A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » High End Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hi Rez digital vs. LP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 29th 12, 09:26 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:49:16 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 27, 2:46pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:35:56 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>
>>> And yet the CD that you find quite inferior to the Classics 45 rpm LP
>>> of the Firebird suite was mastered about as well as it could be and in
>>> blind tests that series of CDs were found to be pretty much
>>> indistinguishable from the master tapes. The "best practices" were
>>> used in mastering that CD. So what you find to be better (as do I by
>>> the way) is probably not more accurate. It would seem that your
>>> "facts" are very much in conflict with one another. If CD as a medium
>>> is "better" as you claim to be fact then it does not jive with your
>>> opinion that the Classics 45 rpm LP of the Firebird is "better" than
>>> the CD. They were both mastered from the same tapes with the same
>>> playback gear under the supervision of the same producer.

>>
>> Not at all. The Firebird is an anomaly and neither you or I, I dare say,
>> have ever heard the Mercury "Firebird" master.

>
> You are correct that neither of us have heard the master but the
> Firebird is hardly an anomaly. Classics only did five titles from the
> Mercury catalog on 45 rpm LP and all five of them excel. It is no
> anomaly.


OK, the only two Mercury Classic Records releases that I've ever heard are
the "Firebird" and a Classic Records test pressing of the remastering of a
few cuts from the Mercury LP "Hi-Fi a la Espanola" with Frederick Fennel and
the Eastman Rochester Pops Orchestra (Mercury SR- 90144). While the
"Espanola" record does sound great, it does not have the impact that the
Firebird" has in my estimation. I do have several Lewis Leyton recorded RCAs
on Classic Records single-sided 45 RPM series, and again, they sound great
(better than the SACDs BMG released a few years ago, and better than the
original Red-Seal LPs) , but they don't have the impact of the "Firebird".
That's why I called it "an anomaly".

>
>> We can't know which is the more
>> accurate, the LP or the CD. We can just know which gives us the greater
>> illusion of an orchestra playing in a real space. For me (and all I have
>> played the two for) it's the Classic Records release.

>
> Well this is true if we completely ignore the blind comparisons that
> Dennis Drake and Wilma Cozart Fine did for the press between the CDs
> and the original master tapes. I don't see any reason to ignore those
> blind comparisons.


If one DOESN'T ignor those "blind tests", then one would have to conclude
that the Classic Records single-sided 45 RPM release of that title sounds
BETTER than the master tape. But if Bernie Grundman used NO mastering moves,
how do we account for the serendipitously spectacular sound on that
particular release?


Ads
  #32  
Old April 29th 12, 10:04 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 633
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 29, 1:20=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:17am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:



[ Excessive quotation deleted. --dsr ]


> >> If you didn't synchronize the two recordings at all, then my comment
> >> still applies

> > How so? How does one get any cue if one starts each selection from the
> > begining which was what I did?

>
> What does that mean?
>
> Does it mean that you synchronized both players at the start of a side or=

a
> track and just let the 2 players run while you switched back and forth?


No it means we started each sample at the begining of the music so
there was no synching.

>
> > It certainly didn't give me any cues
> > when I was comparing the 24/96 rip. why would it be different with the
> > CD rip?

>
> If I understand, you were comparing to a LP you were playing back, right?
>


Yes.

  #33  
Old April 30th 12, 04:02 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 633
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 29, 1:26pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:49:16 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > On Apr 27, 2:46pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:35:56 -0700, Scott wrote
> >> (in article >):

>
> >> [quoted text deleted -- deb]

>
> >>> And yet the CD that you find quite inferior to the Classics 45
> >>> rpm LP of the Firebird suite was mastered about as well as it
> >>> could be and in blind tests that series of CDs were found to be
> >>> pretty much indistinguishable from the master tapes. The "best
> >>> practices" were used in mastering that CD. So what you find to
> >>> be better (as do I by the way) is probably not more accurate. It
> >>> would seem that your "facts" are very much in conflict with one
> >>> another. If CD as a medium is "better" as you claim to be fact
> >>> then it does not jive with your opinion that the Classics 45 rpm
> >>> LP of the Firebird is "better" than the CD. They were both
> >>> mastered from the same tapes with the same playback gear under
> >>> the supervision of the same producer.

>
> >> Not at all. The Firebird is an anomaly and neither you or I, I
> >> dare say, have ever heard the Mercury "Firebird" master.

