Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the
NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. bob |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
"bob" wrote in message
Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at all by younger listeners at all. It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:06:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "bob" wrote in message Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...f=style&oref=s login It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at all by younger listeners at all. It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better. Like I said. Look what they have been listening to: MP3's from iTunes. Of course LPs sound better. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:32:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. bob Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... snip Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at all by younger listeners at all. It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better. And you know this how? I and I am sure many others wish to know? |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 18:20:00 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... snip Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at all by younger listeners at all. It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better. And you know this how? I and I am sure many others wish to know? "Sounds Better" is a relative term. Does a good LP "Sound Better" than the average (or perhaps any) MP3? Well, it certainly sounds more musical, i.E., more real than an MP3, that's for sure. No as to whether or not that sounds "better" is a matter of personal opinion. I certainly think so. I cannot STAND MP3 at ANY data rate. IMHO, they make good recordings sound mediocre and mediocre recordings sound dreadful. So, yeah, an LP sounds "better". |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
bob wrote:
Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. From the article: "This year Capitol/EMI is in the process of reissuing its first substantial vinyl catalog in decades. Some of those albums, like €śPet Sounds€ť by the Beach Boys, are classic rock leviathans aimed at nostalgic baby boomers..." I agree...Pet Sounds, in compressed mono, probably sounds as good (if not better) on records than CD. I know, since I've got more copies than I want to think about--in both formats. But, if you really want to see what's inside the mix, grab the Pet Sound Session box CDs. Here, the four track tapes are preserved, and the sound quality from the old analog masters from Western will literally floor you. All that wonderful sound mixed down into mono for reproduction over a car radio, and the flip over styli suitcase style record players we all were using in 1966. Unbelievable. Thank god for SOA CD mastering, and the guys at Capitol who preserved it all. Michael |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
wrote in message
... bob wrote: Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. From the article: "This year Capitol/EMI is in the process of reissuing its first substantial vinyl catalog in decades. Some of those albums, like ?oPet Sounds?ť by the Beach Boys, are classic rock leviathans aimed at nostalgic baby boomers..." I agree...Pet Sounds, in compressed mono, probably sounds as good (if not better) on records than CD. I know, since I've got more copies than I want to think about--in both formats. But, if you really want to see what's inside the mix, grab the Pet Sound Session box CDs. Here, the four track tapes are preserved, and the sound quality from the old analog masters from Western will literally floor you. All that wonderful sound mixed down into mono for reproduction over a car radio, and the flip over styli suitcase style record players we all were using in 1966. Unbelievable. Thank god for SOA CD mastering, and the guys at Capitol who preserved it all. In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges. In 2008 some of us listen to "Pet Sounds" in its DVD-A release version from those mastertapes. Where do CD's enter this picture? |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
Sonnova wrote:
Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP. A pristine LP from an audiophile source, played the first time on a first rate setup, sound just fine. But it can never, ever, be as good as a first rate digital recording. It's simply impossible, because LPs simply cannot have the accuracy of digital. Doug McDonald |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 03:14:24 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): wrote in message=20 ... bob wrote: =20 Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: =20 It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. =20 =20 From the article: =20 "This year Capitol/EMI is in the process of reissuing its first=20 substantial vinyl catalog in decades. Some of those albums, like =E2?oPet Sounds=E2= ?=9D by=20 the Beach Boys, are classic rock leviathans aimed at nostalgic baby=20 boomers..." =20 =20 I agree...Pet Sounds, in compressed mono, probably sounds as good (if = not better) on records than CD. I know, since I've got more copies than I= =20 want to think about--in both formats. But, if you really want to see what'= s inside the mix, grab the Pet Sound Session box CDs. Here, the four tr= ack tapes are preserved, and the sound quality from the old analog masters= =20 from Western will literally floor you. All that wonderful sound mixed down= =20 into mono for reproduction over a car radio, and the flip over styli suitca= se style record players we all were using in 1966. Unbelievable. Thank = god for SOA CD mastering, and the guys at Capitol who preserved it all. =20 =20 In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using=20 Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges. Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate=20 operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend t= o=20 dry out and crack with age. But the Dyna tube stuff and the Thorens and t= he=20 ESL arm will still make good music. (the vintage MC cartridge is another=20 matter, though. It would have to be replaced). :-) =20 In 2008 some of us listen to "Pet Sounds" in its DVD-A release version = from=20 those mastertapes. =20 Where do CD's enter this picture? |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
Harry Lavo wrote:
