hearing of a dog. The norm is needle noise, scratch noise, etc... For me, I'd rather hear the music than the medium. And just try taking along the record player in your car.  Now, when it comes to album art, the LP has yet to be beat.There's a reason why CDs were invented and became a popular format to deliver music and that is the LP, which was invented to replace that cylinder thingy because of it's sonic limitations.  I seriously don't get this whole LPs sounds warmer thing. What is it, the friction of needle in a groove? Scratch a CD and it can usually be repaired, scratch an LP and it's permanently ruined. Now, many of the early CDs were made from the LP masters, which were structured in a way to compensate for physical limitations of the LP. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I can hear the difference, but Mr. Fripp has some choice words to say on the subject. (sorry, don't have a link handy) Those of us who wound up with them basically got ripped off. I say go for the latest remaster if it's available. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 04:17
|
All things being equal vinyl will sound better than 'Red Book' CD. The sample rate as mentioned before is based on Nyquist's theorem which says that you must double the sample frequency of the maximum frequency being articulated. There are many problems associated with this process of which I am not going to go into here (most of the problems occur with filtering and jitter). Many very talented technicians and engineers have employed all kind of electronic 'tricks' to get better sound from digital, but in the end a analog recording will sound better all things being equal but digital is so much more versatile. The analog to digital and the digital to analog process is much better now than it was when CD was first introduced in the early 80's. Recording equipment has also improved dramatically over the years which adds to the sonic purity of the CD. The proof is in SACD recordings which have a much higher sample and bit rate over Red Book CD. When you listen to a SACD recording and then the same recording using Red Book CD you can hear the differences. SACD which works at 24 bit depth and a sample frequency of 96KHz is far more accurate and also gives you much better dynamic range. SACD is much closer to vinyl in sound quality. The problem is that most of the stuff that we like to listen to is not available on SACD. We are stuck with the Red Book CD but it's much better now than it was when it was first introduced.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 04:54
Well, however you cut it or listen to it, the invention of recording was revolutionary in the history of music. But the music is much more important than the medium. I would alway tape my LPs to cassette to preserve them and make them portable. DBX anyone?  All this stuff we're talking about was recorded to a tape anyway, if you weren't there to hear and see it live, so much was lost anyway and in some cases the recorded product was much better than the live and in studio version... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 05:14
It's true that filtering and jitter can produce so called "artefacts" in the signal. However, these artefacts are well above the normal frequency range of the typical listener ... so IMO it's a very theoretical problem.
There are various listening tests which show that even skilled listeners have problems telling high bitrate mp3 from CD ... it's even more difficult for CD vs. DVD-Audio/SACD. But I agree that these high resolution formats are the way to go - it's simply not necessary to reduce the signal quality during mastering just to meet a 25 year old standard (red book). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Sacred 22 wrote:Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 05:27
|
Another cool factoid, those younger folks can actually hear sounds in a frequency range us older people can't. But guess what, you're going to get older sooner or later if you don't die first. Sorry, don't want to be the bummer man...
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 05:37
|
^ even school kids can't hear frequencies above 20khz ... and let's not forget that such high frequencies aren't reproduced by vinyl either.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 12:47
|
Vinyl vs. CD? It is dependent on the condition of the vinyl and whether or not the CD has been remastered decently.
Many of my LP's from '67 though '70 are not in very good shape. Hey, I was a 13 year old kid during the Summer of Love and didn't take very good care of my LP's. Skips, pops, surface noise -- it's all there. So in this case I often prefer the CD. On the other hand, I have a pristine vinyl Japanese pressing of Rush's Moving Pictures which blows away any CD version I've heard.
I also find some CD's to be tiring. Thick as a Brick is a good example. I can listen to the vinyl non-stop through headphones and some 40 minutes later be ready for more. If I listen to the CD that way I am worn out, aurically speaking. There has been some talk of this in other forums, i.e., overuse of compression in the modern-day remastered CD, so that there is really no sonic variation one gets with vinyl.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 14:28
|
^ I own the TaaB remaster (CD), I don't think that compression has been used. Rather, I think that the added treble is responsible for what vinyl fans often describe as the "harsh" sound of digital recordings. Or, as HughesBJ4 put it, the "warmer" sound of vinyl. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 14:49
|
Another advantage to vinyl- you don't have to worry about "vinyl" rot, like CD rot. Although I have a lot of late 80s/early 90s CDs, I have yet to experience this, but I guess it is inevitable that some day it will happen. Even my CD-R's that I've made 3-4 years ago seem to play perfectly. I have a few CDs that have skipping problems, but most of them are pretty badly scratched (need a better copy of Kind of Blue and Oregon's s/t). And for some strange reason, a few of my CDs have problems being ripped to my computer but they play perfectly on my CD player (My Bloody Valentine's Isn't Anything and Stereolab's Transient Random-Noise Bursts with Announcements). Both have minor scratches, but I don't believe that is the problem. I'll repeat what I said earlier for emphasis- Neither sounds "better". If you think vinyl is better, than vinyl is better (to you). If you think CD is better, than CD is better (to you). This comes up in practically every opinion-based argument, and even pops up in science (contradicting studies: if you think wine is good for you, then you want to prove it; if you think wine is bad for you, then you want to prove it). So if you're totally neutral to the subject, I recommend buying both, since there are pros and cons to each, but neither "sounds better" - it all depends. End of debate. Move on to debating something else or just listening to music. ...i'm starting to sound like a broken record ;) -------------
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 15:13
Yep I have the remaster as well. Maybe it is the treble (which, to be fair, after hundreds of listenings is probably no longer what it once was on my LP).
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: May 26 2008 at 21:15
Again I disagree, I have SACD discs and they not only sound better but the dynamic range is far better than that of Red Book CD(24 bit as opposed to 16 bits gives you lots more dynamic range). When you spend a lot of money on a good system($16,000.00 plus) it lets you know the difference. Cheap systems tend to be a bit more forgiving.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 27 2008 at 03:43
|
Vinyl is better.
That's all. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 27 2008 at 05:01
I suppose you mean you hear a difference between CD and vinyl. I don't doubt that - but how can you be so sure that vinyl is closer to the original recording than the CD? Maybe the opposite is true, and you simply prefer the warmer sound of vinyl.
