|
|
Post by monkumonku on May 6, 2016 14:03:49 GMT -5
Slightly different perspective from the discussions before, but I found this video remarkable: it shows the difference between vinyl and CD in very a simple way. Is that video comparing sound from an LP versus CD or is that comparing thinking clarity between vinyl versus CD proponents?  Okay, I am strictly a CD fan and will never go back to vinyl but nevertheless, while the video was informative, it has nothing to do with the main point (or what should be the main point) of audio as a hobby, which is how good does it sound. No one watches an oscilloscope when listening to music and that would be akin to just playing test files as being what makes your life worthwhile. The engineering of the record makes a lot of difference, as a well-mastered LP can sound much better than a poorly mastered CD. Yet this poorly mastered CD will still have a nice clean oscilloscope reading whereas the vinyl will have that fuzzy, jittery one. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 6, 2016 23:48:24 GMT -5
Slightly different perspective from the discussions before, but I found this video remarkable: it shows the difference between vinyl and CD in very a simple way. Is that video comparing sound from an LP versus CD or is that comparing thinking clarity between vinyl versus CD proponents? Okay, I am strictly a CD fan and will never go back to vinyl but nevertheless, while the video was informative, it has nothing to do with the main point (or what should be the main point) of audio as a hobby, which is how good does it sound. No one watches an oscilloscope when listening to music and that would be akin to just playing test files as being what makes your life worthwhile. The engineering of the record makes a lot of difference, as a well-mastered LP can sound much better than a poorly mastered CD. Yet this poorly mastered CD will still have a nice clean oscilloscope reading whereas the vinyl will have that fuzzy, jittery one. Regarding your last sentence... if, by "fuzzy", you mean time smeared/blurred, then the measurements will show that 24-bit 48 kHz analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion with typical linear phase filters has about 4 whole milliseconds of time smear stretching in both time directions (backwards as well as forwards). So you can forget about 16-bit 44.1 kHz conversion being not fuzzy unless maybe your oscilloscope is some 40 years old, and, as far as the "jittery" remark goes, it is the waveform of CD that has jitter in it, NOT the well-mastered vinyl LP! |
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on May 7, 2016 12:45:33 GMT -5
It would be interesting to find out how much if at all that is audible.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 8, 2016 8:15:03 GMT -5
It would be interesting to find out how much if at all that is audible. Mark As for the jitter, it is no longer a problem nowadays thanks to well engineered asynchronous USB 2.0 DACs achieving close to zero jitter, and a case can also be made that data-correlated jitter / sinusoidal jitter artifacts in a 16-bit channel are too far below the noise shaped dither to become audible unless the jitter exceeds ± 120 psec P-P. However, it should be noted that, as far as commercially available CD content goes, a lot of analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) work has in fact been done on equipment the amount of jitter in which measures more than a full dozen times worse than this theoretical 120 psec P-P threshold for 16-bit. Also keep in mind that practically all research on audibility thresholds for jitter are using mono test signals through headphones, i.e. not stereo music through speakers. Timing differences affect our ability to localize sounds, not just with regards to interaural timing differences (ITD), but also with regards to what's called the Precedence Effect. Remember the timing errors resulting from jitter are occurring in conjunction with the time smear resulting from the digital filters' ringing artifacts. The AES Convention Paper that I linked clearly shows these ringing artifacts are audible for 16-bit 44.1 kHz digital. With this knowledge already kept in mind, adding some amount of jitter certainly isn't going to convey better audible transparency IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on May 8, 2016 8:38:55 GMT -5
I love how he says the 15kHz told won't be reproduced by his speaker, so we will only be able to see it on the scope. I don't know about the rest of you, but I clearly hear the 15Kc tone.
|
|
|
|
Post by JKCashin on May 8, 2016 8:47:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jun 20, 2016 12:18:07 GMT -5
So long SACD. Hello 5.1 vinyl!  |
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Jun 20, 2016 14:57:13 GMT -5
Vinyl Sales Are Soaring While CDs Continue On A Downward Spiral - link |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 20, 2016 17:06:00 GMT -5
It is.... interesting.... but what you choose to read into it is another matter. (And it doesn't say anything about sound quality.) CDs are a digital media... they are simply a physical way to move a digital audio file from point A to point B, or to store it. Because of that, a lossless 16/44k download is precisely equivalent to a CD. If you want a digital copy of a certain album, you can download a lossless copy at CD quality, or a high-resolution copy at even better quality, or you can download a low-cost compressed copy (and that's assuming you don't just pirate or "borrow" a copy.) Or, you can buy a CD, wait for it to arrive, and then find a place to store it between playings, and figure out how to organize it so it doesn't get lost. It's pretty obvious that all of those factors conspire to make it a lot more convenient for anyone who wants a digital copy of their music to NOT buy it on a CD. So, in other words, there are all sorts of different ways to get and keep digital music, and a CD is simply not one that appeals to that many people today. In contrast, if you talk to people about vinyl, often you hear about "the tactile experience", and such things.... In other words, they like playing with records, and turntables, and the assorted "cool gear".... and either they don't especially think that the vinyl album actually sounds better, or it hasn't even occurred to them to think about it. Or else they may have some fond nostalgic memories about their dad's stereo. In short, while there certainly are plenty of audiophiles who really think that vinyl sounds better, and have a decent turntable and other equipment to play it on, there are also a lot more people who "just think vinyl is cool", and are spinning it on a $129 plastic turntable that, let's face it, wouldn't have been considered a real turntable in your grandfather's day. And, of course, none of the positive aspects of this experience can be replaced by a file, or a picture on a computer screen, or the headphone plug on a phone. So, if you want to talk about "musical enjoyment" or "which is better" in some meaningful way, you need to start by finding out how many songs were listened to last year. Then you need to get some details.... Into one category go all the folks who listened to a 128k MP3 download - because they really don't care what it sounds like. And, into that same bin, go all the guys who bought a vinyl album, and hung it on the wall, or who listened to it on a $129 plastic turntable that barely rates as a toy - because they don't care either. Now, count up the guys who bought at least CDs or high res files, and the ones who bought a record and played it on a decent turntable, and compare those numbers. (And, no, I don't have those numbers, and they would be difficult to obtain, but they would be the ones that count.) For another viewpoint, you might want to check out this article (note that the numbers are different - but this is a British article). www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/vinyl-sales-tesco-lps-labelsVinyl Sales Are Soaring While CDs Continue On A Downward Spiral - link |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jun 20, 2016 17:24:43 GMT -5
I would say format doesn't matter much, if the recording/mastering suck. I would choose whatever format was mastered better.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jun 20, 2016 17:39:54 GMT -5
Why CD VERSUS vinyl I ask myself every time the debate comes up?