In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges. I wish I'd known you in '66, Harry. Back then, were you a teenager mowing lawns in order to buy your gear? If so, you really worked harder than I ever did. Or, was your old man rich? All I could ever talk pop into was the suitcase hi-fi, with the detachable speaker. That is why I was mowing lawns. A few years later I had a friend whose old man owned a Dual 1229, but it would have been better for us teenagers if he'd caught us fooling around with his wife than messing with the Dual. BTW, what moving coil cartridges were you listening to, in 1966? Ortofon SPUs? The MC scene really didn't take off until the mid 70s. At least in my area. Where do CD's enter this picture? Beats me... But if you're going to listen to the original Western master tapes that Brian used to mix it all down, and if you're not an engineer at Capitol with some clout, then CDs are the only choice I know about. Michael |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
wrote in message
news Sonnova wrote: Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP. A pristine LP from an audiophile source, played the first time on a first rate setup, sound just fine. But it can never, ever, be as good as a first rate digital recording. It's simply impossible, because LPs simply cannot have the accuracy of digital. Doug McDonald Let's see: First we have a claim "There is no audible difference...." Then we have another claim that at a certain frequency, MP3 "from a good source will BEAT any LP". Then there is a third claim that no matter how good an audiophile LP is, even the first time, it can "NEVER, EVER be as good as a first rate digital recording..." (And note somewhere along the way MP3 has dissappeared.) And finally, a fourth and fifth claim: "(four) it is simply impossible" and "(five) ...LP's simply cannot have the accuracy of digital". And implied in this latter, an assumption that "accuracy" is the yardstick measure rather than subjective realism. Mr. McDonald.....do you understand why this short and pithy message may not convince those of us who don't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions and assumptions? :-) |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Sep 6, 11:35=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any = bit rate. So you have said. But have you tried to compare a CD to a 256 kbps copy without knowing which is which? Do it sometime, and see if you can pick out the MP3 consistently. bob |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges. I wish I'd known you in '66, Harry. Back then, were you a teenager mowing lawns in order to buy your gear? If so, you really worked harder than I ever did. Actually, I'm a decade older. I worked my tail off through my Jr and Sr year of high school to build the first system of my own, which went to college with me. It consited of a Garrard RC-121 with a GE cartridge feeding an EICO HF-20 feeding an EV-SP12B in an Argus cabinet that I later rebuilt, all pulled together into a custom vertical enclosure I built to reduce floor space. Later in college, I added a Sherwood tuner and replaced the speaker with a home-built cabinart corner cabinet housing a 15" Jensen tri-ax. Or, was your old man rich? Not at all rich in a monetary sense. But he did give me my love of music (he had been a jazz drummer in college, and my first musical memories were of me sitting on his lap in an arm chair, with him using my arms to beat out time while listening to music.) I did physical work in high school, then drafting work summers between college years, and did both physical work and library work in college to get through. My dad was an electrical engineer and for a time owned a recording studio and an audio distributorship that put Magnacorders into radio stations all over the Northeast. But he expanded too fast, lost control, and lost the business. What money he made was put into a new house and car for the family, to salvage his wounded pride, I think. All I could ever talk pop into was the suitcase hi-fi, with the detachable speaker. That is why I was mowing lawns. A few years later I had a friend whose old man owned a Dual 1229, but it would have been better for us teenagers if he'd caught us fooling around with his wife than messing with the Dual. I know that feeling! :-) Seriously, the old VM suitcases et al were what most people grew up with for music in the fifties. I was only "showing off". But given a real hi-gi rig, Emory Cooks "Sounds of the Times" audiophile LP's and the red vinyl of Audiphile Records showcasing Red Nichols and other jazz groups was pretty impressive stuff in those days. BTW, what moving coil cartridges were you listening to, in 1966? Ortofon SPUs? The MC scene really didn't take off until the mid 70s. At least in my area. Ortofon SL-15...strong presence peak (actually double peak) centered on 10K. I alternated it with a Stanton 681EE (most neutral) and my favorite, and ADC 25 (forrunner to the ADC XLM). Where do CD's enter this picture? Beats me... But if you're going to listen to the original Western master tapes that Brian used to mix it all down, and if you're not an engineer at Capitol with some clout, then CDs are the only choice I know about. Actually, they were released on a DVD-A at the same time as the CD's...that is what I was referring to. Again, I was just jiving. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
Sonnova wrote:
Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend to dry out and crack with age. By the time I started to earn enough money to actually afford my own gear (early to mid 70s) the "average" or uneducated audiophile, of which I was a typical example, usually thought of three speakers. First, the AR3a, then the JBL L-100, and there was also the Bose speaker that was getting a ton of favorable press at the time--at least in the mainstream publications. The first two were like night and day--East v West coast sound. They both had their advantages, but they both looked better than they sounded. At the same time, knowledgable audiophiles (I knew a couple) were listening to Quads. I wish I'd been more knowledgable, back then. Michael |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
bob wrote:
Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin It's not about sound quality; it's about cool. And Vinyl is not play-protected (i think the industries names it "copy-protection"). greetings from germany, -t. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:05:12 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ) : On Sep 6, 11:35=A0am, Sonnova wrote: I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any = bit rate. So you have said. But have you tried to compare a CD to a 256 kbps copy without knowing which is which? Do it sometime, and see if you can pick out the MP3 consistently. bob Yes, I have and yes I can. Every time, and its not difficult either. The degradation is NOT subtle in the least and in fact, to me seems glaring. So much so, that I find it difficult to believe that others have convinced themselves that you can throw parts of a musical performance away (as in lossy compression) without noticing "the mechanism" that's doing it! |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
In article ,
" wrote: Sonnova wrote: Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend to dry out and crack with age. By the time I started to earn enough money to actually afford my own gear (early to mid 70s) the "average" or uneducated audiophile, of which I was a typical example, usually thought of three speakers. First, the AR3a, then the JBL L-100, and there was also the Bose speaker that was getting a ton of favorable press at the time--at least in the mainstream publications. The first two were like night and day--East v West coast sound. They both had their advantages, but they both looked better than they sounded. At the same time, knowledgable audiophiles (I knew a couple) were listening to Quads. I wish I'd been more knowledgable, back then. My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price. Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most convincing way. -- Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
Robert Peirce wrote:
My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price. Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most convincing way. The idea of the speaker "disappearing" is the best description I've heard. Many talk about it, few speakers reach this ideal. My mind reflects upon a letter written some years ago to Mr. Aczel's Audio Critic, from S. Linkwitz, who simply stated that the "box" was the primary limiting factor. In his considered opinion, no box could, or would ever approach sonic perfection. I am no expert, but I've never heard a traditional box speaker that I really wanted to own, and I own box speakers. How to get "outside the box." That's the question. The first time I ever heard what I considered really worthwhile sound was listening to an electrostatic speaker designed by Harold Beveridge. There were limitations to his design, to be sure. Yet it was the first time I heard anything that was truly exceptional. Since hearing this speaker I've never been satisfied. I do not mean to denigrate other great designs, such as the Quad, but there was something uncanny about the Beveridge. Other flat panel speakers, ESL and otherwise, never had whatever it was they possessed. After I experienced the Beveridge I went out and bought Acoustats (it was what I could afford). They were at best OK--not boxy, but nowhere and nohow in the same class. Every Magneplaner speaker I ever heard was even worse. I never understood how anyone could really enjoy their sound, but to each his own. The Infinity EMIT/EMIM drivers seemed to have protential, but nothing lasting ever came of this design. Sorry, I was never an Apogee fan, although I never thought they sounded bad. They were just more of the same, and I wanted more. Stupid me. I'm fond of electrostatics; however for small rooms they are mostly impractical. I've spent a lot of time with Dr. West's speaker, and for what they are, they are very nice. With this type of speaker the room becomes the obvious limiting factor--more so than with the box. Still, even this great product never "wowed" me like the Beveridge (in spite of the latter's real limitations). Maybe my memory is faulty, but it is what I have to go with. Forget about amps and preamps. They will not make your listening experience wonderful. One day speakers will be what we want them to be. Whether I will be around to experience it, who knows? But the time will come. Michael |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid wrote (in article ) : Sonnova wrote: Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP. I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any bit rate. In a blind test? DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform. (1) Select a *challenging* wav file. (2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to be a very good one, and is free. (3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice. (4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html Or he http://64.41.69.21/ |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
The first time I ever
heard what I considered really worthwhile sound was listening to an electrostatic speaker designed by Harold Beveridge. There were limitations to his design, to be sure. Yet it was the first time I heard anything that was truly exceptional. Since hearing this speaker I've never been satisfied. I do not mean to denigrate other great designs, such as the Quad, but there was something uncanny about the Beveridge. Other flat panel speakers, ESL and otherwise, never had whatever it was they possessed. Some years ago his son started up production again, I don't know current status. It was not a direct radiating flat panel but a form of horn lens loaded electrostatic panel wich was intended to produce a diffuse sound field. The listening position was between them with one speaker at right angle to each ear somewhat like large headphones. It had a sealed back and was placed against oppisite walls. Could it be the diffuse sound field in place of the usual figure of eight pattern you found attractive and different? A local dealer had a pair but I found them unremarkable but having the usual elelectrostatic sound however duffuse as advertised. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid wrote (in article ) : Sonnova wrote: Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP. I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any bit rate. In a blind test? Absolutely. DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform. And I have (1) Select a *challenging* wav file. (2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to be a very good one, and is free. (3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice. (4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html Or he http://64.41.69.21/ Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little dynamic range. The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly, although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these types of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me. BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better than MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc product, HDD or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system). |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:13:12 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , " wrote: Sonnova wrote: Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend to dry out and crack with age. By the time I started to earn enough money to actually afford my own gear (early to mid 70s) the "average" or uneducated audiophile, of which I was a typical example, usually thought of three speakers. First, the AR3a, then the JBL L-100, and there was also the Bose speaker that was getting a ton of favorable press at the time--at least in the mainstream publications. The first two were like night and day--East v West coast sound. They both had their advantages, but they both looked better than they sounded. At the same time, knowledgable audiophiles (I knew a couple) were listening to Quads. I wish I'd been more knowledgable, back then. My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price. Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most convincing way. I sure agree with you about the Martin-Logans. I love mine. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid wrote (in article ) : Sonnova wrote: Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP. I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any bit rate. In a blind test? Absolutely. DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform. And I have. Your results are contrary to the results of professionally-run tests and tests done by others. Once the bitrates are well above 128 kbps, the differences are generally not startling. 192 is around the general consensus of where a good MP3 encoder becomes pretty much transparent. By 320 kbps, even mediocre coders are good enough. (1) Select a *challenging* wav file. (2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to be a very good one, and is free. (3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice. (4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html Or he http://64.41.69.21/ Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little dynamic range. Difficult? In general, instantaneous dynamic range is one of those things that mediocre coders, or good coders running at low bitrates, find to be more difficult. The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly, although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these types of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me. A lot of the professional and semi-pro testing that has been done was based on *all* kinds of music. BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better than MP3. Again, this is adverse to general wisdom among those who have done many tests. A coding method needs to be rated strongly based on its ability to provide good results with low bitrates. Being based on positively ancient technology, older techniques like ATRAC and to a lesser degree Dolby Digital are relatively speaking, bandwidth hogs. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc product, HDD or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system). If you've got the space, nothing can possibly beat files that are 44/16, either uncompressed or losslessly compressed. I just noticed that a co-worker's iPod said something about 80 GB on its front panel. He said he used the space to pack in about 18,000 songs. This is just the usual genesis of hard drive sizes over the life of the product. My last portable hard drive based digital player (a Nomad Jukebox) had only 20 GB, but was almost entirely loaded with .wav files. I still had 100s of songs on it, which is all I have the time to listen to in those days. These days I mostly only have time to listen to what I produce, with occasional listening sessions on the road. With appropriate tone control adjustments (scarily extreme but hey it works) the base system in my Milan is really pretty good, if not a little short of dynamic range. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: I sure agree with you about the Martin-Logans. I love mine. Which ones do you have? I had the Sequel IIs some years ago and loved them. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
Robert Peirce wrote:
My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price. Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most convincing way. Absolutely rigth, theres nothing which can beat the pure sound of a planar, here is it a Magnepan. -t. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers -- Was Vinyl Revival
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:26:34 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: I sure agree with you about the Martin-Logans. I love mine. Which ones do you have? I had the Sequel IIs some years ago and loved them. Aeon-i. I replaced a pair of Magnepan MG3.6's with them and have never looked back. Love to have a pair of the new CLXs, but, alas $25,000 might as well be $25 million now that I'm mostly retired. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
Arny Krueger wrote:
Once the bitrates are well above 128 kbps, the differences are generally not startling. 192 is around the general consensus of where a good MP3 encoder becomes pretty much transparent. By 320 kbps, even mediocre coders are good enough. These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much transparent" "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough." High end is about high performance. And - for many listeners - mp3 is not "good enough." If you've got the space, nothing can possibly beat files that are 44/16, either uncompressed or losslessly compressed. Actually, there is higher performance available than 44/16. Of course, if mp3 is "good enough," then 44/16 is a dream-come-true. Still, some listeners demand more. I just noticed that a co-worker's iPod said something about 80 GB on its front panel. He said he used the space to pack in about 18,000 songs. This is just the usual genesis of hard drive sizes over the life of the product. My last portable hard drive based digital player (a Nomad Jukebox) had only 20 GB, but was almost entirely loaded with .wav files. I still had 100s of songs on it, which is all I have the time to listen to in those days. These days I mostly only have time to listen to what I produce, with occasional listening sessions on the road. With appropriate tone control adjustments (scarily extreme but hey it works) the base system in my Milan is really pretty good, if not a little short of dynamic range. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid wrote (in article ) : Sonnova wrote: Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP. I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any bit rate. In a blind test? Absolutely. DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform. And I have (1) Select a *challenging* wav file. (2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to be a very good one, and is free. (3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice. (4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html Or he http://64.41.69.21/ Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little dynamic range. I feel so sorry for you, for having such a narrow view of music. "Pop" is not a genre in and of itself. It's an abbreviation of "popular", which can refer to any number of different genres - all at the same time. Rock contains within itself such a huge range of modalities, that it is not especially an useful term as you've used it. Without much effort, I could give you a stack of rock music with serious dynamic range, just out of my own small collection, that you couldn't lift. The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly, although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these types of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me. I'd be interested in learning under what conditions you've listened to MP3s, and how said MP3s were produced. The majority of the MP3s floating around are made by individuals with little to no understanding of the technology that they're abusing, resulting in truly pathetic MP3s. With proper equipment & software, one can achieve a level of quality that I can guarantee that _you_ would be hard-pressed to distinguish from source. However, anyone serious about portable music at this point will likely be producing AAC(LC) files, which play rather nicely on the iPod, and are far superior to MP3s. BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better than MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc product, HDD or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system). You've not looked in the marketplace, nor yet Googled, either. Take a look, it may just cheer you up a bit. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
C. Leeds wrote:
Actually, there is higher performance available than 44/16. Of course, if mp3 is "good enough," then 44/16 is a dream-come-true. Still, some listeners demand more. Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its time-keeping function. Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly audibly difference, but an imaginary one? The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise characteristics of typical listening environments, as well as noise characteristics of typical recording sources (e.g., tape) all point to 16/44 being enough for a delivery medium. If it was inadequate, surely there would be a sustantial body of well-controlled experimental data pointing the other way by now, some 25 years since the introduction of CD? Instead we have: format change driven by marketing and anecdotes. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:08:15 -0700, Lord Vetinari wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid wrote (in article ) : Sonnova wrote: Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY available data rate. That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP. I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any bit rate. In a blind test? Absolutely. DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform. And I have (1) Select a *challenging* wav file. (2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to be a very good one, and is free. (3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice. (4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html Or he http://64.41.69.21/ Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little dynamic range. I feel so sorry for you, for having such a narrow view of music. "Pop" is not a genre in and of itself. It's an abbreviation of "popular", which can refer to any number of different genres - all at the same time. Don't you think I'm aware of that? I use the word "pop" on purpose. In my usage, the word "rock" refers to all forms of rock-n-roll (which I despise) and "pop" means everything else in that broad gen reggea, country & western, rap, hip-hop, salsa, so called "world music" etc. (none of which do I wish to spend one moment listening to). And don't feel sorry for me, the "narrow view of music" which you seem to find so pitiful is merely a shorthand view used to express a point in this conversation. A point which, in spite of your sorrow, you seem to have "gotten" anyway. :-) Rock contains within itself such a huge range of modalities, that it is not especially an useful term as you've used it. I use it only asa general term for music employing electric guitars and people screaming while someone hammers on a drum set. I HATE the sound of electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments ever devised. Therefore, I naturally eschew any musical form that uses them. I also hate "oversinging" from either males of females, and since that seems to be the modern style of pop singing, I try to avoid that too. Without much effort, I could give you a stack of rock music with serious dynamic range, just out of my own small collection, that you couldn't lift. I DID say that my exposure to rock is limited. What I know of it is always loud, all the time. Since I have never heard, either on purpose or by happenstance, any rock music that I didn't dislike intently, my exposure is, understandably, somewhat limited. The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly, although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these types of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me. I'd be interested in learning under what conditions you've listened to MP3s, and how said MP3s were produced. The majority of the MP3s floating around are made by individuals with little to no understanding of the technology that they're abusing, resulting in truly pathetic MP3s. With proper equipment & software, one can achieve a level of quality that I can guarantee that _you_ would be hard-pressed to distinguish from source. However, anyone serious about portable music at this point will likely be producing AAC(LC) files, which play rather nicely on the iPod, and are far superior to MP3s. That's what I use, lossless compression. BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better than MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc product, HDD or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system). You've not looked in the marketplace, nor yet Googled, either. Take a look, it may just cheer you up a bit. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Sep 10, 7:04 pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:
