Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. However, it would be the equipment, not the source. How
often do you think that might be the case? Maybe my hearing is just
shot.

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:36 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?



Excellent question. Truth to tell, LPs are a bit of a paradox. A cheap CD
player always sounds better (to my ears, at least) than a cheap turntable. An
expensive CD player sounds very much like a cheap one. There MAY be a sonic
difference between a $50 CD player and $5,000 CD player, but that difference
is largely subjective and may or may not show up in a DBT. OTOH, a cheap
turntable/arm/cartridge through a cheap phono preamp may sound O.K., BUT, the
same record played on a really good turntable/arm/cartridge costing thousands
and played through a very accurate RIAA phono preamp (such as the Parasound
JC-2) will sound unmistakably better in almost every way.

That leaves the question, will the LP of a superior sounding performance
sound better on an expensive phono rig than will the CD mastered from the
same master tape and played on any CD player?

I've mentioned this before, but I have a Classic Records remastering on 4
single sides on 200 gram vinyl at 45 RPM of Stravinsky's "Firebird" by Antal
Dorati and the London Philharmonic recorded by Mercury's Bob Fine. The
aforementioned Classic Record release was mastered by the recording's
original producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also remastered all of the Living
Presence recordings (including the CD of this performance) for Philips in the
1990's. Fine said in an interview at the time that the CDs were
"indistinguishable from the master tapes." That being the case, one would
think that her later 45 RPM vinyl remaster of that same master tape would
sound pretty identical to the CD. I'm here to tell you that they sound
NOTHING alike. The LP sounds alive, with palpable imaging and much more
APPARENT dynamic range. It also sounds much cleaner and more real. I have
played the record vs the CD (with matched volume) for dozens of people, and
even though there is no doubt that they are BOTH the same performance, every
single listener has said that the LP sounds more like a real performance than
does the CD.

This is, of course, anecdotal (for whatever that's worth) but it does show
that just because digital is doubtless more accurate than analog ever could
be, that doesn't mean that commercially made CDs are always going to sound
better than vinyl records made from the same source. There are so many
variables in both processes that once cannot simply assume that the CD will
always sound better.

In fact, most newly remastered CDs of previously released pop material will
likely sound significantly worse than the original CD release, and if the
material is old enough to have first been released on vinyl, chances are a
prisstine vinyl copy will sound significantly better than the latest CD
master. That's just the nature of the modern music business.

Obviously, with pre-released material, the best any release can be is for the
final product to sound exactly like master mix. a carefully mastered
"audiophile" LP can indeed sound much better than a sloppily made or
purposefully altered CD release.

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. However, it would be the equipment, not the source. How
often do you think that might be the case? Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


In the case of high-resolution downloads, you are buying a pig in a poke.
The "masters" that HDTeacks and others sell copies of come from the record
companies which own them. Sometimes the record company makes the digital
conversion to 24-bit, sometimes they farm that out to a third party, and
sometimes the seller themselves do the analog-to-high-res conversion
themselves.

You, the buyer has no way of knowing what you are getting. You might be
getting a high-res conversion of the original master, or you might be getting
an upsampled 16-bit/44.1 Khz digital copy of the master that was made at
some time in the past to make CDs from. You also might be getting a third or
fourth generation copy of the master that was made and EQ'd to make LPs from.
It is also possible that the 24-bit copy sent to HDTracks was down converted
from a DSD master made a decade ago to create SACDs from. Any or all of these
scenarios have built-in room for incompetence, human error, and downright
chicanery.

So, as you can see. It's not a simple question. Yes, LPs can sound better
than the CD of the same material and LPs can also sound worse. But aith all
things being equal (and the seldom are) a well mastered CD from a good master
tape SHOULD sound better than any LP. That they don't is not the fault of
either technology, but rather the people involved.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 25, 4:42=A0pm, Robert Peirce wrote:
The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. =A0It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. =A0When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. =A0However, it would be the equipment, not the source. =A0How
often do you think that might be the case? =A0Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


It is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes the vinyl playback
equipment makes a difference but so does the initial mastering of the
LP vs. the mastering of the hi res download and the source tapes used
for each, There are to many variables between the two for anyone to
draw any conclusions about any specific causes of preference. No doubt
this will degrade into some senseless debate over analog v. digital
and/or some senseless debate over the transparency of digital. Doesn't
matter. The reasons for the differences are obvious, real and not just
a result of the nature of vinyl or hi res digital.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 26, 11:45=A0am, ScottW wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:05=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:





On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:36 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):


The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depe=

nds
on equipment?


Excellent question. Truth to tell, LPs are a bit of a paradox. A cheap =

CD
player always sounds better (to my ears, at least) than a cheap turntab=

le. An
expensive CD player sounds very much like a cheap one. There MAY be a s=

onic
difference between a $50 CD player and $5,000 CD player, but that diffe=

rence
is largely subjective and may or may not show up in a DBT. OTOH, a chea=

p
turntable/arm/cartridge through a cheap phono preamp may sound O.K., BU=

T, the
same record played on a really good turntable/arm/cartridge costing tho=

usands
and played through a very accurate RIAA phono preamp (such as the Paras=

ound
JC-2) will sound unmistakably better in almost every way.