Again, vinyl is much worse in terms of dynamic. I actually agree that you might hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, and that 24 bit sounds better particularly for very dynamic recordings (e.g. symphonies). But vinyl has not only a smaller dynamic range (usually less than 70dB), but the very silent sounds also don't sound as well and are much more affected by the inaccuracies of the medium. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: May 27 2008 at 18:25
|
Since vinyl relies on analogue/mechanical signal, the longer the album less mechanical information per second of music can be packed onto each side of a 12" disc. Ideally 15min is the maximum per side - which in theory means all those early Beach Boys album should give a broad audio range, but your average prog albums at 40min or more will have bass bottom and treble top clipped and then probably the whole compressed. Thats why early unremastered CDs of prog albums - i.e. using a mix/mastering which was only intended for vinyl release - tend to have treble right in yer face, which wouldn't have not happen on the vinyl equivalent because of deliberate treble loss But I've said it before the vinyl chloride/vinyl acetate copolymer used is a dire polymer choice and worse it combined with one of the worst polymer moulding methods - there are numerous new polymers and sophisticated processing methods that have come along since the 50's, to make a far better 12" mechanical/analogue disc. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 03:07
^ two very good points!  They show that the sound quality of vinyl depends on much more variables than optical discs (CD/DVD/whatever) - much more can go wrong and mess up the sound. Vinyl fans will undoubtedly say that none of this is a real problem - with the proper care taken. But even then the vinyl disc is still inferior in terms of frequency range, dynamic range and linearity.The bottom line for me is that vinyl is a very enjoyable medium - I'll continue to collect vinyl releases - but it is not the most accurate - that's CD, SACD and DVD-A. They're objectively (beyond reasoning) superior to any of the old analogue consumer formats (vinyl, cassette). Subjectively however, there may be reasons to prefer analogue, because they sound different and some people may prefer that sound over the accurate representation of the source, just like some prefer the harmonic distortion of an expensive tube amplifier over the more linear sound of a good solid state amp. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 04:17
OK, let's get specific here - I'm going to ignore the "which is better" debate, because for me, there is no question: Vinyl is best (despite all the inaccuracy issues, quality issues, scratchiness, whatever).
Starting from that viewpoint, it then depends on your Hi-Fi - specifically the turntable (and tonearm, etc.), amp and speakers.
If you've got a decent setup that you've lavished a little time and cash on, then you're going to want to hear the full glory of King Crimson's masterpiece on the FIRST UK PRESSING.
Nothing compares to a First UK pressing (except, maybe, a MFSL UHQR pressing) - it is the music as fans would have heard it when it was released.
Not a cleaned up, re-EQ'd re-interpretation, but the real deal.
It has an almost tangible quality to it that digital sound DOES NOT REPRODUCE.
Maybe someone can do the science and work out why, because all the evidence points to vinyl being significantly inferior - and yet it still sounds better.
The very best vinyl albums to own are Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon", Led Zeppelin "II" and Supertramp's "Crime of the Century" - although these are among my favourite albums, none are in my top 20 - they are simply the best albums to own on vinyl. Led Zep II, particularly, will show the weak spots in any HiFi system you care to play it on.
A first press has the disadvantage that it's expensive to buy in decent condition - expect to pay around £50 for ITCOTCK, although I've seen it go for 10 times that.
The second press is available far more cheaply, and is good value at around £10 - £15 for a good copy.
FIRST PRESS
  SECOND PRESS
 MSFL press - should be no more than £50
  POLYSNORE Re-Issue (avoid!)
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 04:33
I think that the conclusion must be that the most accurate representation of the original recording is not always the one which sounds best (subjectively). Perhaps it's the way the first pressing reproduces the music which you love so much - how that particular pressing was mastered, the material used, the quality of the manufacturing process etc.. For someone like me the world is entirely different ... for me the remastered digital releases are the benchmark. Vinyl can sound as good or even (subjectively) better, but there are many hazards along the way ... as I had to learn when I recently purchased the re-mastered vinyl edition of Metallica's Ride the Lightning. High quality, half-speed, 180gr etc. but sounds horrible. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 04:44
|
^I got "bitten" when I bought the DMM vinyl versions of all the early Metallica albums - they sound AWFUL and tinny; all the bass seems to have been surgically removed (actually, the DMM process boosts the treble, but it's tantamount to the same thing).
I'm having the last laugh, though, as the value seems to be going up on these rarer editions on eBay
 I think the worst thing about digital music is the over-compression in order to make the music louder overall - which robs it of dynamic and "personality".
That's a generalism, of course - the 24 Remaster of "Script..." has fantastic dynamic - but it's rare, IME.  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 07:19
|
I have to ask, have you had problems with first pressings coming from Decca Records, released 1966 -1971? Personal experience then showed that Decca QC for pop/record was far inferior to that of their classical label and the audiophile label Phase 4. But also listening to the recently issued Strange Pleasures box set from Decca of rock recordings 1966 to1975, you will find there is a wide range of standards in recording too from Decca over this period. I feel somewhat reinforced in my arguement that the Moody Blues' Days Of Future Past was intended as pop/rock record for a handful of audiophile record collectors in the 60's (i.e. those few that had good stereo equipment - predominantly middle class and middle aged folk), since the audio quality of the tracks selected for Strange Pleasures is far superior to anything else heard on the set. Also let me repeat from elesewhere: the stereo version of "Beano" album John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers, was released by Decca several months after the mono version. I seem to remember a 6 week gap in getting the stereo version of the Rolling Stones Aftermath, after the official release date when i guess only the mono version was available. And I think the same was true wrt Cream's Fresh Cream (that was released by Track/Polydor). In other words, I think it is true to say, many (UK?) record labels weren't geared up for a high fidelity demand of rock records until (at best) the late 60's. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 07:56
That's interesting, because the newly released pressings have the exact same problems. BTW: Have you heard the 45rpm versions too - and do they suffer from the same problems? I'm having the last laugh, though, as the value seems to be going up on these rarer editions on eBay
I don't think it's all that rare ... generally I'd say that the more radio/mainstream compatible an album is, the higher the probability will be that it's compressed to boost loudness, but especially the prog releases don't usually suffer from that problem. It's not necessarily a bad thing too IMO - for some styles of music it can be ok *if applied carefully*. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 08:50
Actually, I haven't amassed that many FP records on DECCA from that time - but I do own a copy of "Let It Bleed", which was a real ear-opener from the "Boxed" pressing I'd previously owned - top quality LP, and, one of the few Stones albums I actually listen to. The second is the only other one that gets a regular airing.
The Savoy Brown LPs I have are so much better than the Parrot (export) copies I used to own that I'm in the process of replacing them - crystal clear and rich, deep sound.
Sadly, my copy of "Bluesbreakers" is a "Boxed" second (or maybe 3rd) press, and all my John Mayall albums bar "Bare Wires" are on the Ace of Clubs DECCA subsidiary label (I haven't researched enough to find out if they were ever released on "proper" DECCA).
As you say, many rock records from that time weren't geared to an audiophile market (hence the subsequent MFSL/UHQR releases) - although many were released in both MONO and STEREO.
Many labels were inconsistent, sound quality-wise (this goes back to the production and mastering) but the first pressing was always the best, as copies were sent to, for example, broadcasting companies, where promos weren't available - it had the most attention lavished on it, and was even packaged more expensively; You'll often see the renowned printer name Ernest J. Day on the VERY first pressings (such as ITCOTCK, for example), Garrod and Lofthouse on later pressings (although occasionally on 1sts - such as "Rubber Soul" - inexplicably, some later pressings were released in EJ Day sleeves before Parlophone went back to Garrod & Lofthouse), and cheaper printers for later covers which were typically unlaminated, lacked "twiddly bits" and featured masked overlays blotting out areas of the original cover in a most untidy way (as with almost any Beatles LP you care to name).
