CD verses Vinyl

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355233952' post='1895693']
head in hands wondering when Big_Stu is going to pass the bottle so we can both drown our sorrows....[/quote]

But it's empty! ................. it was very good though if that's any consolation.
mp3's do have their place after all............. I've just made the Happy Birthday Dear Jesus from Full Metal Jacket into a festive ringtone for my phone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdytWbl9sh8

[lowdowner]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355139992' post='1894457']
Cant believe we are already back to this.

CD is not 'lossy' sampling is not losing information, and converting back from digital to analogue does not leave 'steps' wher the samples were in the wave form.

[/quote]

CD sampling *is* lossy, samples are taken once in every 1/44100ths of a second - the waveform in between is thrown away. When the DAC converts these samples back to analogue they interpolate and smooth out the waveform by guessing what would have most likely occurred in between the samples. The original data (waveform) between the samples is lost. Hence, CD sampling is 'lossy'.

It's actually worse than that. due to timing errors in the DAC's clock as it drifts with respect to the reading of the bits, further interpolation is required. Many people claim to be able to hear this 'guessing'. I'm not so convinced - but many are.

But either way, CD sampling is, by definition, lossy as it only 'samples' the waveform.

[redstriper]

If mp3s were invented first, would anyone bother inventing vinyl or CDs to replace them?

[lowdowner]

A weekend or so ago I put on a record on my turntable (classical as it happened, but probably not very relevant) and the people in the room said 'If i heard music of that quality at home i'd listen to music more - it's amazing'). They listen to mp3's through a computer feed into an amplifier and speakers in their own home.

Standard Mp3s sound rubbish and are very bland - but most people now listen to music whilst playing computer games, browsing the net, or as background 'wash'... it probably isn't important to most people to have a great, exciting, sound - just that it's convenient.

Each to their own...

[BigRedX]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1355231868' post='1895638']
It's not evil Si - it makes music easily available to millions of people around the world.
Most people are nor audiophiles and don't care about Hi Fi, but they can still love music
[/quote]

MP3 is irrelevant now that bandwidth is plentiful and digital storage is cheap. Maybe back at the turn of the century when most of us were still on 56k dial-up there was some point to the format, but not any more. These days there is no longer any point in applying file-size compression to stereo audio files.

[lowdowner]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1355235566' post='1895720']
If mp3s were invented first, would anyone bother inventing vinyl or CDs to replace them?
[/quote]

Nope - there's no money in quality (largely) - most people can't be arsed to appreciate the difference

[BigRedX]

[quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1355235676' post='1895723']
Nope - there's no money in quality (largely) - most people can't be arsed to appreciate the difference
[/quote]

I would suggest that most people do the majority of listening in conditions where audiophile quality is irrelevant. Nearly all of my music listening is done while I'm travelling or at home while I'm doing other things. In these listening situations I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between a 160BR MP3 and an uncompressed AIFF let alone any differences between a good CD and well cut and pressed vinyl.

In the end the most important thing is: Do I like the music I am listening to or not?

[redstriper]

[[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1355235975' post='1895727']
In the end the most important thing is: Do I like the music I am listening to or not?
[/quote]

Exactly.


And what's so bad about listening to music whilst playing computer games, browsing the net, or as background 'wash'...?

Bandwidth is still an issue in many parts of the world and mp3s allow easy fast music sharing on a global scale.
It's easy to find music in higher quality and lossless formats if required, but most people are happy with standard mp3s.
I don't believe they devalue music for the vast majority of the population at all.

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1355235626' post='1895721']
A weekend or so ago I put on a record on my turntable (classical as it happened, but probably not very relevant) and the people in the room said 'If i heard music of that quality at home i'd listen to music more - it's amazing'). They listen to mp3's through a computer feed into an amplifier and speakers in their own home.
[/quote]

This is the other question though - do they have a second-rate sound card in their computer, and the cheap pair of speakers that were shipped with the thing? Your turntable is probably a far better setup than their computers.

