geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2016 11:03:10 GMT -5
Here is an interesting video why vinyl may measure much better than CD. In this case the vinyl measures 12 and the CD only 8 even though both were made from the same digital file. youtu.be/n-AE9dL5FG8
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 5, 2016 11:10:11 GMT -5
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2016 11:10:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Mar 5, 2016 11:12:36 GMT -5
This is tricky because of what is measured, vs. what is really heard. There is great debate, and that is healthy by the way about 16 over 24 bit if it is worth the extra file size for so called increase in dynamics. Arguments that talk about the limitation of the equipment used to hear this content, and also our ability to hear an improvement, much less the "difference". What the so called marketing experts say is "better" may not translate into your reality. I don't buy for a second the axiom because it is 24 bit 96khz, and so on, that it is superior to well done 16 bit 44khz. We get into some gray murky area here. If you look carefully at where music lives fundamentally and harmonically, it really does not cover the whole spectrum of 20hz to 20khz anyway. Especially with the high frequency range.
I will agree having the extra bandwidth doesn't hurt my feelings, or many around me for sure, but does it translate to something truly real, and reliably palpable every time? Dynamics 24 vs. 16 bit same question. I am delighted with allot of the technologies we have in bringing into the fore some great tunes done on 24 track 2 inch tape to digital master. I am not pro or anti anything just for the ahem...record.
I just want to know for the extra bandwidth, both dynamically, and spectrum wise, is it real or is it marketing that says it is "better", vs. say different. Oh oh, hope I didn't let the digital smoke out. I just want to learn more, that is my goal. Hope the tunes are great for all this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 5, 2016 11:16:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Mar 5, 2016 11:24:06 GMT -5
Here is an interesting video why vinyl may measure much better than CD. In this case the vinyl measures 12 and the CD only 8 even though both were made from the same digital file. youtu.be/n-AE9dL5FG8Cool video has me curious about the RIAA curve for the vinyl playback if that is an influence around 9:30 time base here on the video. Hmmm, Cool video George.
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 5, 2016 11:34:49 GMT -5
Here are a couple examples of the dynamic range reported by Dynamic Range Database (DR) and a different method DR(R128). Both are HDTrack downloads. DR DR(R128) Sweet Baby James - Sweet Baby James 14 5.3 Graceland - Under African Skies 7 12.5 Looking at the numbers that the Dynamic Range Database uses you would think Sweet Baby James is way better but in listening Under African Skies is the clear winner in overall sound quality. It would be cool if you could compare the HDTracks version of Graceland to the redbook CD. I've already started buying the old CD's of some of the HDTracks off of eBay and Amazon just to do comparisons. DJ
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 5, 2016 11:47:20 GMT -5
This is tricky because of what is measured, vs. what is really heard. There is great debate, and that is healthy by the way about 16 over 24 bit if it is worth the extra file size for so called increase in dynamics. Arguments that talk about the limitation of the equipment used to hear this content, and also our ability to hear an improvement, much less the "difference". What the so called marketing experts say is "better" may not translate into your reality. I don't buy for a second the axiom because it is 24 bit 96khz, and so on, that it is superior to well done 16 bit 44khz. We get into some gray murky area here. If you look carefully at where music lives fundamentally and harmonically, it really does not cover the whole spectrum of 20hz to 20khz anyway. Especially with the high frequency range. I will agree having the extra bandwidth doesn't hurt my feelings, or many around me for sure, but does it translate to something truly real, and reliably palpable every time? Dynamics 24 vs. 16 bit same question. I am delighted with allot of the technologies we have in bringing into the fore some great tunes done on 24 track 2 inch tape to digital master. I am not pro or anti anything just for the ahem...record. I just want to know for the extra bandwidth, both dynamically, and spectrum wise, is it real or is it marketing that says it is "better", vs. say different. Oh oh, hope I didn't let the digital smoke out. I just want to learn more, that is my goal. Hope the tunes are great for all this weekend. Like anything else in this world in which there is an opportunity to make money by selling something, you're gonna have "marketing" try to make things look attractive to a buyer which by human nature then leads to stretching the truth and outright lies and deception as a way to sell stuff. With these hi-res tracks that have become so popular, you have to start with good recordings to begin with otherwise no degree of resolution is going to save them. In the end it boils down to what your ears tell you is good and that's what we should always fall back on. But way too many people make their ears hear what the marketers want them to hear; they fall prey to Jedi mind tricks. "You want Pono because Pono is hi res and hi res is good therefore Pono is good, and so is Neil Young because he says so." "I want Pono because Pono is hi res and hi res is good therefore Pono is good, and so is Neil Young because he says so."