Cream's albums were released on Reaction before Polysnore took over (as they did other classic labels) - Hendrix and The Who were on Track
Half the time, they didn't know how to mix a band in stereo - witness the awful drums on one channel method used on "Disraeli Gears" and "Ogden's Nut Gone" (Small Faces, Immediate).
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 09:34
|
In the early 80s I quickly realised that it wasn't worth buying an LP released by WEA (Warner-Elektra-Atlantic) as it would jump, crackle and generally sound awful. The vinyl used was only one step up from flexidiscs. ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 12:34
Of course, I stand corrected. Toad on Fresh Cream supports your case, a drum solo that was predominantly from one channel on my LP - and sounds aurally painfully heard through cans.
BTW I discovered how one British dj (Kenny Everett) made karoke versions of the Beatles tunes. This was done to unimaginative use of stereo - they were recorded with clear stereo separation, with typically two Beatles on LH channel, the other two on RH channel. Then for instance using reel to reel tape pre-recordings sold in the USA, you could readily switch out one channel leaving the other without leakage (which you often got from a stereo LP), hence dumping the vocals. BTW I discovered in the 70's that some Beach Boys recordings were available on a specialist label without the vocal tracks for those sing along evening..... Then drummer Dave Weckl issued a couple of his fusion recordings each which a choice: the full ensemble, without sax or keyboards, or drums - for the keen amateur to play along.
It is worth noting that in the examples of ELP and Edgar Winter (e.g. on Frankinstein) introduced channel phasing around 1970 - i.e. a particular sound shifting from RH to LH and perhaps back again over several seconds of music - a gimmick that surprisingly did not last too long - I wonder if anybody has employed it more recently? ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 12:51
Haha...I have that. Dunno which pressing. I don't like it, though, and I certainly have no idea why it's so highly regarded. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 15:04
|
^Because it's great.
Get a first press or MFSL copy (it tends to be one of the cheaper MFSLs because it was one of the most popular, and there are more copies of this in existence than the others) and put it on an audiophile system (important, because the soundstage in the mix is first class) - if it doesn't knock your socks off, you're probably wearing sandals. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 15:21
It's also true that vinyl needs to have a sgnificant amount of bottom removed anyway (below 50hz, I believe), to prevent the grooves running into each other - and also a certain amount of top (the "air" around 18kHz), simply due to its freqency limitations.
Theoretically, digital can handle this - in reality, 16-bit 44kHz audio tends to artefact in these areas if they're left in, so they tend to get rolled off anyway. 24-bit 96kHz is another piscean boiling device. I've upgraded all my audio recording kit to it (because I can't afford the analogue alternatives
 ).
That's true - and I believe that differing quality compounds were used for the different press runs, again making for a lot of inconsistency. Japanese presses were renowned for the vinyl quality - as well as the decent mastering, hence their relatively high second hand value.
Most collectors I know go for the UK 1st every time, if they can afford it  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 15:40
 you don't know how right you are.------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 15:55
|
Anyway ... today I purchased the new Portishead album on vinyl, and what do you know: It's an authentic UK first pressing!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 02:50
|
^Heh!
Hang on to that - it'll be worth a fortune in 40 years time...
I really like some of Portishead's older stuff (predictable things like "Glory Box", etc) - is the new album more of the same, or have they made any interesting departures? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 03:24
|
^ I'll definitely hang on to it ... listened to it yesterday, the pressing/mastering is awesome! the new album is much, much more experimental. Only a few songs are "trip hop", the rest is an eclectic mix of styles with all sorts of influences including Anekdoten, Radiohead or even Silver Apples - it's still quite unique and original though. I think I'll even propose them for addition. 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 03:43
After White Noise, of course, who created Trip Hop in 1969... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 04:35
|
^ and the Silver Apples created Trance!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 05:06
|
SA wrote poppy songs with "wooey" noises on their 1st album. "Contact" is a bit more interesting, but "You and I" sounds like Public Image Limited, and the wierder electronic excursions sound more like Kraftwerk's mid 1970s period.
There's really not much in common with SA's music and Trance, despite Trance fans' determination to give their music some history before the late 1980s rave scene - while "Love Without Sound" by WN simply IS Trip Hop. I had to pinch myself and re-read the album sleeve to remind myself that it really was created in 1969 the first time I heard it. Delia Derbyshire was a genius ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 06:03
|
^ The album is available on Napster ... I'll listen to the song!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 10:47
Whether or not it's considered a "gimmick", I still find the effect makes for a more enjoyable listening experience for me than if certain sound effects or notes were played without "moving."
Anyways, I only have the CD editions of them, but I do remember hearing channel-crossing on Zeppelin II, and the ending of ELP's "Karn Evil 9 (3rd Impression)" of course has those classic "blips" floating back and forth. I'm pretty sure the intro to Sabbath's "Iron Man" features it too... And I can't forget Pink Floyd's Final Cut, with various sound effects such as rockets "flying" through my headphones. (Is it a safe assumption that these effects were on the original LP's?)
Most recently, I have heard it in the form of various sound effects on the Animal Collective album Strawberry Jam, with tracks such as "Cuckoo Cuckoo." I'm not 100% sure but I may have also heard some channel phasing on Panda Bear's album Person Pitch as well. I guess the "gimmick" is still (at least somewhat) alive.
Consider this: does anyone know of recordings (stereo- or monophonic) that originally had "stable" sounds but integrated channel-crossing on the CD (or even other vinyl) remasters? ------------- 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 23:15
| So for those of us in the US, what do we have? Say of ITCOTKC? Just some Atlantic released sh*te? |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 07:10
|
^You should be able to get hold of an MFSL or Japanese pressing in the US if it's quality vinyl you're after - they're cheaper than a "Pink Island".
