early eighties recording quality...

[discreet]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1418858006' post='2634264']
It was all done in professional studios using high quality, often analogue, equipment by people who knew what they were doing, not knocked up by some herbert with a music "degree" from his local "University" (technical college as was) on a laptop in his bedroom...
[/quote]

Plus about a billion. The golden era of dynamism and quality before everything was compressed to 0db, before everyone had access to the means of production and before teh internetz. Now everyone thinks they know everything about everything and imagine they invented modern music, when the reality is they actually know nothing about anything. Crock of twunts. Is it time for my nap yet?

[51m0n]

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1418900775' post='2634578']
[b]Digitising music inherently introduces noise as music volume is quantised (or rounded to the nearest 'step')[/b]. However the biggest impact imho is the compression 'war' where every producer tries to get their track to stand out and sound powerful. This is easily noticed in shouty TV adverts that sound so much louder than the program you've just been watching. It has the effect of squeezing all of the 'air' out of a recording
[/quote]

This is utter nonsense, you clearly do not understand how this stuff actually works in practice, Nyquist ( the guy who can be credited for coming up with sampling theory mathematically proved the minimum number of samples required to [b]accurately reproduce[/b] a waveform as a function of its highest frequency.

That accurately reproduce is important, because it means the result of converting the sample back into analogue produces a result that is [b]exactly[/b] equivalent to the original sampled input. In other wiords they are identical. Of course run that through a load of electronics, and an amp, and turn it into sound via a transceiver and that will have an affect, but the actual d/a conversion wont.

44.1KHz achieves that for sound (since not a single person on this forum can hear above 20KHz, now or ever in their life), you really really dont need recording/playback at any higher samplerate, the only time this isnt true is if you want to be able to have less severe filtering above the maximum required sampled input frequencey up to the sample frequency.

It can be useful to have higher sample rates if you are going to go on to do some form of mathematical function on the waveform to change it ( ie digital eq/compression/whatever), because that can provide greater accuracy in the result.

Read this exceptional article on sample rates and their current misuse here:-

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Compression confuses people who love to bemoan various aspects of modern sounding records.

Lossy compression (mp3s for instance) refers to file size compression using algorithms that bin parts of the original recording deemed not important. I guarantee that no one on this forum can detect a 320kbps mp3 against an original 16bit 44.1KHz wav on any speakers they wish to use with any accuracy in double blind testing.

Compression as a 'very bad thing' as a part of the loudness wars, actually refers to using various techniques to get the softer part of the recording closer in volume to the loudest part using multiband compression/limiting/automated gain riding breverse comression etc. The point being the misunderstanding (amoongst suits and bean counters mainly) that the loudest product sells best, or more importantly can be heard on the radio in the car. This 'war' goes waaaaaayyy back to Motwon vs The Beatles where the loudest 7" won on the jukebox (Motown beign very upset with The Beatles ability to get more grunt than them).

Modern recording techniques and technology far exceed anythign achievable up until now. Vinyl is without doubt a far worse medium in terms of sonic performance than digital is. People can enjoy the 'vinyl experience' all they like, and more power to them, but in critical testing in a double blind scenario it does not sound better than digital, that is a fallacy, largely put forward by the snakeoil loving audiophile nutters. If you cant measure it, people, it aint there.

Now, enough defending the tech, the awful truth is digital has been roundly abused for level for years, this includes eqing to make things psychoacoustically louder (more 2KHz - now dammit!) extreme limiting of peaks and clipping even for that last 0.1 dB of average level (ratios of average level to peak are the lowest they have been in history in thye pop 'chart'). You cannot do the same to vinyl because you just pop the needle out of the damn groove when the bass comes in.

Add to this the fact that the louder the recording the worse the artifacts on an lossly compressed file and the amount of recordings done by people with a mac and no clue in a sh*t room and finally your preference for the sound of eighties style production and you have all the reasons you could ever need to think its all rubbish now.

Its not all rubbish now, but a lot is, and its not the technology used to blame, its the way its abused or misused.

In my not remotely humble opinion

[cheddatom]

nice one 5imon

[Truckstop]

Thanks Si, that helped with a lot of questions I was generating after reading the rest of this thread!

Truckstop

[Norris]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1418904578' post='2634634']
This is utter nonsense, you clearly do not understand how this stuff actually works in practice,
[/quote]

I do, but tbh cannot be bothered with another argument

/coat

[ubit]

All I know is my iPod played through our EV PA system, sounds amazing. I don't claim to know all about sound quality, but I think a lot of folk join the emperors new clothes bunch who bemoan the humble MP3 . What I'm saying is, when played through an amazing sound system, pretty much anything sounds good!

[51m0n]

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1418907936' post='2634698']
I do, but tbh cannot be bothered with another argument

/coat
[/quote]

With all due respect your description of steps and adding noise is nonsense, please read the article I posted (http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html), in particular the section '[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]Sampling fallacies and misconceptions[/size][/font]' which describes how you are wrong.