That leaves the question, will the LP of a superior sounding performanc=

e
sound better on an expensive phono rig than will the CD mastered from t=

he
same master tape and played on any CD player?


=A0Does this really happen today?



Actually it does.

=A0Do people put onto CDs the same
master that has been created with all the constraints of vinyl (mono
bass, compressed deep bass and bumped (to compensate mid bass)?


Those are not actual constrants. If you check out the offerings from
labels such as Analog Productions, Music Matters and the like you will
find that they are producing dual layer SACDs and vinyl LPs of the
same titles using the same mastering engineers who are explicitely not
using any compression or summing the bass to mono or applying any of
the other mythical constrants on the vinyl mastering. AND yes,
audiophiles are finding the vinyl versions to be preferable even when
they are taken from the same master tapes and mastered by the same
mastering engineers at the same time.









I've mentioned this before, but I have a Classic Records remastering on=

4
single sides on 200 gram vinyl at 45 RPM of Stravinsky's "Firebird" by =

Antal
Dorati and the London Philharmonic recorded by Mercury's Bob Fine. The
aforementioned Classic Record release was mastered by the recording's
original producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also remastered all of the Liv=

ing
Presence recordings (including the CD of this performance) for Philips =

in the
1990's. Fine said in an interview at the time that the CDs were
"indistinguishable =A0from the master tapes." That being the case, one =

would
think that her later 45 RPM vinyl remaster of that same master tape wou=

ld
sound pretty identical to the CD. I'm here to tell you that they sound
NOTHING alike. The LP sounds alive, with palpable imaging and much more
APPARENT dynamic range. It also sounds much cleaner and more real. I ha=

ve
played the record vs the CD (with matched volume) for dozens of people,=

and
even though there is no doubt that they are BOTH the same performance, =

every
single listener has said that the LP sounds more like a real performanc=

e than
does the CD.


=A0I have a theory for this. =A0CDs are capable of flat 20-20khz response
and mastering engineers don't need to tweak the bass. =A0 LPs are not
and skilled LP mastering engineers have developped techniques to
compensate.
Bumping up the mid bass to compensate for the rolled off deep bass is
common.


Your theory doesnt hold up in this case. the LP in question was
mastered by Bernie Grundman who has stated that there was no EQ
applied to this title when he cut it. The bass was cut flat. In fact
the original LPs were also cut the same way. No mastering moves
whatsoever. They were cut straight from the three track masters
through a console that folded them down to stereo. that is it. No
compression, no EQ no limiters. Nothing extra in the mastering chain.
Bernie cut the Classics version exactly the same way. The only
difference was he used his cutting lathe and cut them at 45 rpm. He
even used the same playback gear that was refurbished for the Dennis
Drake CD remasters. Oh and he used a tube cutting amp.


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?


If a LP sounds different from the same album downloaded from HDTracks there
are two bonafide more-or-less technical reasons:

(1) The audible distortion and noise that are inherent in the LP format.

(2) The real possibility that we're comparing two different jobs of
mastering.

IME while digital transcriptions of LPs often sound very much like the LP
itself, they are always easy to distinguish from the commercial digital
releases of the same musical work.

There is also a well-known situation where many people have a strong
emotional connection with various aspects of listening to LPs.

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!

My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.

Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.

It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. When I do
that I don't hear any difference.


Please explain to me how the Impact Twin "plays" the LP in a unique,
exceptional, or unusual way as compared to traditional DAW editing/mixing
tools.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference.


Depends which knobs you turn on that Impact Twin. Controls like "De Esser",
Reverb" and "Comp" (IOW, compressor I think) paint a picture of inherently
audible signal processing that any producer of hyper-processed musical
tracks could appreciate and use to practice his "art".

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/tc_near_small.jpg


However, it would be the equipment, not the source. How
often do you think that might be the case? Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


With equipment that has this kind of power to bend signals, it is a matter
of your gun, your bullet, and your foot. We're talking .44 Magnum!





  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:06:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 25, 4:42=A0pm, Robert Peirce wrote:
The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. =A0It happens the Impact Twin actually
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever to
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. =A0When I do
that I don't hear any difference.

I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. =A0However, it would be the equipment, not the source. =A0How
often do you think that might be the case? =A0Maybe my hearing is just
shot.


It is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes the vinyl playback
equipment makes a difference but so does the initial mastering of the
LP vs. the mastering of the hi res download and the source tapes used
for each, There are to many variables between the two for anyone to
draw any conclusions about any specific causes of preference. No doubt
this will degrade into some senseless debate over analog v. digital
and/or some senseless debate over the transparency of digital. Doesn't
matter. The reasons for the differences are obvious, real and not just
a result of the nature of vinyl or hi res digital.