Japanese pressing ($40 isn't pushing it - these are very collectable, especially with the OBI);
http://cgi.ebay.com/IN-THE-COURT-OF-THE-CRIMSON-KING-japan-LP-OBI_W0QQitemZ120265585736QQihZ002QQcategoryZ306QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem - http://cgi.ebay.com/IN-THE-COURT-OF-THE-CRIMSON-KING-japan-LP-OBI_W0QQitemZ120265585736QQihZ002QQcategoryZ306QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
(or even the CD, if you must...) http://cgi.ebay.com/KING-CRIMSON-IN-THE-COURT-OF-2006-JAPAN-MINI-LP-CD_W0QQitemZ330239571544QQihZ014QQcategoryZ307QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem - http://cgi.ebay.com/KING-CRIMSON-IN-THE-COURT-OF-2006-JAPAN-MINI-LP-CD_W0QQitemZ330239571544QQihZ014QQcategoryZ307QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
MFSL pressing (bargain - $60 would be a good price, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go for $100).
http://cgi.ebay.com/MFSL-1-075-In-The-Court-Of-The-Crimson-King-Audiophile_W0QQitemZ330239277978QQihZ014QQcategoryZ306QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem - http://cgi.ebay.com/MFSL-1-075-In-The-Court-Of-The-Crimson-King-Audiophile_W0QQitemZ330239277978QQihZ014QQcategoryZ306QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Pink i Island pressing (Could go for anything between £100-500).
http://cgi.ebay.com/KING-CRIMSON-In-The-Court-UK-Pink-Island-psych-LP-MINT_W0QQitemZ170221975232QQihZ007QQcategoryZ16138QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem - http://cgi.ebay.com/KING-CRIMSON-In-The-Court-UK-Pink-Island-psych-LP-MINT_W0QQitemZ170221975232QQihZ007QQcategoryZ16138QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 08:50
Pure bullsh*ts from someone who has no experience on the subject... A good vynil has much more informations than the same album on CD, and most of the last CD remasters are horrible, unlisteneable. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 09:27
|
^ always nice to hear from you again!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 14:51
Yes, they were on the vinyl too, they're examples of holophonics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holophonics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holophonics ). ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 15:24
|
^Those holophonics were used even more widely on "The Pros and Cons of Hitchiking" - it's the best thing about the album, IMHO... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 18:55
The answer is smoke and mirrors.
Digitising quantises the information into digital words of 16-bits every 22.7µS.
Most people are aware of the amplitude quantisation, (a 16-bit digital waveform is composed of 65536 discrete voltage levels), but it also quantises in the frequency domain.
In an earlier thread on the same subject I posted that: "This quantisation means you do not get an infinite number of frequencies across the spectrum - you get a finite number of discrete frequencies that are sub-harmonics of the sampling frequency.
Hence, the sampling frequency used on CD's (or on any digital media) will only accurately reproduce frequencies that are an exact division of the sampling frequency - all other frequencies are spread into adjacent subdivisions and require all those subdivisions to recreate the original. "
This is because the sampling frequency of 44.1KHz only samples the signal every 22.7µS, which means that it can only accurately reproduce signals that are sub-harmonics of 44.1KHz ... all other frequencies are inaccurate representations.
In principle we should not be able to tell the difference - all the component frequencies added together should recrerate the original, however because the signals are also amplitute quantised it means that the amplitudes of all the individual subharmonics are only aproximations, so the final recreation will also be an approximation.
------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2008 at 00:50
|
^ I'm with you there. Of course digital recordings are always approximations of the original (analogue) data - no fan of digital audio or video would say otherwise. But the important thing is: Does this approximation happen on a level of detail which is beyond our ability to detect (hear)? I definitely think so. Listening tests show that people can't tell the sources apart - if anything, they'll hear the different mix of a vinyl release compared to the CD remastered version, or the CD version is simply much brighter and contains more treble information than the vinyl release they're used to, which leads to statements like "CD sounds harsh". I'm 100% sure that in a double blind test comparing the actual master tape to a properly sampled version in 16bit/44.1khz, nobody would be able to tell the difference ... except maybe for some extreme cases, either extreme listeners with unusually good ears or signals which provoke glitches or exploit weaknesses in the recording process. For those we have advanced digital formats (24bit/96khz) which are *beyond* any human ear. Whatever the details, digital formats *are* clearly superior over any analogue consumer format, and even in the professional domain their advantages are obvious. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 01 2008 at 15:28
|
I've given up on the science of which sounds better, I just KNOW that vinyl sounds better. Yesterday, i wandered down to a local record fair and picked up 20 or so albums for about 40 quid. Granted most are collection closers and not worth bothering with but I did get a few worthwhile records. My wife did too. But on CD. She bought a Jamiroquai singles collection on CD and when we got home plonked this in the (these days) almost unused CD player in our living room. Now, it's a good system, Roksan Kandy MkIII into a Promitheus Audio TVC passive pre and Myryad power into Sonus Faber Concerto Domus speakers. It sounded fine Lots of deep bass, loud and punchy. And then I stuck on the copy of Free's Fire and Water I'd bought (on an LP12 with Origin Live modded RB300 into a Graham Slee Era Gold MkV). The album is a pink-rim Island label, not the full pink label 1st press and yet it still made the CD player sound a bucket of old bolts. And a flat, two dimensional bucket at that. The soundstage was vast by comparison, the front to back depth cavernous compared to CD and the placement of instruments in space almost tangible. I may be a luddite but science be damned. Vinyl destroys CD every time. Personally I feel a lot of this is not just about the limitations of CD as a medium but also factors in the recording techniques used these days. Just about every one of my 70s rock records, recorded on analogue tape via live performance using microphones and actual air in the room sound superior to the in-computer, DI'd, over EQ'd, fixed in the mix, spliced, looped and over-compressed rubbish that comes out of Pro-Tools these days,. I completely agree with Cert on the issue of first presses too. I have first press Vertigo swirl eidtions of Black Sabbath's first album and Vol 4 and if you put these on after later presses they have greater dynamic swing, greater depth, better articulation and just sound punchier, louder and more "there" than later presses. The same is even true of the 2nd press I have of Dark Side of the Moon. It just knocks spots off the late 70s other pressing i have. As for MFSL pressings, I recently got their astounding pressing of Permanent Waves. It's simply awesome and now the only use I have for the CD remaster is as a coaster. Vinyl is more fun, more interesting, sounds way better, looks better, feels better. Period. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2008 at 15:50
The power of imagination ... quite impressive. But I wonder: Why would you compare Jamiroquai singles with 70s Rock? I mean, Jamiroquai is usually well produced, but the singles are definitely catered for radio/club play. Put on an Ozric Tentacles CD ... then we could be getting somewhere. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 01 2008 at 16:43
|
I wasn't purposefully comparing. In fact I wasn't comparing at all. My wife had been listening to the Jamiroquai CD and then I change it for Free on vinyl. The difference in quality was startling. And nothing to do with imagination. Why would I take the time to imagine one of two such disparate recordings sounded better. It just quantifiably did. In every respect - bass, mids, treble, soundstage (left/right and front/back), dynamics, placement - everything. I've been listening to music reproduced on dceent hi-fi equipment for 20 year, I kind think I can separate wishful thinking from describable sonic event. And to say the Jamiroquai singles have been produced for clubs is rubbish. the version of Space Cowboy on the hits CD is the album version not the four to the floor version and the album also contains things like Seven Days in Sunnt June which is hardly a club anthem. It was a simple but quite marked observation. The CD sounded, flat, dry and 2D, the vinyl springy, alive, tangible and vibrant. If that is my imagination then I'll continue to live in fantasy land. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 01 2008 at 16:57
|
I didn't intend any insult ... I just found it odd that you would use this comparison between these two very different recordings to deduce that vinyl is better. You're welcome to your opinion, I simply don't understand why vinyl should offer better bass, mids, treble, soundstage, dynamics or placement ... digital formats store information much more accurately and reliably, and today I had the pleasure of listening to the new Opeth album, which is so well produced and recorded that it blew me away, both the "ordinary" CD version and the 5.1 mix in dts format. I'll get the vinyl release too ... then I'll be able to do a direct comparison.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 02 2008 at 07:16
...Ooops - quoted, but the post got left behind
 Was just going to agree that some labels sound notably better than others - Island, Atlantic, Vertigo all sound really meaty - especially "Plum & Orange" Atlantics - Deja Vu by CSNY is incredibly rich, while Led Zep II is a noted test for any HiFi system. DSoTM is an odd case - the 2nd press IS really good, but the 1st has a rawness that all subsequent presses lack. Late 1970s-1980s have adistinctive syrupy quality, which is worse on all the CDs and remasters - like someone truly thought they could improve on the original.
