DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Jan 8, 2015 12:04:59 GMT -5
I listen to streaming from services like Sky.FM as background music. But when I'm interested in something I buy it.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 8, 2015 13:04:30 GMT -5
I usually like what Siau has to say, but I think this passes the point of dangerous oversimplification. For starters, the "minimum quality" for all formats is basically really zero (tell me you've NEVER heard a record, or a CD, that sounds incredibly awful). The reality is somewhat more complex. Spotify uses medium-rate Ogg Vorbis for their free service, which is lossy, and so does limit the maximum quality... but it still sounds very good with some not-especially-demanding material; high-resolution content often sounds better than the CD equivalent, but there are a few amazingly good sounding CDs out there... which proves that the best CDs sound almost indistinguishable from high-res content, but that most CDs simply aren't as good as the CD medium allows. Not only does MP3 "top out" in terms of the best quality it can achieve, but you have to put more work into making an MP3 nearly as good as the MP3 format allows, while it's easy to master a CD that's as good as the best possible MP3. Likewise, you can do a pretty sloppy job of mastering an audio file at 24/96 and still match the quality of a CD. This may mean that, in general, 24/96 files will end up being audibly better than CDs most of the time, even though a really well mastered CD could match them - because a so-so 24/96 file will sound better than a so-so CD, which is what we usually get. Did you know that, while MP3 decoders are standard (pretty much), the ENCODERS are not? An MP3 encoder must produce content that can be played on a standard MP3 decoder, but the encoder gets to choose a lot of the tradeoffs. (I'm not just talking about bitrate; there are several parameters which are controlled by the encoder, and each encoder has different "secret formulas" for how they are set; if you convert the same source into a 128k VBR MP3 file on different encoders, the results may sound very different. And one encoder may sound better for a certain source while another encoder works better with a different type of material. There used to actually be programs that would automatically encode the same source using several different encoders... so you could compare them and decide which one sounded better individually for each track you encoded. On the one hand, modern encoders probably work better in general; but, on the other hand, I sort of suspect that people have gotten sloppy - because they recognize that their MP3 customers probably can't tell the difference, and most people who can tell the difference won't be buying MP3s, why bother to expend the effort to squeeze the last bit of performance out of an MP3? What producer of MP3s is really going to sit down and decide which tracks sound best when encoded on which encoder?) And maybe a lot of those old albums don't sound better "because of the sound quality of vinyl"; maybe they sound better "in spite of the sound quality of vinyl"; maybe a well-mastered high-res file does always sound better than a well-mastered record, but there are simply more well-mastered records out there, and a lot of high-res files aren't especially well-mastered. From a vendor/customer perspective, what theoretically matters is the top quality a given medium can deliver. But, from a purely customer perspective, all that really matters is which available version OF THE MUSIC YOU WANT TO BUY sounds best. And arguments like "vinyl vs digital" always seem to devolve into almost religious debates... lacking in true science. I know a few vinyl lovers who tried once or twice to digitize their favorite albums, using a $50 sound card, and then cheerfully declared that the digital version didn't sound as good as the album. However, I don't hear from people who carefully encoded their favorite album using a $2000 studio-quality A/D converter and weren't satisfied with the results. It's a "Catch-22". Anybody who's already convinced enough to shell out $2k for a converter is biased - so he really wants to be even more convinced that he made a good investment; and anybody who decided not to, but instead spent a lot of money on vinyl and record paraphernalia, is equally biased to convince himself that he made the right decision. And, at least in our current market, neither the companies who sell vinyl products, nor those who sell digital products, have any interest in doing the research either (at least not in a way that isn't so self-serving that you couldn't possibly believe it). So, in the end, there's nobody who is willing to expend the time to do the research, yet unbiased enough to do it right. (For years I've been thinking that it would be "cool" to do the test properly.... Since the presumption - from the digital side anyway - is that vinyl colors the sound, but in a way that vinyl fans like, but a good quality digital conversion does not color it at all, the proper way to do the test would be to take the output of one or more very high quality vinyl systems, make a digital recording of it, then see if a bunch of listeners could tell the difference between the vinyl "original" and the digital copy. If "the digital faction" proves to be correct, and they can't tell the difference, then it opens up all sorts of new business possibilities.... For example, you could play an album on a very well liked high-end turntable, cartridge, and phono preamp, then digitize the output of that - you could then distribute that recording, thereby allowing anyone with a good DAC to enjoy the specific "sound" of that expensive analog system. Of course, you can see how the licensing aspects would be a nightmare.... and a lot of folks wouldn't be especially pleased if it turned out that you could replace a $10k turntable and a $5k phono preamp with a $1k DAC  . Sadly, it's one of several projects which I don't have the time or money to actually complete. ) Well there are a lot of vinyl junkies out there that will tell you this chart is B.S. This chart means absolutely nothing without assigning values to the importance of each category. It assumes all things are equal. This chart is missing key points I tried to make by all the things streaming and downloading lack. Add in a line for gratification (experience) and forms of physical media go up in my book. Streamers and downloaders simply write them off as total incovenience, and I think that's where the largest difference of opinion lies. We find those attributes important, you don't. |