Noise is a function of bit depth not sampling rate, and at 24bit is less than any analogue medium, whiilst at 16bit the dynamic range (ie available volume above the noise floor) is so great as to be a non issue in all but the widest dynamic range music (big hint here, that aint anything other than experimental electronica)

[No lust in Jazz]

For me, production values are of much less interest than content.

If someone would have told me thirty years ago, that one day the contents of all of my records and cassettes will fit on a device the size of a cigarette box - they've have described a beta version of the iPod and I'd have laughed at them

Through the experience of growing up listening to and taping John Peel from the radio in the early 80's - I have to say that not all production values were 'top notch' plus after making up my own compilation cassettes, buying bootleg vinyl and cassettes, my ears and expectations have become spoiled over the years.

I listen to most music from said iPod in the car, road and wind noise both having an input - but I enjoy it.

[Sonic_Groove]

[quote name='ubit' timestamp='1418908960' post='2634706']
All I know is my iPod played through our EV PA system, sounds amazing. I don't claim to know all about sound quality, but I think a lot of folk join the emperors new clothes bunch who bemoan the humble MP3 . What I'm saying is, when played through an amazing sound system, pretty much anything sounds good!
[/quote]

There seems to be some cross purpose here? The OP said he was listening on a computer? So the final playing media was not the problem, iPods, MP3, etc, are convenient & can sound great. The original criticism seemed to be about how the music was recorded & produced. The compression of MP3 was not the issue, The record everything louder than everything else as cheap as possible & "blast me subwoofer!!!" is! GIGO!!!

B

Edited December 18, 2014 by Sonic_Groove

[tonyquipment]

Tube amps and Nixie tubes


Lets get retro man

Where's my radiogram ???

[cybertect]

[quote name='spacey' timestamp='1418855006' post='2634210']Similar to camera film vs digital, nobody can make a digital camera with the dynamic range of slide film yet.[/quote]

Erm, slide film in particular has very limited dynamic range (which is a term borrowed from electronics, so not directly applicable to film).

Fuji Velvia can deal with about 4 to 4.5 stops between the brightest and darkest tones before you blow the highlights or block out the shadows. Photographers who use Velvia get used to using graduated neutral density filters (to tame skies) and shooting in soft light to bring the range of tones into line with something that can be captured.

Kodachrome could deal with possibly 6 stops in good conditions and is about par for the course for most slide film. With Fuji Provia, you can probably get about 8 stops of usable tones, but that's on the high end for a colour reversal film.

Monochrome [i]negative[/i] film has a much greater exposure latitude; typically around 10 stops. HP5 is known for being able to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights over 11 to 12 stops.

I've heard of people getting 15 stops plus on TMax 100 negs, but the limitation with negative film really comes when you have to print it, since there's about 100:1 luminance ratio in a photographic print, which equates to about 6.5 stops of DR. It takes some skill to develop the film appropriately and then render 15 stops in an original negative within that printable range.

Colour negs fall somewhere between the colour slide and mono negs for the range of tones that they can capture.

It [i]was[/i] true about ten to fifteen years ago that many DSLRs were limited to around 6-8 stops of DR. Blown highlights and very noisy shadows were fairly commonplace, especially if you didn't nail your exposure exactly or had to bump up the ISO. Improvements in technology have meant that most decent, modern cameras can reliably capture usable detail in the 10 to 12 stop range at their base ISO, which is broadly comparable with b/w negative film and still do far better than all slide films at higher speeds (up to around ISO 6400).

My Sony A7, which has one of the better 35mm sensors currently available from that perspective, can capture about 14 stops of dynamic range at ISO 100. You still have to manage it well in PP to get it to display on screen or in a print.

cheerz

Rob [still shooting slide & neg film [i]and[/i] digital]

Edited December 18, 2014 by cybertect

[discreet]

[quote name='ubit' timestamp='1418908960' post='2634706']
All I know is my iPod played through our EV PA system, sounds amazing. I don't claim to know all about sound quality, but I think a lot of folk join the emperors new clothes bunch who bemoan the humble MP3 . What I'm saying is, when played through an amazing sound system, pretty much anything sounds good!
[/quote]

Hmm, no... I don't want to add to the conflict, but when I play a CD and then an mp3 through my system it's very easy to tell the difference. An mp3 at 320kbps is nowhere near CD quality (which I think is around 1141kbps). But most people don't listen on anything like decent players, so it doesn't make much difference. This is a real shame, because the mp3 represents the worst audio quality that has been available for generations!

[spacey]

There is a studio in Leeds running on 24 track tape and valve compressors and old outboard gear.
I heard a demo they had done for a soul band, the quality was totally outstanding.