I know which Floyd I prefer, when choosing between the Floyd on "Pompeii" and the Floyd on any other official live release, and the 1st (2nd and 3rd - yes, I have copies of each
) sound closer to the former.
Hearing is only one way of experiencing music, which is made of physical sound waves. Change the properties of a sound wave enough, and you might as well be listening to something else.
By changing just one sound, the harmonics, etc necessarily change. The interfereces of one sound wave with another become different, and the waves that hit your body (whether it's the ears or anywhere else) are different (I'm not really up with all the science of this, being an artist, but I get the principle).
If you don't think that sound waves affect parts of the body other than the ears, then you've never stood near a bass bin at a rock concert
Tests can show all sorts of things - I've conducted tests in my sitting room and at work computers that say otherwise
Digital formats can be proven to be superior *technically*.
In other ways, analogue is still considered to be superior by a large body of people - no matter what the numbers say.
Taste overrules science in many things. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 02 2008 at 08:53
Sorry Mike, I didn't mean my tone to come across as err cross! It wasn't at all. The thing I find about this endless debate is that more and more I get the feeling that accuracy is over-rated. I'll give a very unscientific example. Distortion, within reason, is pleasing to the ear. In terms of the accuracy of transciption distortion should in some sense make the experience unpleasant and should register as somehow being 'wrong', yet mild forms of distortion can be pleasant to the human ear. Mild clipping can enhance the 'feeling' in music. I grant you, there is absolutely no scientific reason why CDs shouldn't sound way better than vinyl. Certainly this should be the case with SACD and, if it ever happens, certainly with Blu-Ray, given the possibilities that opens up for audio. (In fact, I have a sneaking supsicion audio-only Blu-Ray could blow all arguments out of the water). Regardless of the digital accuracy of CD, though, vinyl, to my ears, still sounds better. And more and more I reallty do think this is down to how music was/is recorded. I listen to a lot of newly realeased vinyl, and honestly, it is no better or worse than the CD equivalent. I'd be happy to own either (save for the artwork with vinyl). I do believe that it is recording and mastering that makes 70s rock records sound better than modern rock records and I think a lot has to do with recording out of the digital domain to start with. Stick a mic a foot from the speaker enclosure of an amp, one a metre away and one behind or overhead and record it. I guarantee the recorded result will be better, by far, than DI'ing the same guitar and brewing an approximation of the same tone in Guitar Rig. I think the same applies to mastering (though I'm no expert at all). Mastering for CD these days seems to revolve around excessive amounts of compression and peak limiting to do two things: 1. To enhance the "loudness" of a recording 2. The flatten dynamics so that things can be listened to without great volume shifts between quiet and loud passages on i-Pods, car stereos. In days of yore, such limiting and compression was applied to simply fit the music to vinyl and the reasonable levels of compression used to master to a 3-minute 7" or 20-minute side of 12" are often quoted as having a benign effect on the sound of pop music, apparently making perfdormances sound "more together". The only are where, to my ears, this definitely does not seem the cae is classical music. I would rather listen to classical music on CD or SACD than vinyl any day as it for whatever reason offers greater definition, more headroom, and better articulation. I have no idea why this is. I have mint supposedly audiophile classical recordings on vinyl which leave me cold compared with the CD versions. Conversely, 70s rock music on vinyl just rocks in a way the CD remasters never can match. Led Zep's recent Mothership compilation is a good example. Despite the much-vaunted umpteenth rematsering of the tracks on it, none sounds as good as my scratchy old 1st press Zep III which just swings in a way the CD does not. I can't offer any explanation than the emotional. The vinyl sings, the CD merely plays. But it's just my ears telling me that. What I can suggest to anyone thinking about investing in vinyl as an alternative to CD is - tread carefully. You can get an awful lot of performance out of a 500 euro CD player. To get the same level of performance and better out of a turntable will cost a lot more. Turntables are funny beasts and the while a CD player is plug and play a turntable requires balance, fettling and the correct matching or cartridge to arm, arm to 'table, table to phono stage and on and on. It's a minefield and you won't get seriously good vinyl performance until you're well into 2,000 euro territory. Vinyl is utterly addictive (as my Ebay account will verify) and the best way to listen to music of a certain vintage but it can also be prohibitively expensive (as my wife and bank account will verify). |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2008 at 10:06
|
^ I'll post a lengthy response later ... right now I'll only say this: I agree that collecting vinyl can be addictive - I've become a collector myself. But I don't think you need to invest such amounts of money, be it CD or vinyl. I have a low cost record player which cost me 120 (new!). I listen to CDs on my computer, with the 20 built in DVD-ROM drive, connect to a 80 Logitech 5.1 speaker system via the on-board Realtek 97 sound chip (24bit/96khz internal resolution). I think we both agree that those components mark the bottom end of the price range ... but they offer great value for money, and I would never trade them in for anything else, because they sound fine to me. I've heard big systems - ranging from expensive professional studio equipment to audiophile hi-fi systems - , I still own a Harman Kardon system with good cabinets (not audiophile, but still) and until a couple of years ago I had a Musical Fidelity amplifier and Magnat cabinets. The *only* think I currently want to upgrade is the Logitech speaker system: I'll probably buy the big Z-5500 which is THX certified and has digital connectors with built in Dolby/dts decoders. But that will also cost me at most 250 . You - or oliverstoned - will probably remind me that on such "low-fi" equipment the quality of vinyl can't be judged to begin with. But: I'm able to hear most of the differences between recordings which are usually described in posts and reviews. I can hear differences between low-bitrate mp3 and CD. I can hear differences between bad mixes and good ones. I have sound stage quality (sweet spot) / depth perception in my room. All that tells me that my system can't be that bad - and subjectively it sounds awesome, as also attested by friends and colleagues. Maybe one day I'll upgrade my no-name record player to a better one - maybe a Regar Planar III - but I doubt that the sound quality will improve in proportion to the price of the equipment. I think it will rumble less, track better, and the accuracy will improve ... all very well, but I seriously doubt it will open an entirely new dimension of listening pleasure. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 02 2008 at 15:21
|
Some expensive vinyl is worth it - MFSL's definitely sound better on "audiophile" systems than on cheap amps - my amp blew recently and I borrowed a friends; My first presses sound flat, my MFSL's sound tinny and cheap - but my CDs sound fine, as do most of my 1980s recordings (which are on thin, cheap vinyl). I find that very telling.