|
|
|
Post by indyscammer on Jan 8, 2015 13:51:02 GMT -5
The one thing that both do that drives me mad is classifying an album as "Various Artists" if track band names vary (iTunes does this much more readily than JRiver.) For example, if a track is listed as "Band Name featuring Guest Artist" the CD is suddenly a Various Artist compilation. This drives me batty.. Um can I get a Hell YES!  Absolutely a PITA. I have not tried to undo it....yet......but really does nothing but clutter your UI. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 8, 2015 14:40:16 GMT -5
The one thing that both do that drives me mad is classifying an album as "Various Artists" if track band names vary (iTunes does this much more readily than JRiver.) For example, if a track is listed as "Band Name featuring Guest Artist" the CD is suddenly a Various Artist compilation. This drives me batty.. Um can I get a Hell YES! Absolutely a PITA. I have not tried to undo it....yet......but really does nothing but clutter your UI. One track at time, editing the "artist", copy and paste, track by track, it's a right royal pain in the ass (that's a donkey). Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 8, 2015 15:52:14 GMT -5
(For years I've been thinking that it would be "cool" to do the test properly.... Since the presumption - from the digital side anyway - is that vinyl colors the sound, but in a way that vinyl fans like, but a good quality digital conversion does not color it at all, the proper way to do the test would be to take the output of one or more very high quality vinyl systems, make a digital recording of it, then see if a bunch of listeners could tell the difference between the vinyl "original" and the digital copy. If "the digital faction" proves to be correct, and they can't tell the difference, then it opens up all sorts of new business possibilities.... For example, you could play an album on a very well liked high-end turntable, cartridge, and phono preamp, then digitize the output of that - you could then distribute that recording, thereby allowing anyone with a good DAC to enjoy the specific "sound" of that expensive analog system. Of course, you can see how the licensing aspects would be a nightmare.... and a lot of folks wouldn't be especially pleased if it turned out that you could replace a $10k turntable and a $5k phono preamp with a $1k DAC . Sadly, it's one of several projects which I don't have the time or money to actually complete. ) I have a vinyl junkie friend who greatly prefers the sound of most vinyl over digital, but he freely admits it's not the format of vinyl, it's the typical poor/average mastering of CD's that's to blame. For example, we both have an LPCM 24/96 DVD of Dr. Ebbott's Led Zeppelin II Bob Ludwig mastered vinyl needle drop. We also have regular CD versions of Dr. Ebbott's needle drops for Zep I & III. And, keep in mind these were downloaded and burnt using normal computer systems. The differences between listening to the CD's (or hi-rez DVD) and the comparable vinyl are extremely subtle at best, but more like nill. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference. So it's not really vinyl vs CD, it's typical vinyl mastering vs typical CD mastering. If I had a good turn table I could prove it to myself on my system with my CD burner. |
|
|
|
Post by milsap195 on Jan 8, 2015 16:39:55 GMT -5
I use Tidal to listen to records that I am thinking of purchasing as well as records that are to expensive to purchase. I am a physical kind of collector, ripping cd is just so un fullfilling to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 8, 2015 16:56:03 GMT -5
I have a vinyl junkie friend who greatly prefers the sound of most vinyl over digital, but he freely admits it's not the format of vinyl, it's the typical poor/average mastering of CD's that's to blame. For example, we both have an LPCM 24/96 DVD of Dr. Ebbott's Led Zeppelin II Bob Ludwig mastered vinyl needle drop. We also have regular CD versions of Dr. Ebbott's needle drops for Zep I & III. And, keep in mind these were downloaded and burnt using normal computer systems. The differences between listening to the CD's (or hi-rez DVD) and the comparable vinyl are extremely subtle at best, but more like nill. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference. So it's not really vinyl vs CD, it's typical vinyl mastering vs typical CD mastering. If I had a good turn table I could prove it to myself on my system with my CD burner. I have a number, albeit small, of the same album on various media and it almost always seems to me that it's the sound mixing/engineering that determines the better quality. The example I use often is the S&M album by Metallica with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra performed in Berkeley Community Theatre. I have no doubt, and neither does anyone who I have played them for, that the vinyl version sounds better than the CD version. Since it's a live performance it's unlikely that the masters are different, so technically the CD should sound better and yet it doesn't. So the answer must be the sound mixing/engineering, whether that be due to the hardware used or the preferences of the mixer/engineer. I also have several copies of DSOM, stereo vinyl, quadraphonic vinyl, CD plus Hybrid SACD and all listeners to date have agreed that the CD version is the worst sounding. For those that do have multiple copies of the same album, it's a very revealing hour or so spent listening and comparing. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 8, 2015 17:22:17 GMT -5
If the master tapes are recorded in analog, no improvement is possible through digital transformation.