>
> > You are correct that neither of us have heard the master but the
> > Firebird is hardly an anomaly. Classics only did five titles from
> > the Mercury catalog on 45 rpm LP and all five of them excel. It is
> > no anomaly.

>
> OK, the only two Mercury Classic Records releases that I've ever
> heard are the "Firebird" and a Classic Records test pressing of the
> remastering of a few cuts from the Mercury LP "Hi-Fi a la Espanola"
> with Frederick Fennel and the Eastman Rochester Pops Orchestra
> (Mercury SR- 90144). While the "Espanola" record does sound great,
> it does not have the impact that the Firebird" has in my estimation.
> I do have several Lewis Leyton recorded RCAs on Classic Records
> single-sided 45 RPM series, and again, they sound great (better than
> the SACDs BMG released a few years ago, and better than the original
> Red-Seal LPs) , but they don't have the impact of the "Firebird".
> That's why I called it "an anomaly".


OK but that certainly could be a function of the source material. But
what has not been an anomaly IME is the superior sound of these 45 rpm
audiophile reissues when compared to their counterparts.

> >> We can't know which is the more accurate, the LP or the CD. We
> >> can just know which gives us the greater illusion of an orchestra
> >> playing in a real space. For me (and all I have played the two
> >> for) it's the Classic Records release.

>
> > Well this is true if we completely ignore the blind comparisons
> > that Dennis Drake and Wilma Cozart Fine did for the press between
> > the CDs and the original master tapes. I don't see any reason to
> > ignore those blind comparisons.

>
> If one DOESN'T ignor those "blind tests", then one would have to
> conclude that the Classic Records single-sided 45 RPM release of
> that title sounds BETTER than the master tape. But if Bernie
> Grundman used NO mastering moves, how do we account for the
> serendipitously spectacular sound on that particular release?


Euphonic colorations. I don't remeber if it was Doug Sax or Stan
Ricker but years ago one of them claimed that the LPs he mastered
consistantly sounded better than the signal fed to the cutting lathe.
A classic case of "better" and "more accurate" being at odds with each
other.

  #34  
Old April 30th 12, 01:50 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:02:34 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 29, 1:26pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:49:16 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2:46pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:35:56 -0700, Scott wrote
>>>> (in article >):

>>
>>
>> OK, the only two Mercury Classic Records releases that I've ever
>> heard are the "Firebird" and a Classic Records test pressing of the
>> remastering of a few cuts from the Mercury LP "Hi-Fi a la Espanola"
>> with Frederick Fennel and the Eastman Rochester Pops Orchestra
>> (Mercury SR- 90144). While the "Espanola" record does sound great,
>> it does not have the impact that the Firebird" has in my estimation.
>> I do have several Lewis Leyton recorded RCAs on Classic Records
>> single-sided 45 RPM series, and again, they sound great (better than
>> the SACDs BMG released a few years ago, and better than the original
>> Red-Seal LPs) , but they don't have the impact of the "Firebird".
>> That's why I called it "an anomaly".

>
> OK but that certainly could be a function of the source material. But
> what has not been an anomaly IME is the superior sound of these 45 rpm
> audiophile reissues when compared to their counterparts.



Granted. They all sound so good that if ALL LPs had sounded as good, IME,
there would have been no reason for CD!

>>
>> If one DOESN'T ignor those "blind tests", then one would have to
>> conclude that the Classic Records single-sided 45 RPM release of
>> that title sounds BETTER than the master tape. But if Bernie
>> Grundman used NO mastering moves, how do we account for the
>> serendipitously spectacular sound on that particular release?

>
> Euphonic colorations. I don't remeber if it was Doug Sax or Stan
> Ricker but years ago one of them claimed that the LPs he mastered
> consistantly sounded better than the signal fed to the cutting lathe.
> A classic case of "better" and "more accurate" being at odds with each
> other.


In many cases, I'll take the euphonic colorations over accuracy. We're going
for an effect here. That effect is of real musicians playing in real space.
If euphonic colorations in recordings helps to achieve that goal, then I'm
all for them.

Now, having said that, I also assert that using todays tools, it is possible
to make accurate recordings that also have all of the attributes that we
associate with euphonic colorations in recordings made 50-55 years ago.

