51m0n Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 If there are two frequencies that cause another 'beating' freuquency lower down, that lower frequency is really there, the air is actually moving at that frequency, our ears aren't making it up, so it isnt only there because you hear the two original frequencies and imagine the third, it is caused by the two original frequencies, and therefore will be recorded by any digital system, whereby the beating frequency is below the Nyquist frequency. So it isnt magically 'lost'. That is a part of why the sampling theory holds true. And why any such audible result of higher harmonics that we cant actually hear is nevertheless reproduced accurately. A young chap out in the countryside may [i]just[/i] be able to discern the presesnce of 20000Hz (although its unlikely if he's older than about 7 or 8 years), but certainly wont be able to hear it [i]easily[/i]. No one can, and no one has ever been found who can hear above 20KHz and can actually get more than a 50/50 guess rate of success at telling if such frequencies are being played. And people have been trying to find someone who could for about 100 years now. Bats hear up to 150KHz, humans hear at best up to 20KHz and this fades from about the age of 8 onwards. The bit depth part is also not really accurate. It is suggesting that there is no discernable noise from vinyl. Which is rubbish, there is mechanical noise, rumble, yada yada yada, on top of thermal noise in vinyl too. Quantisation 'noise' is typically only heard on material with truncated bit depth that is undithered and had no noise-shaping applied. Only on very very quiet parts of the source even then, you are talking about the last bit in the range, which is 6dB, at the bottom of a 96dB scale. With dithering at the time of mastering ad noise-shaping which moves any noise to outside the areas humans hear best anyway its not going to be discernable by anyone on a normal hifi in a normal room. Dithering is equivalent to anti-aliasing in video if you like. It effectively smooths the edges that we might have been able to discern. It is done when converting from 24bit final mix to 16bit CD quality master. Where you might just notice something different between the 24bit and 16 after mastering is the very end of a reverb trail that completely fades out. It may be ever so slightly shorter on a dithered 16 bit representation. Anyone here have a room that is quieter than -90dB when everything is switched on and nothing playing back? I though the general opinion was specialised rooms for listening weren't practical? In which case the quantisation noise from 16bit isnt practically noticeable. Anyone here care to show us a recording with a dynamic range wider than 90dB??? If your CD has a dynamic range of 20dB you arent going to be able to notice any dithering in reality. The noise floor of great vinyl is only about 70dB anyway. So it cant reproduce that recording either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355998711' post='1905398']Anyone here care to show .........[/quote] Most I believe - being music lovers & listeners rather than over [i]anal[/i]-ysing every nook & cranny have scanned over or given up on recent grandiose posts; not just that one but the epic cut & paste previously. Many consider whether the "art" aspect of music outweighs the "science"; most prefer the former with due respect to the latter, some don't. The question in the OP was answered a long while ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Stu, art is art, music is art. Music [i]reproduction[/i] is science and engineering. I'm really not sure what your problem is with every post I make about it now. Is it the science/engineering slant? If you cant be bothered to read my posts and at least try and take them on board a bit, dont bother commenting on them I'm done in here. Enjoy the vinyl chaps...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1356000906' post='1905442'] Stu, art is art, music is art. Music [i]reproduction[/i] is science and engineering. I'm really not sure what your problem is with every post I make about it now. ........... I'm done in here. Enjoy the vinyl chaps......[/quote] I already did say, & also clarified that it's not just you; that so many people have come on here about what they enjoy about their vinyl, or their CDs - or various other formats. And all they get back is science, and more science. For the role you have in music ....... you have no soul man, not going from any example you've shown within the limited sphere of these 11 pages of this anyway. Time to dig the Xmas carols out................. on CD................for enjoyment!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I didn't read the article to say: a) that beating frequencies are "magically" lost vinyl has no noise What I understood it to say is that some beating frequencies are as a result of resonance within our skulls, i.e. bones etc, so while it may not be an actual recorded sound, our perception shows it to be there, or not there. So if frequencies above the Nyquist limit cause this, they won't appear on a digital recording unless the sampling frequency is increased to accommodate it. As for thermal or any other noise in vinyl, he doesn't mention it as such; he puts forward a hypothetical analogue source with 100dB SNR - Studer 24 track at 30ips perhaps - and contrasts it with the theoretical cd red book SNR of 96dB via high resolution amplification. My amps, frinstance, have an SNR of 113dB... So he's not arguing for or against vinyl, just for higher sample rates! At the end of the day it's all academic, as most folks are happy with MP3, and see Bose as high end hifi... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1356000906' post='1905442'] Stu, art is art, music is art. Music [i]reproduction[/i] is science and engineering. [/quote] A very good point. And the science and engineering isn't limited to recording media either. What about all our electric basses? This forum is full of topics agonising over the 'tone' of their bass . . . all of which is down to science and engineering - what sort of pickups, passive or active, valve or solid state amps? etc etc. None of these are 'best' it's just personal preference. Just as vinyl or CD is a personal preference. Which is fine, but it all get's a bit daft when one or the other is touted as being 'the best' or 'superior' without taking account of the underlying science - or worse, invoking a load of peudo-science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I can't beleive this thread is still going, and people are still attempting to argue with facts! Fair enough if you like the qualities of vinyl, but you can't say that it's inherently "higher quality" than CD, unless of course you want to ignore all the science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1356002001' post='1905459'] What I understood it to say is that some beating frequencies are as a result of resonance within our skulls, i.e. bones etc, so while it may not be an actual recorded sound, our perception shows it to be there, or not there. So if frequencies above the Nyquist limit cause this, they won't appear on a digital recording unless the sampling frequency is increased to accommodate it. . . . . . So he's not arguing for or against vinyl, just for higher sample rates! [/quote] But what is the upper frequency response of a fully-analogue recording chain ending in a vinyl recording and replayed on a decent hi-fi system? 20kHz? 22kHz? If that theory holds true then surely analogue/vinyl systems would also need a much higher frequency response? As previously pointed out, most adults struggle to hear 10kHz, so a music reproduction system capable of twice this sounds like a reasonable compromise. I wonder what the response would be to an 'improved' television system that worked into the ultra-violet spectrum? Would we expect this to give us higher quality pictures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcnach Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356001541' post='1905454'] I already did say, & also clarified that it's not just you; that so many people have come on here about what they enjoy about their vinyl, or their CDs - or various other formats. And all they get back is science, and more science. For the role you have in music ....... you have no soul man, not going from any example you've shown within the limited sphere of these 11 pages of this anyway. Time to dig the Xmas carols out................. on CD................for enjoyment!!!!!!!!! [/quote] science is interesting. Perhaps not for you, but some of us like to know how things work, so please don't dismiss it, just say you are not interested. Nothing to do with soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcnach Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1356002637' post='1905466'] I can't beleive this thread is still going, and people are still attempting to argue with facts! Fair enough if you like the qualities of vinyl, but you can't say that it's inherently "higher quality" than CD, unless of course you want to ignore all the science. [/quote] Besides... what good is a totally faithful reproduction system, if the original product is not that good? I mean, a lot of the mix/production work I hear is not exactly awe inspiring. Is it just me, or are there really too many "producers" that put out a not so good sounding product, compared to say 20-30 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356001541' post='1905454'] I already did say, & also clarified that it's not just you; that so many people have come on here about what they enjoy about their vinyl, or their CDs - or various other formats. And all they get back is science, and more science. [b][i]For the role you have in music ....... you have no soul man[/i][/b], not going from any example you've shown within the limited sphere of these 11 pages of this anyway. Time to dig the Xmas carols out................. on CD................for enjoyment!!!!!!!!! [/quote] Nonsense. Thats a pretty personnal dig Stu - otherwise I wouldnt bother responding at this point. For the role I have had in this thread I have no soul, because there is no soul in engineering. The OP was an engineering related statement 'CD is better if I turn the trable down on my system, because that makes it sound more like my vinyl' - to paraphrase. My responses have been all about why he may feel that way, what is the reason why that is not necessarily just simply because of CD, or even digital per se, and that the general flow of "vinyl great, cd sucks" comments following should probably have a huge bunch of caveats about them that weren't there. I've not even really put forward opinion, so much as fact. When mixing/mastering [url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/193794-cd-verses-vinyl/page__view__findpost__p__1897419"]as I already posted here[/url], its all about inutiion, and emotional impact and I guess what you are calling 'soul'. In order to be able to make choices about what should be heard and when - as I stated before - its all about emotional impact. That is the 'soul' part of mixing. Please reread my extended essay on the subject. Like I said, if you insist on commenting and being derogatory about me and how I achieve the mixes I do, at least have the decency to read what I am writing in the context of the post and topic. [b][i]There is no soul in engineering[/i][/b], but even given that I have stated, repeatedly, that whatever you enjoy most is what is best for you, whatever the reason, so personal enjoyment trumps better engineering in my book. Innaccuracies and misunderstanding about how sampling works dont. [b][i]There is masses of soul in mixing[/i][/b], because it is all about translating the emotional content of the songwriters and artists performance into the most emotionally compelling version of that performance in stereo that we can. In order to do which the more knowledge the mixer has about all the technicalities involved the better the results they will be able to get repeatedly. Edited December 20, 2012 by 51m0n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leroydiamond Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The vast majority of music listeners are quite happy with MP3. Quality is no longer the name of the game. Many artists are engaged in the louder is better battle Regarding mastering and their albums, on whatever format sound crap. Interestingly despite the science, Cd's sales are falling and Vinyl sales are increasing year on year. Hey, I just like the vinyl listening experience over CD particularly when listening to older material when the process was all about the sound quality of the final product. IMO many of todays popular artists don't care too much and prefer to master everything into the red and the quality of the end product is crap (RHCP, Metallica, MUSE etc.,). Listening to older recordings on vinyl is a much more pleasant experience in comparison IMO and these recordings just dont transfer well onto cd. Even when remastered I tend to find the listening experience disappointing when compared to vinyl However CD can be a good source. I was listening to a jony lang album last night and it sounded very good indeed, Obviously great care and skill in the mixing and mastering, thereby respecting the dynamics of the music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1356003116' post='1905475'] But what is the upper frequency response of a fully-analogue recording chain ending in a vinyl recording and replayed on a decent hi-fi system? 