Well, I hope it doesn't devolve into such a debate. Facts are facts, and that
digital, even 16/44.1, is better than analogue is simply not not open to
question, it's just a fact. Also, there's no sense in arguing LP vs. CD. When
"best practices" are used to master and manufacture both, the CD will win
hands down. But there's the rub. "Best practices" aren't always used * for
EITHER format. Generally, and especially with pop music, the latest
remastered pop music sounds worse on modern CD than it ever did on the
original vinyl release or even the initial CD release. In spite of better and
better equipment, remasters today are often mixed to sound louder than the
previous release. They are also, often, a product of modern knob-twiddlers
who try to second guess the original producer and "fix" things that these
modern engineers found objectionable in the original mix. Then of course
there's the state of the original masters themselves. Many of these old
analog masters - especially stuff from the 70's and 80's are falling apart.
Every time the tape is rewound it sheds oxide. That's the music laying in a
reddish-brown pile on the tape deck fascia. There are lots of reasons, but
when someone tells you that the latest re-release of "Dark Side of the Moon"
doesn't seem to sound as good as their older CD of the same title, they're
not hallucinating. It likely doesn't sound as good. But I;ll bet it sounds
LOUDER!
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 26, 5:54=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:06:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Apr 25, 4:42=3DA0pm, Robert Peirce wrote:
The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depen=

ds
on equipment?


I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin. =3DA0It happens the Impact Twin actual=

ly
plays the LP in order to convert it, and it is no problem whatsoever t=

o
play the LP and the digital file through the same device. =3DA0When I =

do
that I don't hear any difference.


I suspect, if I played the LP, or the file, through a top of the line
device and the other through something much poorer, I would hear a
difference. =3DA0However, it would be the equipment, not the source. =

=3DA0How
often do you think that might be the case? =3DA0Maybe my hearing is ju=

st
shot.


It is a comparison of apples and oranges. Yes the vinyl playback
equipment makes a difference but so does the initial mastering of the
LP vs. the mastering of the =A0hi res download and the source tapes use=

d
for each, There are to many variables between the two for anyone to
draw any conclusions about any specific causes of preference. No doubt
this will degrade into some senseless debate over analog v. digital
and/or some senseless debate over the transparency of digital. Doesn't
matter. The reasons for the differences are obvious, real and not just
a result of the nature of vinyl or hi res digital.


Well, I hope it doesn't devolve into such a debate. Facts are facts, and =

that
digital, even 16/44.1, is better than analogue is simply not not open to
question, it's just a fact. Also, there's no sense in arguing LP vs. CD. =

When
"best practices" are used to master and manufacture both, the CD will win
hands down. But there's the rub. "Best practices" aren't always used =AD =

for
EITHER format. Generally, and especially with pop music, the latest
remastered pop music sounds worse on modern CD than it ever did on the
original vinyl release or even the initial CD release. In spite of better=

and
better equipment, remasters today are often mixed to sound louder than th=

e
previous release. They are also, often, a product of modern knob-twiddler=

s
who try to second guess the original producer and "fix" things that these
modern engineers found objectionable in the original mix. Then of course
there's the state of the original masters themselves. Many of these old
analog masters - especially stuff from the 70's and 80's are falling apar=

t.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
rtweed rtweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording 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 qualities 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 changes
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 6:03=A0am, rtweed wrote:
It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording 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 qualities 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 changes
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 transparency
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. OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons. I have
also done that. The LP has won every time and for the same basic
reasons. Of course the results will depend on one's vinyl playback
gear since their are substantial differences to be found there.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!

My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.

Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.


I think, perhaps, you are missing my point. I am not using any of the
many "features" on the Impact Twin, just its DAC capability. I use the
mic input directly from the TT output, convert to digital and store in a
file on my computer. It is much like using a pre-amp with all the tone
controls deactivated.

I use PureVinyl to create the file and to edit the tracks and track
names. It does nothing to what is in the file itself once it is
created. I use PureMusic to play it back with RIAA equalization done in
software. There might be some argument about whether that is better or
worse than doing it in hardware. I don't really want to start that
discussion because I don't know.

As far as I know, playing an LP, without saving the output to a file, is
neither unique nor exceptional. It is just something you can do. My
point was that playing the LP directly and playing the file produced
from playing the LP sounded the same when using the same device. My
feeling was that might not happen if you used different, unequal,
devices for one versus the other.

Whether I hate or love LPs is irrelevant. I probably have about the
same number of LPs as I have CDs and I have a lot of both. In my
experience, both media can produce wonderful and terrible reproductions.
However, I am planning to move to a much smaller space and there are
advantages to getting everything into a computer based music server.



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
rtweed rtweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 3:45=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:03=A0am, rtweed wrote:









It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording 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 qualities 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 changes
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 transparency
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. OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons. I have
also done that. The LP has won every time and for the same basic
reasons. Of course the results will depend on one's vinyl playback
gear since their are substantial differences to be found there.