But, on my decent amp - and many a sound engineer's I've spoken to, a first press of Led Zep II is a true test of a HiFi's capability. In my opinion, it's worth every penny. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 02 2008 at 16:21
|
^ that really sounds like black magic to me. Let's say that for some unknown reasons your first pressing of Led Zeppelin II really is the holy grail of all benchmarks ... the best recording ever in terms of sound. Then why would it sound crappy on your friend's amp? Why would a good source sound worse on a lo-fi amp than a bad source. The only explanation *I* can think of (doesn't mean it's right!) would be that you're simply used to how this pressing sounds on your own amp. Well, I guess I'll never have a chance to listen to that album on my system, so instead I'll try to set up my system so that the sources which I use sound great. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 03:24
I agree. But there are different kinds of distortion. The kind you want is called "harmonic distortion" and is usually created by tubes. Digital clipping however doesn't sound pleasant at all. BTW: Maybe what annoys me about some audiophiles is that they claim that their highest goal is to reproduce the original signal as accurately as possible - but at the same time they employ techniques which clearly alter the signal.
I don't think that we'll see another audio format beyond SACD and DVD-Audio. It wouldn't make sense to use digital cameras with 100 million pixels, or TV formats with resolutions of 10000x10000 ... by the same reason it doesn't make sense to extend resolution of audio formats beyond 96khz. *Maybe* bit depth will be increased from 24 bit to 32 bit, but I seriously doubt even that. But one thing that might happen is that entire discographies could be released on Blu-Ray - or collections which include both music (albums) and video (performances, documentaries). Of course only after we have all purchased everything on CD and DVD ...
Not so sure about what you said about guitar recording. Miking a guitar is actually a very difficult and cumbersome process ... you can't just "stick" some microphones around an amp and voila, there's a great sound. On the other hand the modern amp modellers do all that for you ... the simple ones had no room/microphone simulation at all, then they simulated one microphone, then you could move it around in a room (and change the room), and today you can use multiple microphones. Of course you can do it "old school", but modelling technology is constantly improved and has today reached a point where you really can't tell it apart from the real thing, if configured properly.
As I said elsewhere: I'm listening to *a lot* of new releases, and outside of mainstream I don't hear that much compression. If you want to risk a little experiment: Get the new No-Man album (or the re-release of Porcupine Tree - Lightbulb Sun). You can also get them on vinyl if you like, and the CD versions both include the DVD-Audio version.
Compressing and limiting were always done ... ever since there was radio. IMO it is wrong to do it, since it cannot be reversed ... it's an effect which should be applied during playback. The true problem is that digital media increased the possible dynamic range so much that compression has become necessary for stuff that is targeted for radio.
Thank you for this statement. The reason is obvious however: it is more accurate and has greater dynamic range, resulting in a better signal to noise ratio.
I think you simply got attached to the vinyl sound. It is your benchmark, and anything which is different is less good to you. Maybe it's the same for me and digital formats.
As I stated before: I don't think that you have to invest that kind of money into hi-fi equipment. You have to select it carefully, especially amp and speakers. But when it comes to CD players, IMHO even the cheapest (modern) one will do ... if you like classical music you should get one which also plays SACD, but SACD/DVD-Audio often contain 5.1 mixes so you'll probably have to get a surround system. This is how I arrived at my solution: The Logitech computer speakers: http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/logitech-z-5500-digital/4852-3179_7-31115626.html - http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/logitech-z-5500-digital/4852-3179_7-31115626.html As you can see, opinions are divided on them. Some say they're not suitable for music, some say the exact opposite. If you have a decent current computer (a new Core Duo / AMD X2 board with hi-def audio on board) and no 5.1 system at all, then my suggestion would be to try the Logitech X-530 to get started - I'll soon start a separate thread about this. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 08:59
If you've got a turntable, you've got the chance - you can pick up Plum and Orange copies cheaply (and £20 IS cheap, for what it is) that are in reasonable condition.
Like I said, it's a true test of a HiFi (according to many engineer friends I've spoken to, as well as my own opinion) - and the amp I've borrowed is rubbish, pure and simple. It's not that 1st presses sound worse than other sources on it, they just don't completely blow them away the way they do on a decent system.
Same with MFSLs - you said you weren't impressed with your MSFL Metallica album, well, I'm getting a similar effect from my copy of "Magical Mystery Tour", which sounds great and full on my amp, but tinny on this one.
The source is just one component - if the amp colours or filters the sound badly, or if the speakers aren't up to it, then it doesn't really matter how good the source is - it's hardly magic, black or otherwise. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 10:11
|
^ so what you're saying is that this recording will sound better than most others on a decent system? Sounds like an experiment I'd be willing to try ... I'm just not sure where to get the album. Remember that I don't live in the UK ... I guess that in Germany these pressings are a bit more difficult to find.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 12:40
eBay - the repository of vinyl heaven. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/LED-ZEPPELIN-III-200-GRAM-AUDIOPHILE-CLASSIC-RECORDS-LP_W0QQitemZ310055893731QQihZ021QQcategoryZ1593QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem That's the Classic Records 200gm pressing, these are supposed to be awesome. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BLACK-SABBATH-1st-V-Rare-Orig-UK-Vertigo-Spiral-Swirl_W0QQitemZ360057857201QQihZ023QQcategoryZ16138QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Black Sabbath debut album 1st press, Vertigo swirl label, looks like a good copy. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Led-Zeppelin-II-2-1969-Orig-Gatefold-slv-red-plum-LP_W0QQitemZ200227846593QQihZ010QQcategoryZ1593QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Plum and red label Zep II, bit overpriced but open to offers. Just on the last bunch of posts, I know, Mike, that you don't buy the whole audiophile thing and there's little I can do to try to convince you and I agree with you that to some degree there is a law of diminishing returns that applies to audiophilia. There is an awful lot of happiness in a reasonable CD player, amp and speakers. A thousand euro system will do about 70% of what a much more expensive collection of obscure boxes will do. BUT (and it is a serious but) if you do go the extra few yards then there is a tangible reward in sound quality (from whatever source you choose). There's an awful lot of smoke and mirrors in hi-fi (cables, power conditioning blah blah blah) but there is also a lot to be gained in stealthy and considered upgrades of things that matter (source, amplification, speakers). For financial reasons I lived with a budget hi-fi system for 10 years, (CD, amp and speakers together cost under a grand) and felt happy listening to it. But as finances improved I made subtle upgrades (good turntable, a better tonearm, a better cartridge, a better phono stage, better CD player, much better speakers). I didn't go mental and lash out ridiculous money but went carefully and matched budget to performance to system and the results are very very real and make me smile every time I listen to it. I think you have the (very understandable) opinion that spending money on esoteric hi-fi equipment is for the deluded "more-money-than-sense" fraternity, people who would happily buy snake oil if offered to them. I can assure you, I'm totally sceptical of all hi-fi's arcane bluster and have no interest in a lot of the mummery that passes as science in hi-fi. What I do try to do however, is use my ears. And my ears definitely tell me, that if you invest in the right source, match it to a decent amp and some good speakers then there is a vast improvement in sound. It doesn't have to cost a fortune either. You could buy an old Thorens TD160 from eBay, stick a Linn Basik arm on it, fit an Ortofon 2M Blue cartridge on it, change the platter to a Funk Firm Achromat and for under 300 pounds I think you would get a turntable that would beat the crap out of anything you could buy new for a grand. match that to a 50 pound NAD phono stage, a Prima Luna Prologue valve integrated amp and some Usher S-520 speakers and for just north of £1500 you would have a system that will astound you and one which will definitely reveal how good a 1st press Zep II can sound. If you want to go the whole hog, stick a Cambridge Audio 840C Azur CD player in there as well, at £750, and then for somewhere around £2500 you'll have a system that will open whole new worlds of enjoyment to you and give you 150% of what a computer based set-up will give and 90% of what 30k of obsessional stupidity will provide. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 17:10
|
^Those 200g Audiophile presses aren't so good, in my opinion - sure the sound is crystal clear, and the soundstage excellent - almost everything you'd expect from a pressing taken from the master.