20kHz? 22kHz? If that theory holds true then surely analogue/vinyl systems would also need a much higher frequency response? As previously pointed out, most adults struggle to hear 10kHz, so a music reproduction system capable of twice this sounds like a reasonable compromise. I wonder what the response would be to an 'improved' television system that worked into the ultra-violet spectrum? Would we expect this to give us higher quality pictures? [/quote] The theoretical limit for vinyl frequency response is 45kHz. However, you need a good piece of vinyl and excellent playback/equalisation devices to get anywhere near that! As for adult hearing limits, these may or may not be relevant if beating or intermodulation effects occur below these frequencies... So while cd at 44.1kHz/16 bit is technically superior to vinyl in some ways, it isn't necessarily in all. It depends on what, and more importantly, where, you measure. After all, the output of a loudspeaker as measured through a microphone may not be the same as you would hear it; I mean why does your own voice sound so different when you speak, and when you hear it played back off tape? TV picture-wise, I don't think it would be a good idea to have full spectrum TVs. First of all, you'd have the heating effects of I.R, plus the skin cancer problems of UV A and B. And it would add an enormous amount to the cost of production (both programmes and tellies), and electricity bills! And talking of high definition TV, many years ago I was on a BBC panel researching hi-def formats relative to film. Needless to say the standard we recommended (1250 lines) was not used... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1356006797' post='1905552']Please reread my [i]extended[/i] essay on the subject.[/quote] Therein is the rub! 11 pages of pat-a-cake pat-a-cake; who's knows what, who can refer to the most facts, as though it's a battle of wills as to who's going to prove factually, no matter how many repetitive pages it takes, what is - like all music forms - a matter of personal taste as to what sounds better to some people, until the other person with other figures concedes. It's like going to a gig & a punter says "It's too loud", you wouldn't reply with "No it isn't, my decibel meter says otherwise" There's more & more of such on this forum (as has been commented on by others, not me, in recent days). If it's not here it's repeated ad nauseum on whether someone should mix 10" drivers with 15s, no matter how recently the same answer was given to a similar thread shortly previously. You can bang on until you've made it 111 pages of facts & figures, you will not change the personal preference of the media folk choose to prefer for their own reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356009021' post='1905599'] You can bang on until you've made it 111 pages of facts & figures, you will not change the personal preference of the media folk choose to prefer for their own reasons. [/quote] You're absolutely right... But it can be quite fun for certain folks (myself included I'm afraid to say!) who are:[list] [*]incredibly stubborn [*]like to play "mine's bigger than yours" [/list] And I think you'll find mine is bigger. Not saying what though Edited December 20, 2012 by Leonard Smalls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapiro Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1355051112' post='1893278'] I don't think its CD or Vinyl, more a case of new techniques versus old techniques, modern music is being produced in a different way to that of yesteryear, for those who haven't seen this vid check it out, makes a lot of sense once you've watched it! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ[/media] [/quote] That is very good. And makes a lot of sense. I see the error of my ways! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1356009597' post='1905614']And I think you'll find mine is bigger. Not saying what though [/quote] Yeah, but mine's a 12 incher ................. still on the subject of vinyl of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356010096' post='1905630'] Yeah, but mine's a 12 incher ................. still on the subject of vinyl of course! [/quote] That's nothing... At t'Beeb we used to have 16"ers! Transcription records, that is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leroydiamond Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 yea[quote name='gapiro' timestamp='1356009839' post='1905621'] That is very good. And makes a lot of sense. I see the error of my ways! [/quote] Good Vid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356009021' post='1905599'] Therein is the rub! 11 pages of pat-a-cake pat-a-cake; who's knows what, who can refer to the most facts, as though it's a battle of wills as to who's going to prove factually, no matter how many repetitive pages it takes, what is - like all music forms - a matter of personal taste as to what sounds better to some people, until the other person with other figures concedes. It's like going to a gig & a punter says "It's too loud", you wouldn't reply with "No it isn't, my decibel meter says otherwise" There's more & more of such on this forum (as has been commented on by others, not me, in recent days). If it's not here it's repeated ad nauseum on whether someone should mix 10" drivers with 15s, no matter how recently the same answer was given to a similar thread shortly