Exactly - it's a test of transparency, and removes all other variables
that would otherwise result in differences between a vinyl or CD
recording of the same master tape. And you've proven to yourself that
with high enough digital resolution, you can't tell the difference.

My case rests m'lud. The logical conclusion must therefore be that
you subjectively prefer the sound of commercially-released vinyl
versions to their high res digital versions for the very reason that
the formers' reproduction is *not* transparent and faithful to the
original.





  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:45:23 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 25, 6:05pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:36 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his LPs sound
significantly better than the same albums downloaded from HDtracks.
Ignoring for a moment that this might be true, I wonder how much depends
on equipment?


Excellent question. Truth to tell, LPs are a bit of a paradox. A cheap CD
player always sounds better (to my ears, at least) than a cheap turntable. An
expensive CD player sounds very much like a cheap one. There MAY be a sonic
difference between a $50 CD player and $5,000 CD player, but that difference
is largely subjective and may or may not show up in a DBT. OTOH, a cheap
turntable/arm/cartridge through a cheap phono preamp may sound O.K., BUT, the
same record played on a really good turntable/arm/cartridge costing thousands
and played through a very accurate RIAA phono preamp (such as the Parasound
JC-2) will sound unmistakably better in almost every way.

That leaves the question, will the LP of a superior sounding performance
sound better on an expensive phono rig than will the CD mastered from the
same master tape and played on any CD player?


Does this really happen today? Do people put onto CDs the same
master that has been created with all the constraints of vinyl (mono
bass, compressed deep bass and bumped (to compensate mid bass)?


Most likely not (although it is possible), but when I said "master tape", I
was referring to the studio master, not the production-mix master.

I've mentioned this before, but I have a Classic Records remastering on 4
single sides on 200 gram vinyl at 45 RPM of Stravinsky's "Firebird" by Antal
Dorati and the London Philharmonic recorded by Mercury's Bob Fine. The
aforementioned Classic Record release was mastered by the recording's
original producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also remastered all of the Living
Presence recordings (including the CD of this performance) for Philips in the
1990's. Fine said in an interview at the time that the CDs were
"indistinguishable =A0from the master tapes." That being the case, one would
think that her later 45 RPM vinyl remaster of that same master tape would
sound pretty identical to the CD. I'm here to tell you that they sound
NOTHING alike. The LP sounds alive, with palpable imaging and much more
APPARENT dynamic range. It also sounds much cleaner and more real. I have
played the record vs the CD (with matched volume) for dozens of people, and
even though there is no doubt that they are BOTH the same performance, every
single listener has said that the LP sounds more like a real performance than
does the CD.


I have a theory for this. CDs are capable of flat 20-20khz response
and mastering engineers don't need to tweak the bass. LPs are not
and skilled LP mastering engineers have developped techniques to
compensate.
Bumping up the mid bass to compensate for the rolled off deep bass is
common.

To many peoples systems (which will start rolling off anywhere from 50
to 100 hz)
and peoples hearing the LP will have more bass punch and perceived
dynamic range than the CD. Engineers have used the liberty granted
by need to make a few subjective improvements.


Except, I didn't mention the bass specifically. This LP set has better
imaging, more apparent dynamic range, it sounds cleaner, one can hear deeper
into the instrumentation, and the recording sounds more palpable overall. In
fact, I'll go so far as to say that this Dorati "Firebird" is, without a
doubt, the best sounding commercially released recording I've ever heard.

Oh, and I don't have a problem with low bass. My system is flat down to the
low thirties in my room.

The little technical blurb sheet that came with this record states that it
does NOT have left channel-summed bass like the original 1960 release had and
therefore is NOT mono-compatible. (it was mastered in 2001, so that need no
longer exists).


This is, of course, anecdotal (for whatever that's worth) but it does show
that just because digital is doubtless more accurate than analog ever could
be, that doesn't mean that commercially made CDs are always going to sound
better than vinyl records made from the same source. There are so many
variables in both processes that once cannot simply assume that the CD will
always sound better.


Accuracy and perceived sound quality aren't often going to correlate.
It's pretty easy for a recording engineer to add some perceived pop to
a recording while abandoning accuracy. Claims that a mix sounds like
the original master means nothing to me.
What do the original masters sound like relative to the original
performance (if there ever was one)?


In fact, most newly remastered CDs of previously released pop material will
likely sound significantly worse than the original CD release,


I can't agree with this. Especially pop music released in the early
80's or before.
The first CDs were sometimes from LP masters and sounded just plain
awful. Subsequent remasters were often improved by simply undoing the
constraints put in for vinyl. Later efforts based on original multi-
track masters were further improved by DAW improvements with unlimited
byte length and improved dithering techniques which allowed all the
track mixing and editing without truncation.

and if the
material is old enough to have first been released on vinyl, chances are a
prisstine vinyl copy will sound significantly better than the latest CD
master. That's just the nature of the modern music business.