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 5, 2016 11:53:52 GMT -5
Here is an interesting video why vinyl may measure much better than CD. In this case the vinyl measures 12 and the CD only 8 even though both were made from the same digital file. youtu.be/n-AE9dL5FG8OK, what I got from this is: "Better" is subjective. Some will like one over the other for various reasons. Squashing the signal changes the recording/musical intent, even if we aren't capable of hearing the difference. Since I value accuracy and the artists true intent over everything else, I would prefer that my consumer $ go towards music that is as uncompressed, and as minimally limited as possible. DJ
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 5, 2016 12:00:03 GMT -5
This is tricky because of what is measured, vs. what is really heard. There is great debate, and that is healthy by the way about 16 over 24 bit if it is worth the extra file size for so called increase in dynamics. Arguments that talk about the limitation of the equipment used to hear this content, and also our ability to hear an improvement, much less the "difference". What the so called marketing experts say is "better" may not translate into your reality. I don't buy for a second the axiom because it is 24 bit 96khz, and so on, that it is superior to well done 16 bit 44khz. We get into some gray murky area here. If you look carefully at where music lives fundamentally and harmonically, it really does not cover the whole spectrum of 20hz to 20khz anyway. Especially with the high frequency range. I will agree having the extra bandwidth doesn't hurt my feelings, or many around me for sure, but does it translate to something truly real, and reliably palpable every time? Dynamics 24 vs. 16 bit same question. I am delighted with allot of the technologies we have in bringing into the fore some great tunes done on 24 track 2 inch tape to digital master. I am not pro or anti anything just for the ahem...record. I just want to know for the extra bandwidth, both dynamically, and spectrum wise, is it real or is it marketing that says it is "better", vs. say different. Oh oh, hope I didn't let the digital smoke out. I just want to learn more, that is my goal. Hope the tunes are great for all this weekend. I think what a lot of this boils down to is producers and engineers squandering what this wonderful gift that technology and art has given them in the form of nearly unlimited dynamics @ 24 bits - the ability to get us closer to the artists original intent as possible. To get us 99% of the way there form a front end perspective (the playback equipment is still a work in process), but instead to simply choose to not get there for $ reasons. I guess this isn't the first time the corporate culture has screwed the consumer over for a buck. DJ
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2016 12:06:41 GMT -5
Here is an interesting video why vinyl may measure much better than CD. In this case the vinyl measures 12 and the CD only 8 even though both were made from the same digital file. youtu.be/n-AE9dL5FG8OK, what I got from this is: "Better" is subjective. Some will like one over the other for various reasons. Squashing the signal changes the recording/musical intent, even if we aren't capable of hearing the difference. Since I value accuracy and the artists true intent over everything else, I would prefer that my consumer $ go towards music that is as uncompressed, and as minimally limited as possible. DJ Agreed. But what method do you use to measure to know that information. I have found out that the DR numbers on the Dynamic Range Database can be accurate and can also be misleading.
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 5, 2016 12:23:27 GMT -5
OK, what I got from this is: "Better" is subjective. Some will like one over the other for various reasons. Squashing the signal changes the recording/musical intent, even if we aren't capable of hearing the difference. Since I value accuracy and the artists true intent over everything else, I would prefer that my consumer $ go towards music that is as uncompressed, and as minimally limited as possible. DJ Agreed. But what method do you use to measure to know that information. I have found out that the DR numbers on the Dynamic Range Database can be accurate and can also be misleading. Cripe, so much for a simple answer, right? Well, until it's standardized under some sort of industry wide construct (never happen) it's really all we have. I'm trying to figure out what kind of refinements could be put in place to make the measurements more useable. Without all the measurements it's difficult to get a real accurate picture of what's going on. I dunno, I'm going to have to think a while about this. DJ
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2016 12:31:45 GMT -5
Agreed. But what method do you use to measure to know that information. I have found out that the DR numbers on the Dynamic Range Database can be accurate and can also be misleading. Cripe, so much for a simple answer, right? Well, until it's standardized under some sort of industry wide construct (never happen) it's really all we have. I'm trying to figure out what kind of refinements could be put in place to make the measurements more useable. I dunno, I'm going to have to think a while about this. DJ Ideal would be the inclusion of both measurements but that likely won't happen on that site. And even then, it's not the final say on how the music sounds. I happen the think frequency balance is just as important if not more so. Then you have things like noise (eg Sweet Baby James (14)) and distortion that are not represented in the DR numbers.
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 5, 2016 14:08:24 GMT -5
Cripe, so much for a simple answer, right? Well, until it's standardized under some sort of industry wide construct (never happen) it's really all we have. I'm trying to figure out what kind of refinements could be put in place to make the measurements more useable. I dunno, I'm going to have to think a while about this. DJ Ideal would be the inclusion of both measurements but that likely won't happen on that site. And even then, it's not the final say on how the music sounds. I happen the think frequency balance is just as important if not more so. Then you have things like noise (eg Sweet Baby James (14)) and distortion that are not represented in the DR numbers. O no, I get that. I think (like I've said previously) that's the reason why the Daft Punk download from HDTracks sounds so good. It's manufactured to sound that way. Clean and clear. Plus it's mostly electronica, so you really have no reference to compare to as to how it's really supposed to sound. On a side note: That's one of the things that cracks me up about folks who buy cartoons on Blu-Ray. It's a cartoon, how do you know what it's really supposed to look like? I'm just saying that DVD could be just as accurate at 1/2 the price, right? DJ
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 5, 2016 14:14:20 GMT -5
Well, I own the OG version of Graceland. I'm thinking about getting the HDTracks version whenever I can get a site-wide coupon to compare it with, just to see if I can determine a qualitative difference between the two. Since the two will play through different sources I should be able to eq the volumes to both to the same amplitude.
DJ
|
|