previously. You can bang on until you've made it 111 pages of facts & figures, you will not change the personal preference of the media folk choose to prefer for their own reasons. [/quote] I suspect there are crossed purposes at work here. I don't recall anyone arguing against anyone's personal preference when talking about reproduction systems. The issue seems to kick off when it's claimed that vinyl is a better reproduction system than CD. Since no-one can (reasonably) argue against personal preference, it's left to the science to get at some real facts. But I entirely agree that even if all the test equipment in the world can prove that digital reproduction is scientifically better than analogue but it has no bearing on someone's personal preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1356011686' post='1905668'] I The issue seems to kick off when it's claimed that vinyl is a better reproduction system than CD. Since no-one can (reasonably) argue against personal preference, it's left to the science to get at some real facts. But I entirely agree that even if all the test equipment in the world can prove that digital reproduction is scientifically better than analogue but it has no bearing on someone's personal preference. [/quote] I don't think anyone's said that vinyl is scientifically better than cd, though I gave a couple of hints that the measurements used to show that cd is technically better aren't necessarily the only measurements that should be taken into account! And as I said earlier, good music played on a rubbish system is preferable to rubbish music on a good system. Though the argument then would be "what constitutes good music?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 My favourite colour might be red. Somebody else's favourite might be blue. I can't prove why red is better than blue. That's a matter of opinion. But I can scientifically explain the frequencies of light that make up each colour and compare them that way. That's fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Smalls Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1356012328' post='1905681'] My favourite colour might be red. Somebody else's favourite might be blue. I can't prove why red is better than blue. That's a matter of opinion. [b]But I can scientifically explain the frequencies of light that make up each colour and compare them that way. That's fact.[/b] [/quote] But can you explain why what I see as a shade of blue, my Mrs sees as a shade of green? And what looks like a very light pink to me looks like pale lilac to her? Colour perception is just as fraught with difficulties as sound perception is! And scientifically speaking, red is better than blue so long as it's a proper red, like blood or Will Scarlett. If it's girly pink it's obviously rubbish and blue is definitely better. HTH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Sound perception is very interesting and subject to all sorts of physiological and psychological factors, which is why those interested like to look at the science of the matter, rather than just comparing preferences. Those studying colour-blindness and colour perception in general will also be more interested in actual scientific facts, rather than subjective opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356009021' post='1905599'] Therein is the rub! 11 pages of pat-a-cake pat-a-cake; who's knows what, who can refer to the most facts, as though it's a battle of wills as to who's going to prove factually, no matter how many repetitive pages it takes, what is - like all music forms - a matter of personal taste as to what sounds better to some people, until the other person with other figures concedes. It's like going to a gig & a punter says "It's too loud", you wouldn't reply with "No it isn't, my decibel meter says otherwise" There's more & more of such on this forum (as has been commented on by others, not me, in recent days). If it's not here it's repeated ad nauseum on whether someone should mix 10" drivers with 15s, no matter how recently the same answer was given to a similar thread shortly previously. You can bang on until you've made it 111 pages of facts & figures, you will not change the personal preference of the media folk choose to prefer for their own reasons. [/quote] If you dont like the forum go and do something else better instead? People will discuss ad nauseum the best bass for metal, whether driver diameter has any relevance on a speaker cabs depth, what are the best strings for jazz, is music theory worth learning, is digital as good as analoque, who has the biggest and bestest big muff, do you like carrots? [size=5]It is what this place is for!!!!!!!!![/size] If people back up their position with external data your attitude is "Not interested, you are being souless and not just feeling it man" where as mine is, "Thats interesting can I understand where this comes from, does any of it not ring true to me". For your information I have had my mind changed on several subjects by this forum, I have allowed myself to be 'educated' by people who clearly have looked into the areas they are most interested in further than I had, and had a far deeper understanding of the subjects at hand. Again - I believe that is what this place is for. And I appreciate everyone on here who takes the time to try and make their case convincingly and with whatever they need to back up their position. You do know there are really well defined dB levels for volumes at gigs, using specific scales of metering that will reliably tell you if a gig really is too loud dont you? And no, nowhere near enough FOH engineers care to carry a dB meter to check - or seem capable of using some common sense about it either I grant you... So back on topic I had no intention of even attempting to change peoples preferred listening media at all. I am only trying to point out that their attempts to suggest that CD is the worse medium for the task of reproducing music may actually be somewhat flawed. If they read up, have a think, and can get their heads around the points being made on all sides they may be better educated as to why vinyl is their preferred listening medium so often. Doesnt make them wrong to listen to vinyl, doesnt make any difference to me if they prefer wax cylinder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.