Not every remaster on CD has fallen prey to the "louder is better".
All the Pink Floyd and King Crimson remasters are far superior to the
original CD releases and generally better sounding than most of the
vinyl releases if for no other reason than the music benefits from a
silent noise floor.

All this being said I have found most all of my Classic reissues to be
extremely well done. They may sound subjectively better than the
original master tapes for all we know.



That's my point, of course. One cannot count on a CD sounding better than the
vinyl release just because CD (or hi-res digital downloads, for that matter)
is a more modern and technically superior format.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:06:51 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 26, 11:45=A0am, ScottW wrote:


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Your theory doesnt hold up in this case. the LP in question was
mastered by Bernie Grundman who has stated that there was no EQ
applied to this title when he cut it. The bass was cut flat. In fact
the original LPs were also cut the same way. No mastering moves
whatsoever. They were cut straight from the three track masters
through a console that folded them down to stereo. that is it. No
compression, no EQ no limiters. Nothing extra in the mastering chain.
Bernie cut the Classics version exactly the same way. The only
difference was he used his cutting lathe and cut them at 45 rpm. He
even used the same playback gear that was refurbished for the Dennis
Drake CD remasters. Oh and he used a tube cutting amp.


What part did Wilma Fine have in all of this? I've read where this Firebird
recording on Classic Records was the last thing she did before she died...
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 6:03 am, rtweed wrote:
It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording 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 qualities 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 changes
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 transparency
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips of
vinyl.


Unfortunately, tests like these end up being tests of the person
synchronizing the LP and the digital playback.

Unless the synchronization is held within about 10 msec, 100% positive
results can be obtained in a comparison of two absolutely identical items.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!


My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to
feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.


Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One
part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.


I think, perhaps, you are missing my point. I am not using any of the
many "features" on the Impact Twin, just its DAC capability. I use the
mic input directly from the TT output, convert to digital and store in a
file on my computer. It is much like using a pre-amp with all the tone
controls deactivated.


Please note that I specifically addressed how these products are being
marketed.

I made no prognostications about how you were using them.

I did post my first reactions, because that is what happened when I read
your post and checked out the equipment.

I applaud your avoidance of all the questioanble bells and whistles.

IME far simpler and economical hardware and software can provide equivalent
results when the signal processing is not used.


I use PureVinyl to create the file and to edit the tracks and track
names. It does nothing to what is in the file itself once it is
created. I use PureMusic to play it back with RIAA equalization done in
software. There might be some argument about whether that is better or
worse than doing it in hardware. I don't really want to start that
discussion because I don't know.


As a rule doing the RIAA equalization in certain hardware configurations
delivers the best dynamic range from a given set of pre amplier stage(s).
But it may or may not make an audible difference either way.

As far as I know, playing an LP, without saving the output to a file, is
neither unique nor exceptional. It is just something you can do. My
point was that playing the LP directly and playing the file produced
from playing the LP sounded the same when using the same device. My
feeling was that might not happen if you used different, unequal,
devices for one versus the other.


Probably true.

Whether I hate or love LPs is irrelevant. I probably have about the
same number of LPs as I have CDs and I have a lot of both. In my
experience, both media can produce wonderful and terrible reproductions.
However, I am planning to move to a much smaller space and there are
advantages to getting everything into a computer based music server.


In the case of LPs, digital transcriptions save wear and tear on the analog
media, some of which may be irreplaceable.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:36:33 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 26, 1:06=A0pm, Scott wrote:


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Your theory doesnt hold up in this case. the LP in question was
mastered by Bernie Grundman who has stated that there was no EQ
applied to this title when he cut it. The bass was cut flat. In fact
the original LPs were also cut the same way.


Who did what seems to be in question here. "The aforementioned
Classic Record release was mastered by the recording's original
producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also remastered all of the Living
Presence recordings (including the CD of this performance) for
Philips in the
1990's."

Does the reissue sound just like the original vinyl?


I don't know. I don't have a copy of the original Living Presence pressing
(1960). I do have a Philips re-release from the 1980s, though. It doesn't
sound as as good as either the CD or the Classic Records remastering.


If you are
correct then it would seem that the 45 RPM and single sided cut aspect
of the reissue is just marketing ploy. They didn't take advantage of
the increased bandwidth it affords.


I dunno. The 45/single sided Classic Records remeastering just sounds better
than any commercial recording I'v ever heard. I've made live recordings using
DSD that sound as good, but then, they're not commercially released
recordings.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

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. 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.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:03:15 -0700, rtweed wrote
(in article ):

It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording 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 qualities of
the analog original.


I've done that. And yes the CD sounds identical to the Classic Records LP it
was made from (as one would expect). The point is not that LP is superior to
CD, it's that individual instances of either can be superior to the other in
EXECUTION.