I can remember upgrading the sound card in my old computer - for three years I'd been hearing strange phase effects in any mp3 or (shudder) wma that I listened to, and I blamed the file compression. These effects just disappeared once I had the new soundcard in. Though ironically I never got round to upgrading the speakers...

Edited December 11, 2012 by EliasMooseblaster

[lowdowner]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1355235975' post='1895727']
I would suggest that most people do the majority of listening in conditions where audiophile quality is irrelevant. Nearly all of my music listening is done while I'm travelling or at home while I'm doing other things. In these listening situations I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between a 160BR MP3 and an uncompressed AIFF let alone any differences between a good CD and well cut and pressed vinyl.

In the end the most important thing is: Do I like the music I am listening to or not?
[/quote]

Indeed - I can barely hear the music in my land rover, it's a crude and noisy thing, but I sing along very loudly and still enjoy it.

That wasn't the original point, it was about quality not about whether quality was relevant

[51m0n]

[quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1355235346' post='1895716']
CD sampling *is* lossy, samples are taken once in every 1/44100ths of a second - the waveform in between is thrown away. When the DAC converts these samples back to analogue they interpolate and smooth out the waveform by guessing what would have most likely occurred in between the samples. The original data (waveform) between the samples is lost. Hence, CD sampling is 'lossy'.

It's actually worse than that. due to timing errors in the DAC's clock as it drifts with respect to the reading of the bits, further interpolation is required. Many people claim to be able to hear this 'guessing'. I'm not so convinced - but many are.

But either way, CD sampling is, by definition, lossy as it only 'samples' the waveform.
[/quote]

Please please show me a playback system that can accurately reproduce these events that happen in between the 44100 samples taken per second. It would need to be capable of measurably reproducing frequencies over 44100Hz, in fact close to 88000Hz. Now how many of these systems are owned by the menbers of this forum, or indeeed worldwide exactly?

Or better yet who claims to have the pair of ears that can hear it?

Simply put you have to have one hell of a set of tweeters to reproduce that tiny tiny blit of signal (B&W Diamond series maybe), but there are very very few microphones capable of capturing anything up there faithfully either. For your interest [url="http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400"]these claim to reach 100KHz[/url]

And you wont hear it. Because those tweeters have mass and will not reproduce it faithfully if it is some kind of unusual spike at that point. In other words if the signal is not very very close to (read the same as) the interpolated result of the sample reproduced post DAC then your vinyl system cant reproduce it faithfully either. And you can only hear up to 20Khz when you're young.

It is to all intents and purposes NOT lossy. The result that comes out of the DAC is what went into the ADC or too close to argue over given the vagiaries of the signal chain in [i]any[/i] normal front room, or even fairly well treated room (hell even most well treated rooms).

Of course we could just be talking about a signal that occured in between the samples, some extreme transient, but given that the samples at a mere 44100HKz are 0.00002267573 seconds apart I would think it fair to suggest that no one would notice that the sound in question happened at all - too short for human perception I would think, certainly too short for a common or garden hifi to reproduce faithfully regardless of the medium its recorded on to, and as for then accurately picking that up in anything but the most perfect room in existence, thats not ever going to happen.

As for a leading edge transient being picked up that much later than it should, again I am wholely confident that not one human on the planet could tell that a signal started that much too late. Our perception is pretty impressive, we use differences in the time of a sound hitting one ear then the other to help accurately pinpoint the position of the source in the stereo field, however our ears are 17cm apart (on average) and that equates to something like half a millisecond, or 0.0005 seconds, if a sound is hard over to one side. Differences of less than one sample though? I rather doubt we would perceive the leading edge as a difference in position.

I can probably find a way to produce wavs with exactly these kinds of sounds on, they would by their nature be running at well over 44.1KHz so you would need a serious sound card to even join in the fun and games, but if anyone really wants to try and find out I can try and produce a wav with a sound in it that lasts less than the gap between two samples at 44.1KHz, and another sound where a transient is pushed late by the same margin on one side. Then we can all try and see if we can hear it....

And bear in mind music is recorded these days at at least 48KHz as often as not, more of it than ever is now recorded at 88KHz or 96KHz, where these timings drop significantly again.

[quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1355235626' post='1895721']
A weekend or so ago I put on a record on my turntable (classical as it happened, but probably not very relevant) and the people in the room said 'If i heard music of that quality at home i'd listen to music more - it's amazing'). They listen to mp3's through a computer feed into an amplifier and speakers in their own home.

Standard Mp3s sound rubbish and are very bland - but most people now listen to music whilst playing computer games, browsing the net, or as background 'wash'... it probably isn't important to most people to have a great, exciting, sound - just that it's convenient.

Each to their own...
[/quote]

What soundcard, what DAC, what preamp, what amp, what speakers?

I can guarantee if they heard playback out of my laptop into my speakers via my RME soundcard they would get just as big a hit off the music. I know because I've had professional musos and non-musos, sound engineers and non-sound techies all make the same comments about my kit too. I've had the same comments from CD playback as well. Its indicative of the low standards people accept day to day with the music they here everywhere that as modest a set up as mine (nowhere near the £3.5k spend - I wish it were though, rather jealous!) can make such an impression on people of all backgrounds.

Edited December 12, 2012 by 51m0n

[Skol303]

As I've said before, I've got crates of reggae/dub originals that sound like they were recorded in a garden shed (probably were) with more crackles and pops than a pine wood fire... and to me they sound ace and full of character.

But if I were listening to Bach, or some other classical bangers, then such 'character' would definitely detract from the experience. So the importance of musical 'quality' (however you define that) is surely influenced by what you're listening to and in what context.

Bottom line is, vinyl (and even CDs now) are a thing of the increasingly distant past - the future of music is most definitely digital. And with bandwidth/download speeds increasing exponentially, it's safe to say that better quality, lossless formats will become more popular as an alternative to MP3s (as I think 51m0n has mentioned already).

... and in the future, when music is stored in data clouds and beamed directly into our brains using lazers, we'll look back with teary-eyed nostalgia about our dusty old MP3 collections and the cranky old hard drives and iPods they're stored on. Etc, etc...

[charic]

I still prefer CDs to ANYTHING... I like to own something I can throw around... this has since been advised against after an incident involving my singer and his blood...

[redstriper]

We are so fortunate to have the choice - vinyl, CD, cassette, open reel, mp3 in a choice of bit rates and a host of alternative digital formats.

And the only thing that really matters is the music

[51m0n]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355235293' post='1895715']
But it's empty! ................. it was very good though if that's any consolation.
[/quote]

Well I'll just have to drown my sorrows in a wee glass of Ardbeg 10yr old tonight then - I shall raise the glass in your direction though sir

[Dingus]

What matters is how satisfying any particular system is for listening to music overall , regardless of the format . The old adage that "if it sounds good it is good " readily applies to hifi . You can get systems that on paper seem to break all the rules and go against conventional wisdom of what will sound good that in fact sound fine , and you can get systems made up of highly -rated award winning components that sound terrible because the synergy just isn't there . My point of reference is always a jukebox ; a classic jukebox has all kinds of distortions and uneveness in its sound and yet it makes records played on it sound great . I have heard , and owned , systems that had all the right bits in but just didn't sound good and have long since given up looking for the hifi nirvana of "hearing it like it was originally recorded " , probably because in reality no such thing exists . The system I have now is relatively modest by my own standards but it sounds good to me and if I bought better equipment I would , in reference to earlier " disagreements " on this thread , indeed have to move house to get the most out of them . If you look in magazines like HI Fi World they are full of ads by readers looking to sell quite often very expensive high quality audio components that they are dissatisfied or dissappointed with . If you have got a half decent sounding system of whatever format that you like and enjoy the sound of then my advice would be stick with it rather than go looking for prescribed ideas of perfection . I agree with Simon that mp3 can sounds surprisingly good with the right bits and pieces , and I would recommend anyone wishing to dip their foot in the water of computer-based audio have a look at the excellent and very affordable FIIO range of products . They seem to make something for every need and are well within most peoples beer money budget .