My brother has one, and we played it back to back with my 1st Plum & Orange (and it's the very first press run).
The odd thing is that the new Audiophile press is faster.
Being faster, it's also increased slightly in pitch - the first thing I noticed was a slight helium edge to Plant's voice, but I initially put that down to my brother's system favouring high mids over deep bass (which he agrees it does - he prefers the tighter sound).
The thing with Led Zep Plum and Oranges (and Sabbath Vertigos) is that the sound is incredibly consistent from one run to the next. The very first isn't so different from, say, the 4th, in the case of Led Zep II - just like any Beatles album on "Black and Yellow" Parlophone or pre-mid 1970s Apple (you can easily spot these by the thickness of the vinyl). It's not quite the case with Islands, for example - I have both a "Pink i" and a Pink Rim ITCOTCK, and the Pink i is noticeably richer in sound.
I flogged my old Polydor copy on eBay as soon as I heard how good an Island sounds.
But collecting 1st presses is a real mugs game - there are collectors who collect them like stamps (ie, got to own all the Vertigo spirals, etc), pushing the price up for us music fans. You can still track them down at 2nd-hand vinyl shops for more reasonable prices than eBay - if you know what you're looking for! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 17:15
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 18:40
|
Actually I think you're very right. You can get an awful lot of
performance from a cheap CD player. For example, I did think about
selling on my Roksan (which I'm less than convinced by) and investing
in an Oppo DVD player, the latest of which will also stream SACD and
the CD playback is reckoned to be more than fine. They had had rave
reviews everywhere, including Stereophile magazine and only cost £160.
Could be the way to go. The point is, I don't think CD is a good format
in the first place, so don't see why once a decent clock has resolved
jitter problems (and most budget players have good clocks now) that a
cheapy should perform much worse on an inherently flawed format than an
expensive player. The reason I mentioned thre Cambridge is that it upsamples and apparently the upsampling gives a smoother more even tone. Again it is a machine that has had very positive reviews with again Stereophile saying it beats anything under $5000. An interesting article in this month's Hi-Fi News posits this: "most musical information exists below 3kHz and the ear is most sensitive at 7kHz where digital distortion lies. What we have here is the most unfortunate psycho-acoustically structured music playing system ever devised, possessing a pattern of distortion the ear can readily detect." And again: "25 years of progress in digital convertor technology has reduced CD distortion at -60db by five times - from 1% to 0.2% which seems quite good until another little know complexity is taken into account. "CD distortion levels are not only level dependent but are also frequency dependent - and measuement is only made nowadays at frequencies where CD gives its best results. That 0.2% result rises to no less than 1.7% in the measurements made for this article (taking into account quantisation noise). "The point is CD had a complex distortion pattern, one that changes appreciably across the audio band, with levels reaching well above Harold Leak's declared 0.1% limit of acceptability, made back in 1945. "LP does the opposite being relatively benign in psycho-acoustic terms,. it is because LP is benign and also produces ten times less distortion than CD at low levels (0.1% to 1%) that we find it aurally acceptable." Now I'm no science geek but is that a case for vinyl over CD? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 20:49
|
Hmm, interesting... I think I might buy a copy of HiFi News this month. I'd be curious to know their definition of 'CD distortion'.
The ear is most sensitive from 1KHz to 5KHz - it is more sensitive to noise around 6KHz because the ear responds differently to random noise than it does to continuous tones - distortion (either analogue or digital) is not random noise but it can be non-harmonic, (which is why it can show up in SNR measurements rather than THD measurements).
------------- What? |
Posted By: Hawkwise
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 21:59
|
And its Much better to skin up on a good ole Vinyl ,
------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 03:08
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 03:15
| Funny how people who have never heard a good Cd player, a good vinyl deck, draw conclusions about things they completly ignore. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 03:22
|
^ Funny how people like you completely ignore when people like me say that they *have* heard good analogue equipment. Have you ever heard my Logitech system? No? Then shut the f*ck up. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 05:11
|
One more time, i'll repeat myself, and you will too, until your death...
I don't need to listen to your "whisper boxes" to know how crappy it is. You can't judge nothing with that, whereas i had the chance to listen to some of the best digital and analog sources on real big systems in bi amplification. So i know what the best of the best digital source does (imagine a 60 000 dollars Mark Levinson CD setup), i know that it's impressive for some CD, but it's ridiculized by a good turntable of the third of its price. So please don't repeat endlessly what other ignorants and/or jealous say on Internet. I know a little what im talking about, whereas you have no experience in Hifi. You can have a look at my portable system into the heaphones thread, and everybody who listen to it agrees that the good Sony Discman is completly smoked by the Sony cassette Walkman. Much more low, highs, dynamic, detail, image, mateer, precense, smoothness...Now i don't say that vinyl and cassette is simple or convenient, but it's so superior to digital... Now it's not a mater of price, a second hand 100 dollars Nad Cd player will explode any computer or Ipod, and "Imod" (modified version of the Ipod by the american company "Red wine audio") beats the Ipod and so on...well you can listen to music through the worse equipment and still enjoy it...your brain will "fill the gaps" just like with digital... but you're more likely to end up with an headache than when listening to good digital and a tube amp or better to a decent turntable such as a Rega 3, a little good tuner such as a Rega Radio. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 06:12
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 18:34
Upsampling CD players upsample the bit-rate and the bit-depth - it would be meaningless to do just one. Upsampling the bit-rate without changing the bit-depth does not alter the original signal, so the quantisation frequency is unchanged. Upsampling bit-rate and bit-depth interpolates extra samples between the original ones in both time and amplitude, which, as you say, smoothes the waveform, but also shifts the quantisation frequency to 48kHz. The whole purpose of upsampling at play-back is to move the quantisation frequency to something well outside the audio band so that a) it can be filtered off without affecting the audio band and b) any modulation products between the quantisztion frequency and the audio signal also fall outside the audio-band.