Noise reduction , yes, but......
If they were recorded digitally, no improvement is possible through analog transfer.
And most recordings have been recorded digitally since about 1982.
Ultimately, the goal of digital is to become analog with higher sampling rates, improved filters, etc.
However, there are clear advantages in storage, retrieval, longevity, etc with digital.
Ideally, both systems have a home in yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 8, 2015 18:04:05 GMT -5
If the master tapes are recorded in analog, no improvement is possible through digital transformation. Noise reduction , yes, but...... If they were recorded digitally, no improvement is possible through analog transfer. And most recordings have been recorded digitally since about 1982. Ultimately, the goal of digital is to become analog with higher sampling rates, improved filters, etc. However, there are clear advantages in storage, retrieval, longevity, etc with digital. Ideally, both systems have a home in yours. I did have a particular reason for using the S&M album as an example. But first a quote from a Flemming Rasmussen interview; "Those Metallica albums were mostly recorded in the analogue domain? Yes, we used analogue all the way up to And Justice For All and we had to slave two tapes machines together. We had one which was used for bass and drums and the one was used for the stereo mix of bass and drums as well as, we did all the guitars and vocals on it too. So there were two reel to reels, each with 24 tracks minus one for the time codes and so in total we had 47 tracks." And Justice For All was recorded in 1988. There are quite few people who would say that was the last of the "real" Metallica albums, the hard edged heavy rock sound was lost. Maybe due to the change to digital recording and/or the opportunities it gave to the mixer/engineer to play with the raw sound, make it more "commercial" perhaps? The S&M album was originally recorded in 1999 and from the re-release announcement in May 2011; "All the music was half speed mastered from the original analogue tapes at Bernie Grundman Mastering in Hollywood, CA to bring you audiophile quality" Cheers Gary |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Jan 8, 2015 18:19:04 GMT -5
And Justice For All was recorded in 1988. There are quite few people who would say that was the last of the "real" Metallica albums, the hard edged heavy rock sound was lost. Maybe due to the change to digital recording and/or the opportunities it gave to the mixer/engineer to play with the raw sound, make it more "commercial" perhaps? IMO (and it's just my opinion) the music on In Justice is great, but the recording quality SUCKS. The mix is terrible and it has crap dynamics. Their next recording (the so-called Black Album) was far superior technically, but it was also far more commercial. I think these differences had nothing at all to do with the method used for the recording and everything to do with who was producing the albums and the interpersonal dynamics going on inside the band. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 8, 2015 18:29:09 GMT -5
And Justice For All was recorded in 1988. There are quite few people who would say that was the last of the "real" Metallica albums, the hard edged heavy rock sound was lost. Maybe due to the change to digital recording and/or the opportunities it gave to the mixer/engineer to play with the raw sound, make it more "commercial" perhaps? IMO (and it's just my opinion) the music on In Justice is great, but the recording quality SUCKS. The mix is terrible and it has crap dynamics. Their next recording (the so-called Black Album) was far superior technically, but it was also far more commercial. I think these differences had nothing at all to do with the method used for the recording and everything to do with who was producing the albums and the interpersonal dynamics going on inside the band. I expect that there are a lot of factors involved, as with all bands over time. But I don't think we can ignore the possibility that the producer/engineer/mixer excessively, or perhaps inappropriately, exercised the influence given to them by digital recording to alter the fundamental raw sound that made the band popular in the first place. They simply, technically, couldn't do it in the analogue era although they may well have wanted to. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 8, 2015 18:36:21 GMT -5
Analog or digital, we sure need to be concerned about original quality.