Clearly, the market for records is in place.....some are just wild for it, and that's fine by me.
That being said, the CD is superior for music in every way that's possible and has been proven so countless times for decades.
So, VS....it ain't . Simply take your pick and ENJOY or happily, do BOTH!
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 20, 2016 17:45:05 GMT -5
Why CD VERSUS vinyl I ask myself every time the debate comes up? Clearly, the market for records is in place.....some are just wild for it, and that's fine by me. That being said, the CD is superior for music in every way that's possible and has been proven so countless times for decades. So, VS....it ain't . Simply take your pick and ENJOY or happily, do BOTH! Bill  |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Jun 20, 2016 17:46:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Jun 20, 2016 19:57:20 GMT -5
It is.... interesting.... but what you choose to read into it is another matter. (And it doesn't say anything about sound quality.) CDs are a digital media... they are simply a physical way to move a digital audio file from point A to point B, or to store it. Because of that, a lossless 16/44k download is precisely equivalent to a CD. If you want a digital copy of a certain album, you can download a lossless copy at CD quality, or a high-resolution copy at even better quality, or you can download a low-cost compressed copy (and that's assuming you don't just pirate or "borrow" a copy.) Or, you can buy a CD, wait for it to arrive, and then find a place to store it between playings, and figure out how to organize it so it doesn't get lost. It's pretty obvious that all of those factors conspire to make it a lot more convenient for anyone who wants a digital copy of their music to NOT buy it on a CD. So, in other words, there are all sorts of different ways to get and keep digital music, and a CD is simply not one that appeals to that many people today. In contrast, if you talk to people about vinyl, often you hear about "the tactile experience", and such things.... In other words, they like playing with records, and turntables, and the assorted "cool gear".... and either they don't especially think that the vinyl album actually sounds better, or it hasn't even occurred to them to think about it. Or else they may have some fond nostalgic memories about their dad's stereo. In short, while there certainly are plenty of audiophiles who really think that vinyl sounds better, and have a decent turntable and other equipment to play it on, there are also a lot more people who "just think vinyl is cool", and are spinning it on a $129 plastic turntable that, let's face it, wouldn't have been considered a real turntable in your grandfather's day. And, of course, none of the positive aspects of this experience can be replaced by a file, or a picture on a computer screen, or the headphone plug on a phone. So, if you want to talk about "musical enjoyment" or "which is better" in some meaningful way, you need to start by finding out how many songs were listened to last year. Then you need to get some details.... Into one category go all the folks who listened to a 128k MP3 download - because they really don't care what it sounds like. And, into that same bin, go all the guys who bought a vinyl album, and hung it on the wall, or who listened to it on a $129 plastic turntable that barely rates as a toy - because they don't care either. Now, count up the guys who bought at least CDs or high res files, and the ones who bought a record and played it on a decent turntable, and compare those numbers. (And, no, I don't have those numbers, and they would be difficult to obtain, but they would be the ones that count.) For another viewpoint, you might want to check out this article (note that the numbers are different - but this is a British article). www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/vinyl-sales-tesco-lps-labelsVinyl Sales Are Soaring While CDs Continue On A Downward Spiral - linkSorry Keith looks like there is some misunderstanding. My post is all about sale's statistic (vinyl vs CD) over here in North America and that's all! |
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Jun 20, 2016 22:48:13 GMT -5
Why CD VERSUS vinyl I ask myself every time the debate comes up? Clearly, the market for records is in place.....some are just wild for it, and that's fine by me. That being said, the CD is superior for music in every way that's possible and has been proven so countless times for decades. So, VS....it ain't . Simply take your pick and ENJOY or happily, do BOTH! Bill Quiet interesting opinion from Michael Fremer, source - link"... the cutting system [Neumann SX-74] is capable of putting ALL of the information on a tape or file into the grooves of a lacquer... Frequency response of a cutter head [ from 7Hz to 25000 Hz or 20 to 20000 Hz +/- 2 Db] It's far in excess of that of CD system ... LISTEN to a good turntable or even listen to some of my vinyl rips on Michael Fremer's YouTube channel. Even degraded by digital the sound seems to soothe the skeptics." KeithL can you comment Michael Fremer's post? I would appreciate that  |
|