  #35  
Old May 2nd 12, 10:48 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 633
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On May 2, 10:38=A0am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 7:49=A0am, Scott > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:51=A0am, ScottW > wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 27, 7:45=A0am, Scott > wrote:

>
> > > > On Apr 27, 6:03=A0am, rtweed > wrote:

>
> > > > > It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refu=

te
> > > > > the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:

>
> > > > > - take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, =

play
> > > > > it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
> > > > > (preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).

>
> > > > > Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recordi=

ng of
> > > > > the LP.

>
> > > > > My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference =

and
> > > > > the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualiti=

es of
> > > > > the analog original.

>
> > > > > If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
> > > > > commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must =

be
> > > > > due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent ch=

anges
> > > > > in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.

>
> > > > This is not a test of which sounds "better" but a test of transpare=

ncy
> > > > of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips=

of
> > > > vinyl. The CD rips were not perfectly transparent. I was able to
> > > > reliably hear differences.

>
> > > If you didn't rip at high rates and then digitally filter and then
> > > convert to 16/44 you used inferior capture methods.

>
> > it may very well be inferior but it is still redbook CD which some
> > claim to be transparent. In my case with my rips they were not
> > transpent.

>
> > > CD (16/44) is perfectly capable of delivering transparent audio
> > > content for playback,
> > > not recording.

>
> > I don't follow. somehow any redbook CD has to be "recorded"

>
> But it doesn't have to start at 16/44. =A0 Recording at low sample rates
> requires aggressive anti-alias filters which can have audible effects.
> Record at higher rates, digitally filter and then convert to lower
> rates appears to be the norm for recording today.
>

I get that and agree with you. But there are some here who seem to be
claiming that even when you start at 16/44 it should be transparent.
All I am saying is that with the CDs I have burned directly from
analog sources the results have not been completely audibly
transparent. Nothing more nothing less. Obviosuly based on my
experience I would opt for hi res capture.

  #36  
Old May 3rd 12, 02:43 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:48:03 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On May 2, 10:38am, ScottW > wrote:


>> But it doesn't have to start at 16/44. Recording at low sample rates
>> requires aggressive anti-alias filters which can have audible effects.
>> Record at higher rates, digitally filter and then convert to lower
>> rates appears to be the norm for recording today.
>>

> I get that and agree with you. But there are some here who seem to be
> claiming that even when you start at 16/44 it should be transparent.
> All I am saying is that with the CDs I have burned directly from
> analog sources the results have not been completely audibly
> transparent. Nothing more nothing less. Obviosuly based on my
> experience I would opt for hi res capture.


That's very interesting. 16-bit/44.1KHz sampling SHOULD be transparent
to any analog source other than perhaps, mastering quality condenser
microphones, and the things that recording at 24-bit and 88.2 KHz or
higher bring to the table shouldn't affect a transfer made from a
vinyl record or a non-master analog tape. The only way that I can see
which would cause your transfers to be less than completely
transparent would be if there were some fault in the analog equipment
used to make the digital transfers. For instance a faulty A/D
converter or some fault in the analog electronics of that converter
would have to occur before it could make such a transfer sound other
than exactly like the source. Of course, a fault in the CD playback
could accomplish the same thing.

I have made analog to digital transfers using such mundane equipment
as the $35 (or less) Behringer U-Control UCA222 analog to USB digital
interface. It makes perfectly transparent transfers. I used to record
a major symphony orchestra for their archives and I have dozens of
master tapes. A few years ago, I decided that the master tapes which
were all recorded at 15 inches-per-second, 1/2 track stereo, were
beginning to deteriorate (many were recorded on Ampex Grand Master
type 456 which is subject to the backing on the tape turning to goo
over time rendering the tape useless). I wanted to get them into
digital form as soon as possible. 24-bit was not as cheap or as
plentiful as it is today (a Behringer FCA202 24/96 D/A-A/D converter
is available today for about $80, but not then) so I decided to try
the UCA222. I first made a transfer of a performance of Stravinsky's
"Petroushka" which I recorded using a sample 10.5 inch NAB reel of
Sony's Ferrichrome tape that I was given at an AES convention. This
tape had the widest dynamic range (due to the high overload tolerance
of the FECr) of any of the recordings. I figured that if the little
Behringer USB box could do a decent job on this tape, it could handle
any of them.