Edited December 11, 2012 by Dingus

[ShergoldSnickers]

It's not so much that I don't get enjoyment from good music on a lowly playback device, it's just that the music is further enhanced by playing it back on gear properly designed for the purpose. This is not 'audiophile' snobbery. It's the realisation that there is more to be heard than I thought. I can still get a kick out of hearing stuff I like on a single speaker portable FM radio, and it's good to be reminded of this every now and again. As Redstriper says, it's the music that matters.

[Dingus]

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' timestamp='1355245089' post='1895882']
It's not so much that I don't get enjoyment from good music on a lowly playback device, it's just that the music is further enhanced by playing it back on gear properly designed for the purpose. This is not 'audiophile' snobbery. It's the realisation that there is more to be heard than I thought. I can still get a kick out of hearing stuff I like on a single speaker portable FM radio, and it's good to be reminded of this every now and again. As Redstriper says, it's the music that matters.
[/quote]

I agree with you wholeheartedly . Once you've heard good audio systems you can't help but think what any recorded music you hear would sound like on that level of system , because the sound of a good systen can be a revelation and make music an even more sensual and enthralling experience . I only mean to say that if you are getting a respectable and enjoyable sound quality on your existing real world equipment - not neccesarily lowly - it can be a fruitless pursuit to follow someone elses abstract idea of what kind of a sound you should be enjoying .

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355242396' post='1895842']
Well I'll just have to drown my sorrows in a wee glass of Ardbeg 10yr old tonight then - I shall raise the glass in your direction though sir
[/quote]

If I had a pound for every time I've been told Ardbeg smells like TCP I'd be able to nip out and buy a bottle.
My other half's dad is a member of the Scotch Whisky Society & gets mystery bottles from them. The idea being that you're supposed to be able to recognise it & tell other members what you think it is. He gave me a bottle of 18 year old (65.1%) a couple of months ago for services rendered; I reckon it's a Speyside but apparently there's no way of finding out for sure.
Bugger! I'll just have to "analyse it" a bit more!

[mcnach]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355232117' post='1895644']
Having said that I find 320kbps mp3s fine, its all that 128kbps stuff that I find inlistenable - and I'm not by any means an audiophile: I just like good recordings and good playback - I want to feel the music move me, not hear the issues with the reproduction preventing me enjoy it...
[/quote]

I remember many years ago when I was arguing that mp3 were terrible terrible things, and a friend tried to convince me that they work alright...

All I knew were 128kbps mp3. I did not know you could get higher bitrates. Then I copied all my CD collection as 320kbps mp3, and they are indeed alright for my purposes.

Who listens to 128kbps mp3? urgh!!

[Leonard Smalls]

I've been enjoying Bruichladdich PC7 as well...

[mcnach]

[quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1355235346' post='1895716']
Many people claim to be able to hear this 'guessing'. I'm not so convinced - but many are.
But either way, CD sampling is, by definition, lossy as it only 'samples' the waveform.
[/quote]


Many are convinced they were abducted by aliens... that does not make it true.

If the approximation to a waveform cannot be distinguished from the original waveform (by human hearing)... is it really "lossy"? I'm not sure that word would apply.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1355250293' post='1895973']
I've been enjoying Bruichladdich PC7 as well...[/quote]

They do free samples if you visit .............. 8 day stay & 8 distilleries, what a bind!

[flyfisher]

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1355250374' post='1895974']
If the approximation to a waveform cannot be distinguished from the original waveform (by human hearing)... is it really "lossy"? I'm not sure that word would apply.
[/quote]

Exactly. Test equipment can measure all sorts of things that our senses cannot perceive . . . that's why we invent them.

I wonder how many people notice that the colour resolution of their television is at least HALF the luminance resolution.

[lowdowner]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355250541' post='1895977']
They do free samples if you visit .............. 8 day stay & 8 distilleries, what a bind!

[/quote]
I'm an ardbeg or lagavulin fan personally since the re-build of the bruichladdie distillery - like many, I also own some of the laphroig peat bog and fully intend to return next year to claim my rent <slurp>