These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough." High end is about high performance. And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived notions and all the rest. Just like the rest of the world. Since audio prefection is a provably impossible endpoint, high-end audio is all about "good enough." If you want to assert that different people have different opinions about what "good enough" means, fine. But to claim otherwise is to succumb to religious absurdities. And, in fact MUCH of high end audio has nothing to do with "high performance." There are any number of so-called high-end products and principles that are the antithesis of high performance. Consider expensive cables that have no provable advantage in performance, a very expensive Mark Levinson DAC that was classed as "high-end" which had among the most incompetent mixed-signal design, passive preamps which audibly and measurably degrade performance, high-end wooden pucks and bricks and dots for which there is not the slightest evidence of any performance improvement. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:13:00 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): C. Leeds wrote: Actually, there is higher performance available than 44/16. Of course, if mp3 is "good enough," then 44/16 is a dream-come-true. Still, some listeners demand more. Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its time-keeping function. Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly audibly difference, but an imaginary one? The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise characteristics of typical listening environments, as well as noise characteristics of typical recording sources (e.g., tape) all point to 16/44 being enough for a delivery medium. If it was inadequate, surely there would be a sustantial body of well-controlled experimental data pointing the other way by now, some 25 years since the introduction of CD? Instead we have: format change driven by marketing and anecdotes. Well put. This stuff is difficult to quantify, though, and whenever that's the case, it's easy to fall into the "more is always better" mindset and mythology. I've noticed that on modern recordings mastered in DSD, that any difference between the SACD and the RedBook presentations of the material ON THE SAME DISC is undetectable. Nobody who has ever listened to my system has ever been able to tell one from the other through my Sony SCD777ES player. Often, on these hybrid discs, I'll forget to press the SACD button and the player will start playing the RedBook layer. I usually won't even notice unless I happen to look at the player and see that the green light on the front panel that designates that the SACD layer is being played is not lit. Certainly, nothing that I'm hearing gives away such a difference. That tells me that long term listening between SACD and RedBook CD won't reveal any difference either. My dad used to say that "a difference that makes no difference, is no difference at all." IOW, there is nothing about SACD that sounds any different from the same recording in RedBook so that anyone would notice. While SACD and high-resolution PCM (24-Bits, 96/192KHz sampling) certainly look superior on paper, I've concluded that the difference isn't really audible - to anyone. I do a lot of recording of live music. I have the capability of recording at 192KHz and 32-bits floating point. Naturally, when I first obtained this ability, I recorded everything at the highest sampling rate (192KHz) and bit depth (32-bit floating point). Listening to the masters (through a suitable D/A) and listening to the 16/44.1 CD copies made from these high-resolution masters has convinced me that the high sample rate is a waste of hard-disk space. There is simply no audible difference between them, double-blind tested or otherwise. I do still record at 32-bit floating point for the simple reason that it affords me more recording head room than does 16-bit (IOW, using 32-bit floating point format, I don't have to worry about exceeding "0-Vu" like one has to do with 16-Bit.) When the DAW application outputs the 32-bit recording as a 16-bit WAVE file, it automatically down-converts the 32-bit recording to fit in the 16-bit space. This is very useful for the type of field recording that I do where I cannot rely on being able to set recording levels before the performance. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl Revival
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its time-keeping function. So what? Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's quality. Perhaps it is the only measure that matters to you. Obviously, it is not the only standard for everyone. Does that trouble you? Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly audibly difference, but an imaginary one? Audio quality is but one measure of audio equipment. Other factors - features and construction quality, for example - are important to others. Does that trouble you? The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise characteristics of typical listening environments, as well as noise characteristics of typical recording sources... .....are only a few factors involved in the selection of audio equipment, for some listeners. Does that trouble you? Instead we have: format change driven by marketing and anecdotes. That's true, in part. What does that have to do with gold watches? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"U.S. record stores testing vinyl revival" | Audio Opinions | |||
Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
Record Revival | Audio Opinions |