[scalpy]

Friend of mine was a major player in the studio scene in the 80s, head engineer at AIR Montserrat for example. He was asked to give a seminar to masters students at a well known university. He opened with, "let's mic up that drum kit."

Cue blank looks all round.

[ubit]

I'll say it again then. Mp3's played through our PA sound amazing. I have stated that I'm not an expert on sound quality and what makes it so. All I know is what sounds good. We have used CD players and the iPod and the difference is not noticeable .

[cheddatom]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1418917125' post='2634832']
...An mp3 at 320kbps is nowhere near CD quality...
[/quote]

Technically, no, but if your mp3 was well encoded, you really shouldn't be able to tell the difference at all, and if the difference is really obvious to you, you should donate your ears to scientific research

[discreet]

[quote name='ubit' timestamp='1418919555' post='2634872']
I'll say it again then. Mp3's played through our PA sound amazing. I have stated that I'm not an expert on sound quality and what makes it so. All I know is what sounds good. We have used CD players and the iPod and the difference is not noticeable .
[/quote]

You mean 'relatively amazing'. You don't need to be an expert on sound quality to tell the difference. You just need to hear a proper system. If you've never heard one, you can't know what it sounds like, can you? mp3s are what's known as 'lossy' - not all the audio information is present.

[discreet]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418919777' post='2634879']
Technically, no, but if your mp3 was well encoded, you really shouldn't be able to tell the difference at all, and if the difference is really obvious to you, you should donate your ears to scientific research
[/quote]

OK - mp3s are 'lossy' which means not all the audio information is present. The difference is very apparent to me not because there's anything special about my ears, but because I've got a decent hi-fi system. Anyone could hear the difference on my system - it's obvious. CDs aren't compressed like mp3s are. That's just a fact.

Edited December 18, 2014 by discreet

[cheddatom]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1418919967' post='2634883']
OK - mp3s are 'lossy' which means not all the audio information is present. The difference is obvious to me not because there's anything special about my ears, but because I've got a decent hi-fi system. Anyone could hear the difference on my system - it's obvious. CDs have not been compressed like mp3s are. That's just a fact.
[/quote]

You are correct, it is a fact, mp3s can be described as lossy, because they have less information is present when compared with another, larger format like CD

I'm in the studio tonight. I'll do two exports from Cubase. One 44KHz 16bit WAV, and one 320Kbps mp3. I'll put them on my server for you (or anyone) to download. I'm confident in my ears and systems, and I can't tell the difference, so I'll be very interested to see what you think

[lojo]

[quote name='No lust in Jazz' timestamp='1418912014' post='2634750']

If someone would have told me thirty years ago, that one day the contents of all of my records and cassettes will fit on a device the size of a cigarette box - they've have described a beta version of the iPod and I'd have laughed at them

[/quote]

True, theres a great bit in a show (star trek I think) where they are in a museum in the future , there is a large 50s juke box that gets called an iPod, which in the great scheme of things time wise (only 40 years) its not that far out.

[Beer of the Bass]

For me the mp3 vs CD difference seems to be very dependent on the source material. I can easily miss it on a dense rock mix, but I really notice it on things like piano trios or folkier things with some space in them. I'm not great at describing it, but the thing I hear seems to live in the higher frequencies and is especially noticeable on the decay of notes.

[discreet]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418920154' post='2634885']
I'm in the studio tonight. I'll do two exports from Cubase. One 44KHz 16bit WAV, and one 320Kbps mp3. I'll put them on my server for you (or anyone) to download. I'm confident in my ears and systems, and I can't tell the difference, so I'll be very interested to see what you think
[/quote]

I look forward to it, but I'm already pretty certain about what I'll think! It saddens me that children don't have access to high-quality systems and that most music is apparently consumed alone while staring at a screen.

[tinyd]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418920154' post='2634885']

I'm in the studio tonight. I'll do two exports from Cubase. One 44KHz 16bit WAV, and one 320Kbps mp3. I'll put them on my server for you (or anyone) to download. I'm confident in my ears and systems, and I can't tell the difference, so I'll be very interested to see what you think
[/quote]

It's probably too much hassle, but what would be really interesting is if you don't tell people which is which, then ask them to vote somehow. Of course, people will be able to guess by the file size so it might be impossible to do....

[wateroftyne]

TBH, given most people's listening habits nowadays,I think dynamic range is a bigger issue then bitrate.

You could be listening to a lossless recording through £30K's worth of boutique audio, but if the mix is standard 2014 fayre, it's going to sound like junk.

[discreet]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1418920492' post='2634890']
For me the mp3 vs CD difference seems to be very dependent on the source material. I can easily miss it on a dense rock mix, but I really notice it on things like piano trios or folkier things with some space in them. I'm not great at describing it, but the thing I hear seems to live in the higher frequencies and is especially noticeable on the decay of notes.
[/quote]

That's because transients, transparency, detail and stereo imaging are lost during data compression.