For instance, I have the famous Marc Aubort/Joanna Nickrenz set "Ravel, All
the Works for Orchestra and Piano and Orchestra" With Skrowaczewski and the
Minnesota Orchestra recorded for Vox/Turnabout in the early Seventies. The
original release, on a vinyl "Voxbox" set sounds lousy due to the poor
quality of the Vox pressings in those days. Yet, I have had the pleasure of
hearing the original master tape at Mobile Fidelity's mastering studio in San
Francisco and its gorgeous as is the SACD of the "Daphnis et Chloe" that
Mobile Fidelity released on SACD as well as the earlier re-packaging done on
Vox CDs when the Vox catalogue was owned by Moss Music Group.

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


That's the whole point. Just because digital is more accurate than analog,
doesn't automatically mean that a CD will necessarily sound better than an LP
of the same performance.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:45:07 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

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

Snip

This is not a test of which sounds "better" but a test of transparency
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. OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons. I have
also done that. The LP has won every time and for the same basic
reasons. Of course the results will depend on one's vinyl playback
gear since their are substantial differences to be found there.


This is not my experience. I find that CDs made from vinyl records sound
identical to the records as do DSD and 24/96 LPCM copies of the records.
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:51:33 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

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 refute
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 recording 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 qualities 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 changes
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 transparency
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.

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


Absolutely. CD is, for all intents and purposes transparent. If a 16/44.1 rip
of an LP doesn't sound IDENTICAL to the LP in a DBT, then the rip was made
incorrectly or the DBT was improperly conducted. They will be, for all
intents and purposes identical (as long as the comparison is made with the
same turntable rig and phono preamp that the vinyl was ripped with).

OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons.


I don't know of anyone (except perhaps you) who claims that LP
playback cannot be easily blindly identified against CD when both are
of the same recording.
LP noise is audible.


I don't recall the previous poster asserting that. But, of course one can
tell an LP from a commercial CD of the same performance simply by a casual
listen. The surface noise and vinyl rush on the LP will give it away almost
instantly.



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:45:52 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I have just begun to convert some LPs to 192/24 digital files using
PureVinyl and a TC Impact Twin.


What a cornucopia of highly audible software and hardware EFX processors!

My first thought is that you must really dislike the sound of vinyl to feel
the need for signal-massaging power on the scale encouraged by these
products.

Marketing-wise these products seem to be tearing themselves apart. One part
hypes super-accurate processing with zillions of bits and samples, and
another part is designed to bend sound like a pretzel.


I think, perhaps, you are missing my point. I am not using any of the
many "features" on the Impact Twin, just its DAC capability. I use the
mic input directly from the TT output, convert to digital and store in a
file on my computer. It is much like using a pre-amp with all the tone
controls deactivated.

I use PureVinyl to create the file and to edit the tracks and track
names. It does nothing to what is in the file itself once it is
created. I use PureMusic to play it back with RIAA equalization done in
software. There might be some argument about whether that is better or
worse than doing it in hardware. I don't really want to start that
discussion because I don't know.


Software implementation of the RIAA EQ *SHOULD* be better than hardware
implementation because it can be more accurate to the ideal RIAA curve.
However, this depends a lot on who the wrote the software, how many data
points they used, and how accurate that the programmer felt was "accurate
enough". OTOH, the records that one is playing were made with a recording
RIAA curve that WAS almost assuredly implemented in hardware and any hardware
RIAA filter is going to only be as accurate as the nearest standard
components values to the calculated ideal. In other words, if the calculated
value for a certain resistor in the filter comes out to 45, 634 Ohms, and the
nearest standard resistor value is 47,000 Ohms +/- 10%, then there will be
that much error in the finished filter.

As far as I know, playing an LP, without saving the output to a file, is
neither unique nor exceptional. It is just something you can do. My
point was that playing the LP directly and playing the file produced
from playing the LP sounded the same when using the same device. My
feeling was that might not happen if you used different, unequal,
devices for one versus the other.

Whether I hate or love LPs is irrelevant. I probably have about the
same number of LPs as I have CDs and I have a lot of both. In my
experience, both media can produce wonderful and terrible reproductions.
However, I am planning to move to a much smaller space and there are
advantages to getting everything into a computer based music server.


You are right about the quality differences between CD and LP being often
down to the execution of the individual release. That's sort of the point
here. And I understand your desire to move all your LPs to computer files -
I'd hate to have to do it for 2500 LPs though 8^)

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 2:40pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...
On Apr 27, 6:03 am, rtweed wrote:

It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording 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 qualities 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 changes
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 transparency
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips of
vinyl.


Unfortunately, tests like these end up being tests of the person
synchronizing the LP and the digital playback.

Unless the synchronization is held within about 10 msec, 100% positive
results can be obtained in a comparison of two absolutely identical items


That is true if one is doing synchronized comparisons and quick
switching. I didn't do it that way.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 9:36am, ScottW wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:06pm, Scott wrote:

On Apr 26, 11:45am, ScottW wrote:


On Apr 25, 6:05pm, Audio Empire wrote:


On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:36 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):


The first letter in the May/June Absolute Sound claims his
LPs sound significantly better than the same albums
downloaded from HDtracks. Ignoring for a moment that this
might be true, I wonder how much depends on equipment?