To say that I was flabbergasted at the results is an understatement.
When I played the CD I made from the computer file back and did a
blind A/B comparison with the master tape, I couldn't reliably tell
which was which. Neither could anybody else. So, over the next few
months, I transfered all of my symphony masters to CD. The all sound
splendid. On some I can tell a slight difference in the highs, and
that changes depending upon which Redbook playback filter on my Sony
XA777-ES SACD player that I use, but these differences are trivial
and still don't allow anyone to tell the CD apart from the master
tape. I'd say, that for all intents and purposes this cheap little
converter makes wholly transparent digital copies of analog sources.

Of course, CD playback is going to sound a little different on each
player, especially on the top-end, but that's because different CD
players have different types of high-frequency filters (some have
better bass than others as well), but none of these differences are
going to be anywhere near the magnitude of say, playing the same
master tape on two different tape decks, or playing a record using
two different cartridges. Are you sure that what you are calling a
not transparent transfer can't be marked down to just differences in
playback equipment of the kind I''ve just mentioned?
  #37  
Old May 4th 12, 01:20 AM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:48:03 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On May 2, 10:38am, ScottW > wrote:


>> But it doesn't have to start at 16/44. Recording at low sample rates
>> requires aggressive anti-alias filters which can have audible effects.


What's a low sample rate in this context? 44 Khz is disqualified
because it puts all such artifacts outside of the audible range?

>> Record at higher rates, digitally filter and then convert to lower
>> rates appears to be the norm for recording today.


It is what some people do, and a lot of people don't.

> I get that and agree with you. But there are some here who seem to be
> claiming that even when you start at 16/44 it should be transparent.


16/44 is transparent no matter what the original bandwidth with some
caveats. If your system includes a piece of equipment that has
excess nonlinear distortion(s) (e.g. tubed equipment), then a
spurious signals in a wideband recording can be downconverted into
the audible range by the distoriton(s).

The LP format and the playback equipment used with it are themselves
excessively nonlinear by modern standards. They also have a great
potential to create spurious ultrasonic signals simply because of
their excessive nonlinearity.

If you cleanly convert wideband material down to 44 KHz sampling, those
spurious signals are effectively erased and won't be down converted by the
excessively nonlinear playback equipment.

The downsampled version and the original version may sound different because
the downsampled version lacks the spurious signals that trigger nonlinear
distortion.


  #38  
Old May 8th 12, 02:03 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Randy Yates[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

ScottW > writes:
> [...]
> Which brings into question...with oversampling required in the
> implementation of digital filtering used in even the lowest cost A/D
> systems (UCA222)...is anyone today technically recording per the
> original redbook CD specs. ie at 16/44 ?


Right. Even though the output resolution/rate may be 16/44, the input
resolution/rate may be totally different, e.g., 1/8M.
--
Randy Yates
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #39  
Old May 8th 12, 02:03 PM posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

ScottW > wrote:
> On May 3, 5:20?pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:48:03 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>> > On May 2, 10:38am, ScottW > wrote:
>> >> But it doesn't have to start at 16/44. Recording at low sample rates
>> >> requires aggressive anti-alias filters which can have audible effects.

>>
>> What's a low sample rate in this context? ?44 Khz is disqualified
>> because it puts all such artifacts outside of the audible range?
>>

>
> Is that a comment or a question? Are you claiming that high-order
> low pass filters with 20 khz cutoff frequency won't have any audible
> effects in the passband?
>
> The paper I linked says otherwise.


It doesn't really. Some filters aren't very good, and could have
audible effects, but this paper doesn't attempt to find out which ones
they are. It says "More work is required to evaluate the limits on
the perception of the echo effects described here." and "It would seem
that some kind of threshold test on the audibility of pre and
post-echo pairs is required."

We already know that some really bad filters are audible, but these
are worse than those used in any commercial DAC.

Andrew.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
digital photography vs. digital audio [email protected] Pro Audio 31 May 10th 07 02:27 PM
Mac Pro digital output Look for a set of speakers with digital input Maya Pro Audio 0 November 12th 06 07:26 AM
digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) - ends tomorrow SC Miata Marketplace 0 February 8th 04 04:40 AM
FA: digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) SC Miata Marketplace 0 February 1st 04 11:40 PM
Connections between digital mixer and a digital recorder? psongman Pro Audio 7 October 17th 03 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2014 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.