------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 02:49
|
22khz is already well outside the hearing range ... isn't it? I doubt that there are many adults around who can even hear anything beyond 18khz.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 06:02
True, but if it is present in the audio signal it will beat with other audio signals and the products will be within human hearing range. For example 22.1kHz beating (i.e. modulating) with a 20kHz component will produce unwanted signals at 2.1Khz, 4.2kHz, 6.3kHz, 8.4kHz, 15.8kHz and 17.9kHz (and many others - those are just the 2nd and 3rd order components). Consider then how a complex music signal will beat with 22.1kHz. and the myriad of unwanted modulation products that will result in. This is how quantisation affects A-weighted SNR figures even though the A-weighting filter should 'ignore' the 22.1kHz.
Filtering off 22.05kHz without affecting frequencies below 20kHz is possible, but the filters are complex and expensive - removing 48kHz is easier as simpler, cheaper filters can be used. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 06:59
|
^ I checked the various wikipedia pages about upsampling and digital/analog conversion ... they don't contain much information about the effect you're describing. But: If a signal contains both 20khz and 22.05khz waveforms, the modulation effects are not unwanted at all. Only if by the conversion new signals were introduced, that of course would affect the signal. Are you sure that this happens during digital/analog conversion? I thought that it was primarily a problem when mixing several digital signals into one, which is why professional digital audio in studios usually works with 24bit/192khz. Don't take me too serious here ... I currently don't have the time to brush up on my knowledge in this domain. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 07:29
|
^ the 20kHz is part of the audio signal, but the 22.1kHz is the bit-rate/2, which is inherent in the digitised signal, so is present in the reconstituted analogue signal. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 07:39
|
^ where does that 22.1kHz signal come from ... why should it be "automatically" present in the digital signal? Or in other words: When/How is it added to the signal? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 09:45
But nobody does! You see, things are a little more complex than it seems. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 10:03
Some people just can't be taken seriously ... BTW: At least *I* try to increase my knowledge. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 10:18
|
And we're off! Again. I think the bottom line here is that it's horses for courses. I like vinyl and analogue, so does Oliver, Mike's a digi fiend. I find digital flat and hard, he champions its accuracy. The correlation here I suppose is as simple as whether you like a smooth, warm sounding system or something that delivers anlaytical detail and crispness. Personally I want it all - warmth and a tangible midband but with crispness treble and tight bass but I guess I veer towards the warm side of the spectrum. Others prize that "hi-fi" sound of forensic detail (which I find comes at the expense of musicality). In the end it doesn't matter one whit. Both formats have their strengths. If you get something that makes your ears tingle when you slap on a CD or a record then voila - happiness. And that's it. None of us are ever going to agree on this eternal circular debate so best to probably leave it. I still say vinyl rule though ;-) |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 10:39
|
^ I agree ... almost. I do like vinyl. And although I think that digital is superior in many ways, it doesn't mean that there can't be a vinyl disc which sounds superior than many digital recordings. It all depends on what the engineers make of the medium. For example, there are many audiophiles which prefer to listen to classical music on CD and/or SACD/DVD-Audio. I don't think it has much to do with the actual music, but with the fact that classical music is rarely played "competitively" on the radio, and thus has been spared from the loudness war.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 11:39
My mistake - it's 22.05kHz ... (Excel rounded down to 1dp and I missed it
) When a signal is sampled at 44.1kHz the bit-rate is present in the resulting data as fs/2 [a bit-rate 44.1kHz is one sample every 22.676µS - two samples are needed to reconstitute a signal (Nyquist) so the resultant is 22.05kHz].
This is regardless of the original sampling frequency - keeping the bit-depth and bit-rate high during recording process shifts this quantisation frequency out of the audio-band preventing it from affecting the recorded/mixed data, but it appears once the data is downsampled to 44.1kHz to encode onto the CD - what comes off the CD is still limited to 16bits @44.1kHz and contains all the inherent artifacts of that (low) sampling rate.
Therefore this is not an effect of the sampling ADCs or the reconstituting DACs, but is an inherent trait of the encoded data. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 11:46
^ I agree too
Both systems have their pros and cons and I enjoy both. Nothing can beat the dynamic range of digital data once the mastering 'engineers' actually let us experience it.I am a mixed-signal test engineer by profession so I tend to over-analyse things for a living ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 11:53
|
^^ sorry, I still don't quite understand. But is this all really important today? I mean, even cheap computer sound cards do the digital/analog conversion correctly. I looked at the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28signal_processing%29#Audio_sampling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(signal_processing)#Audio_sampling Consider the following statement: "One advantage of higher sampling rates is that they can relax the low-pass filter design requirements for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog-to-digital_converter - ADCs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter - DACs , but with modern oversampling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-delta_converter - sigma-delta converters this advantage is less important" Doesn't this mean that whatever happens during sampling, in the end a low pass filter eliminates this high frequency noise which could affect the original signal? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 11:55
I did a bit of research, but I couldn't find any database which you can use to find out which recordings suffer from extreme compression and which don't ... that's too bad. Such a database would be quite interesting ... maybe I'll even add a tag to my website which indicates the "audiophility". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 11:58
|
^ just add an "Album Gain" field to your database and voilą! ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 12:13
|
^ Yes, that's what I meant. But I'm still trying to figure out how the Album Gain figure calculated by ReplayGain relates to the figures usually mentioned in articles. ReplayGain calculates the difference between the album gain and a mysterious "reference" (either 83dB or 89dB - sources vary), while articles usually specify the difference between the album gain and 0dB (full scale). Am I right in assuming that "full scale" means 96dB? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 13:02
Good question.
 The dynamic range of a Cd is 96.33dB - usually we reference everything negatively with respect to FS (ie 0dB), so the ideal minimum noise-floor for a 16-bit ADC is expressed as -94.56dBFS
Looking at the maths for Replay Gain they calculate the reference level as being -20dBFS of Pink Noise to produce 83dB(SPL) output in a listening environment (whatever that means
), which equates to 0dB on a studio mixing desk... which is a pile of nonsense - 83dB(SPL) is dependant upon amplifier power and speaker efficiency and has nothing to do with what comes off a CD.So a quick answer is No. ------------- What? |