Excellent question. Truth to tell, LPs are a bit of a paradox.
A cheap CD player always sounds better (to my ears, at least)
than a cheap turntable. An expensive CD player sounds very
much like a cheap one. There MAY be a sonic difference between
a $50 CD player and $5,000 CD player, but that difference is
largely subjective and may or may not show up in a DBT. OTOH,
a cheap turntable/arm/cartridge through a cheap phono preamp
may sound O.K., BUT, the same record played on a really good
turntable/arm/cartridge costing thousands and played through a
very accurate RIAA phono preamp (such as the Parasound JC-2)
will sound unmistakably better in almost every way.


That leaves the question, will the LP of a superior sounding
performance sound better on an expensive phono rig than will
the CD mastered from the same master tape and played on any CD
player?


Does this really happen today?


Actually it does.


Do people put onto CDs the same master that has been created
with all the constraints of vinyl (mono bass, compressed deep
bass and bumped (to compensate mid bass)?


Those are not actual constrants. If you check out the offerings
from labels such as Analog Productions, Music Matters and the like
you will find that they are producing dual layer SACDs and vinyl
LPs of the same titles using the same mastering engineers who are
explicitely not using any compression or summing the bass to mono
or applying any of the other mythical constrants on the vinyl
mastering.


I won't argue that there is a big difference in capability between
45 RPM LPs and ordinary LPs in allowable dynamic range (groove
spacing) but is it reasonable to use those few extraordinary
examples of the best vinyl can be to describe vinyl?


it is not just reasonable it is absolutely mandatory if one is talking
about the medium per se to use the ultimate example of that medium.
Not really sure how they are so extraordinary though. I have close to
300 of them myself. They are pretty substantial in the audiophile
reissue world.

I won't argue that the constraints and adaptations required by
typical 33 RPM vinyl groove spacing can be overcome but at which
point is the technology not comparable. It's as much apples and
oranges between CD and typical 33 RPM LPs versus 45 RPM single side
cuts.


But it is also the reality we enjoy in the audiophile reissue market
these days. With many great titles one does have the opportunity to
chose between brilliantly mastered 45 rpm LPs and brilliantly mastered
dual layer SACDs.


AND yes, audiophiles are finding the vinyl versions to be
preferable even when they are taken from the same master tapes and
mastered by the same mastering engineers at the same time.


Not all. I've a couple Classics issues with both CD and vinyl and
find them generally comparable.


Sorry, I didn't mean all audiophiles. I should have been more clear.

I've mentioned this before, but I have a Classic Records
remastering on 4 single sides on 200 gram vinyl at 45 RPM of
Stravinsky's "Firebird" by Antal Dorati and the London
Philharmonic recorded by Mercury's Bob Fine. The
aforementioned Classic Record release was mastered by the
recording's original producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also
remastered all of the Living Presence recordings (including
the CD of this performance) for Philips in the 1990's. Fine
said in an interview at the time that the CDs were
"indistinguishable from the master tapes." That being the
case, one would think that her later 45 RPM vinyl remaster of
that same master tape would sound pretty identical to the CD.
I'm here to tell you that they sound NOTHING alike. The LP
sounds alive, with palpable imaging and much more APPARENT
dynamic range. It also sounds much cleaner and more real. I
have played the record vs the CD (with matched volume) for
dozens of people, and even though there is no doubt that they
are BOTH the same performance, every single listener has said
that the LP sounds more like a real performance than does the
CD.


I have a theory for this. CDs are capable of flat 20-20khz
response and mastering engineers don't need to tweak the bass.
LPs are not and skilled LP mastering engineers have developped
techniques to compensate.
Bumping up the mid bass to compensate for the rolled off deep
bass is common.


Your theory doesnt hold up in this case. the LP in question was
mastered by Bernie Grundman who has stated that there was no EQ
applied to this title when he cut it. The bass was cut flat. In
fact the original LPs were also cut the same way.


Who did what seems to be in question here. "The aforementioned
Classic Record release was mastered by the recording's original
producer, Wilma Cozart Fine who also remastered all of the Living
Presence recordings (including the CD of this performance) for
Philips in the
1990's."


She supervised both. Bernie Grundman did the actual cutting.

Does the reissue sound just like the original vinyl?


No. IMO the reissue sounds better.

If you are correct then it would seem that the 45 RPM and single
sided cut aspect of the reissue is just marketing ploy. They didn't
take advantage of the increased bandwidth it affords.


That doesn't make sense? How is it just a ploy? The results were
better sound. IMO that means it worked.


No mastering moves whatsoever. They were cut straight from the
three track masters through a console that folded them down to
stereo. that is it. No compression, no EQ no limiters. Nothing
extra in the mastering chain.


So Wilma did nothing for the CD release in the 90's nor for the
Classic reissue?


She did plenty. They went to great lengths to recreate the original
chain in order to accurately recreate the signal comming off the
original master tapes.