No amount of concern about .000000001% distortion, room setup or other factors can overcome that.
Mainly, I only listen to well recorded acoustic instruments.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Jan 8, 2015 18:55:35 GMT -5
IMO (and it's just my opinion) the music on In Justice is great, but the recording quality SUCKS. The mix is terrible and it has crap dynamics. Their next recording (the so-called Black Album) was far superior technically, but it was also far more commercial. I think these differences had nothing at all to do with the method used for the recording and everything to do with who was producing the albums and the interpersonal dynamics going on inside the band. I expect that there are a lot of factors involved, as with all bands over time. But I don't think we can ignore the possibility that the producer/engineer/mixer excessively, or perhaps inappropriately, exercised the influence given to them by digital recording to alter the fundamental raw sound that made the band popular in the first place. They simply, technically, couldn't do it in the analogue era although they may well have wanted to. Cheers Gary You may be 100% correct, but I think it has more to do with Mike Clink vs Bob Rock as producer.  |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 8, 2015 20:27:43 GMT -5
KeithL is dead on correct. I'l take a sanely mastered CD, or even mp3, with a good DAC over a horribly compressed, smashed 24/192 file any day.   |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 8, 2015 21:29:35 GMT -5
Disagree.....much of what I listen to is jazz guitar from the '40s and '50's, hardly herd or mainstream and not simply available elsewhere. Billy Bauer, Jimmy Raney, Tal Farlow, Joe Pass, Hank Garland......not so common names these days! OK - thanks, I didn't know that. Where I find streaming lacking is in their classical offerings. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 9, 2015 5:33:28 GMT -5
Thanks, good to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 9, 2015 9:46:23 GMT -5
Mainly, I only listen to well recorded acoustic instruments. I wish that's all I did. It would certainly help getting oneself the ultimate system much much easier. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 9, 2015 10:45:03 GMT -5
Actually harder.
Who knows what Metallica REALLY sounds like?
I do know what a real string bass, and all its harmonics should sound like.
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 9, 2015 11:11:36 GMT -5
Bill, I get your point. We know what a mandolin sounds like, so we know when it is accurately recorded.
But there are some things that I want to hear that are not natural! Part of the greatness of Hendrix is the new sounds he brought to the guitar and music! The right studio trickery floats my boat, perhaps in part because it is not a sound I hear singing in the choir most weeks. Now I know what that sounds like, and I love it and it is moving, but so are the sounds, like Metallica, that are not found in nature! Like the part on Wish You Were Here where the backing guitar goes from sounding like you are listening through a distorted 2 inch speaker to a more realistic, full spectrum recording. WOW. Or the way Hendrix uses effects and different playing approaches on the four sections of his solo on All Along the Watchtower. Amazing! And to me, that communicates something that acoustic music cannot. There is a level of glass munching angst that acoustic music doesn't communicate to me. And sometimes, I want to hear that angst.
That is how it works for me at least.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 9, 2015 11:23:08 GMT -5
Hi drtrey3 - I don't think that anyone's saying that sounds not heard in nature aren't music. Hendrix and Mettalica most definitely ARE musicians. A playback system that can playback a violin concerto accurately can't necessarily play back Hendrix & Metallica as accurately. But the converse is true as well. However, a system that is accurate enough to reproduce an accurate violin concerto AND has the dynamic range to also playback Hendrix/Metallica is the best of both worlds! Such versatility used to cost beyond the means of the average consumer. But today, with world-class amplifier power so relatively inexpensive (Thanks, Emotiva!), the "holy grail" is far closer than it used to be. With relatively accurate but inexpensive speakers (provided they're able to take lots of power), and a good subwoofer, most everyone can afford amazing sound. Even a decade or two ago, this wasn't so. |
|
. Sadly, it's one of several projects which I don't have the time or money to actually complete. ) 