Bernie cut the Classics version exactly the same way. The only
difference was he used his cutting lathe and cut them at 45 rpm.
He even used the same playback gear that was refurbished for the
Dennis Drake CD remasters. Oh and he used a tube cutting amp.


Bernie versus Wilma. I suspect cutting and mastering are two
different processes.


"versus?" No, it was one process. Wilma supervised and Bernie did the
work.

In any case this discussion has opened far more questions than
answers.


I can't imagine why. I can't think of any example of a better
documented series of masterings than the Mercury label, be it the
original LPs, the CDs or the Classics 45rpm reissue LPs.
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 9:36=A0am, rtweed wrote:
On Apr 27, 3:45=A0pm, Scott wrote:





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


It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording o=

f
the LP.


My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities o=

f
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 change=

s
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 transparency
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. OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons. I have
also done that. The LP has won every time and for the same basic
reasons. Of course the results will depend on one's vinyl playback
gear since their are substantial differences to be found there.


Exactly - it's a test of transparency, and removes all other variables
that would otherwise result in differences between a vinyl or CD
recording of the same master tape. =A0And you've proven to yourself that
with high enough digital resolution, you can't tell the difference.


Yes I have. But your test does not address anything about the LP or CD
compared to the master tape. So it really doesn't tell us that one is
more accurate than the other.



My case rests m'lud. =A0The logical conclusion must therefore be that
you subjectively prefer the sound of commercially-released vinyl
versions to their high res digital versions for the very reason that
the formers' reproduction is *not* transparent and faithful to the
original.


You have hardly proven that case at all. We have no idea what went
into the mastering of the hi res files that are commercially
available. Without the original as a reference you don't know which is
more accurate. Not that I care which is more accurate.

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 27, 2:46=A0pm, 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 =A0"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.


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.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

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 refute
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 recording o=

f
the LP.


My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualities o=

f
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 change=

s
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 transparency
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"



OTOH when I did the same test with 24/96
rips I was not able to discern any differences. If one wants to do a
test to determine which is "better" between CD and vinyl in so far as
which offers a superior aesthetic one need only to get a CD and LP of
the same titel that we know were mastered with no processing or the
same processing in the mastering and do blind A/B comparisons.


=A0I don't know of anyone (except perhaps you) who claims that LP
playback cannot be easily blindly identified against CD when both are
of the same recording.
LP noise is audible.


With many records on my system it is not audible unless one is
cranking up the silent passages. I don't do that.


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 2:40pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...
On Apr 27, 6:03 am, rtweed wrote:

It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refute
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 recording 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 qualities 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 changes
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 transparency
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips of
vinyl.


Unfortunately, tests like these end up being tests of the person
synchronizing the LP and the digital playback.

Unless the synchronization is held within about 10 msec, 100% positive
results can be obtained in a comparison of two absolutely identical items


That is true if one is doing synchronized comparisons and quick
switching. I didn't do it that way.


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

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Apr 28, 10:17am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...

On Apr 27, 2:40pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


...
On Apr 27, 6:03 am, rtweed wrote:


It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or
refute 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
recording 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 qualities 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 changes 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 transparency of digital. I have done this test
both with hi res and with CD rips of vinyl.


Unfortunately, tests like these end up being tests of the person
synchronizing the LP and the digital playback.


Unless the synchronization is held within about 10 msec, 100%
positive results can be obtained in a comparison of two
absolutely identical items


That is true if one is doing synchronized comparisons and quick
switching. I didn't do it that way.


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? 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?
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 10:17am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...

On Apr 27, 2:40pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


...
On Apr 27, 6:03 am, rtweed wrote:


It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or
refute 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
recording 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 qualities 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 changes 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 transparency of digital. I have done this test
both with hi res and with CD rips of vinyl.


Unfortunately, tests like these end up being tests of the person
synchronizing the LP and the digital playback.


Unless the synchronization is held within about 10 msec, 100%
positive results can be obtained in a comparison of two
absolutely identical items


That is true if one is doing synchronized comparisons and quick
switching. I didn't do it that way.


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?

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?

  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:53:11 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):
On Apr 27, 9:36am, ScottW wrote:


Does the reissue sound just like the original vinyl?


No. IMO the reissue sounds better.


Much better. the vinyl reissue sounds closer to a real performance than any
commercial recording that I've ever heard and the Philips CD that Fine
supervised a few years earlier sounds just OK as does the early Philips cut
LP of that performance,

If you are correct then it would seem that the 45 RPM and single
sided cut aspect of the reissue is just marketing ploy. They didn't
take advantage of the increased bandwidth it affords.


That doesn't make sense? How is it just a ploy? The results were
better sound. IMO that means it worked.


and in spades! All of the 45 RPM/single-side Classic LPs I have sound
spectacular, but the "Firebird" is really something special!


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
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?


  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
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.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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 08:26 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 05:40 AM
FA: digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) SC Miata Marketplace 0 February 2nd 04 12:40 AM
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 11:48 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"