Jump to content
The Fuzz damn you!

Will the crappy sound of MP3 replace the crappy sound of vinyl?

Recommended Posts

I'm always somewhat bewildered by people saying that vinyl is inferior technology.

 

Can I ask, what is the sampling rate and bit depth of vinyl?

 

 

The answer to that, and the consequences of sampling and bit depth, should give an idea of why I can appreciate why people still enjoy listening to clean vinyls so much.

You need to know the bandwidth and dynamic range.

 

 

of course there is no such thing as SR and bitdepth in vinyl. the bandwidth though, in usual practical circumstances is significantly smaller than CD, and the dynamic range even more so by a rather large margin. a good deal of the warmth comes from nice harmonics produced by the medium itself.

 

 

 

I also find it amusing to hear people say that CD can mimic, or reproduce, the 'warmth' of a vinyl.

Seems to me that the warmth is likely coming from it being an analog recording; which is definitely something which a CD can not reproduce.

who said that? i was talking about digital playback, not CD. and i doubt anyone is doing it yet, because its still a processing power issue among other things. but using the 'flattest' reference quality equipment possible (like B&K gear) its possible through such things as mathematical convolution to model the difference between the recorded material at the input and that produced by the playback device, and reduce this to essentially an algorithm. once this is done, the unique distortions of that particular vinyl and that particular playback machine at that time are fundamentally captured. this can then be used to process the naked sound certainly accurately enough that i doubt you or anyone would pass the pepsi challenge using the same speakers (and all other things being equal) and be able to tell the difference between the convolved original and the vinyl.

 

its theoretically possible to arrive at a satisfactory algorithm that combines all the niceness of "the very best vinyl gear" -- but it would take a lot of time and expense and navigating through a shitstorm of subjective opinion to arrive at something. but it will happen. it cant not. all information is conquerable by digital.

 

and analogue recording has nothing to do with it. a big part of this misconception is due to do the unfortunate period of REALLY BAD mastering that occurred when CD arrived. recordings mastered for vinyl need to incorporate various EQ biases and dynamic changes which are then cancelled out by the behaviour of the medium. these masters were sometimes transferred straight to CD with woeful results. so there are a lot of really dodgy CDs around from the 80s.

 

but "analogue recording" is independent of what release medium is used. some things are recorded on 2" tape, and some things arent. by far most, arent these days, and when they are, they are almost always digitised and pulled through something like Pro Tools before they even reach Vinyl or CD. whatever 'warmth' is there after recording, specifically from tape, or anything else, is better preserved by transferring it onto CD than vinyl. vinyl works its special magic on it after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always somewhat bewildered by people saying that vinyl is inferior technology.

 

Can I ask, what is the sampling rate and bit depth of vinyl?

About the same as DSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

navigating through a shitstorm of subjective opinion

You're Kevin Rudd.......aren't you?

 

if you mean, am i swearing to impress, then yes.

 

no, actually i am a cheap asian copy of Kevin, Penny Wong. shut your eyes and tell me if you can hear the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always somewhat bewildered by people saying that vinyl is inferior technology.

 

Can I ask, what is the sampling rate and bit depth of vinyl?

About the same as DSD.

 

youre dreaming :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always somewhat bewildered by people saying that vinyl is inferior technology.

 

Can I ask, what is the sampling rate and bit depth of vinyl?

About the same as DSD.

 

youre dreaming :)

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Dredg have put out SACD's! That alone is worth getting the player/setup for it! Once I get my new unit I plan on it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm not nearly enough support for the more mainstream music - as the majority of SACD music produced is classical - and while im not adverse to listening to a bit of Mozart or Mendelssohn its not really the first thing I turn to.

 

Give it a few years and I may give a differing opinion :D

Out of my SACD/DVD-A collection:

7 Classical/orchestral/etc

31 pop/rock/indie/jazz/etc - although most of that was re-released classic albums (deep purple, floyd, REM)

 

New releases seem to be down, and unfortunately when JB stopped stocking SACD/DVD-A it became hard to get them locally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always somewhat bewildered by people saying that vinyl is inferior technology.

 

Can I ask, what is the sampling rate and bit depth of vinyl?

About the same as DSD.

 

youre dreaming :)

 

Why?

 

as i indicated above, the bandwidth of an ordinary vinyl system isnt even on par with CD, nor is the dynamic range -- which is WAY smaller and dependent on frequency, because otherwise the needle (which only has so much latitude) will jump out of its groove, esp. at high frequencies. there are also limitations on stereo content versus mono, because the signal is represented in MS (Mid-Side stereo) with the lateral and vertical groove directions representing each, and too much diversion will cause fuck ups. then there is the higher noise floor...

 

DSD if anything has a bit depth of 1. besides, it uses a different method so its SR/bit depth is not directly comparable to PCM anyway. it allows for the recording of frequencies many times above 20kHz.

 

i could dig up some numbers but i am feeling lazy. what, besides perhaps your ears, has led you to believe vinyl is so freakishly shit hot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know all about DSD.

 

What I'm saying is, vinyl would be long dead if they had of introduced DSD instead of Redbook CD.

(and I know they didn't have the tech back then)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesnt hold up either.

 

SACD adds an excess of accuracy. vinyl isnt still around because of its accuracy (of which it has little compared to even CD), its around because of its pleasant inaccuracies [which btw i think The Fuzz is selling short in the OP].

 

the use of 16bit 44.1kHz for recording was overly hasty. at least 20bits and 96kHz are required to avoid things like quantisation error and unsatisfactorily steep anti-aliasing filters.

 

during playback 16/44 is at the very least more than adequate in representing the highest quality recordings. i like the idea of 24/96 though, because it is excessive enough to be irrefutably capable of the accurate representation of frequencies approaching 20kHz and well beyond -- assuming they are even important, which they almost certainly arent.

 

i urge everyone to read this AES double blind experiment comparing SACD and DVD-A versus CD. some may find the results damning to their illusions about the inadequacies of the CD format ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesnt hold up either.

 

SACD adds an excess of accuracy. vinyl isnt still around because of its accuracy (of which it has little compared to even CD), its around because of its pleasant inaccuracies [which btw i think The Fuzz is selling short in the OP].

 

the use of 16bit 44.1kHz for recording was overly hasty. at least 20bits and 96kHz are required to avoid things like quantisation error and unsatisfactorily steep anti-aliasing filters.

In the words of the Hollywood drug dealer in "Jay and Silent Bob strike back";

 

"Man... I don't know what the FUCK you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touch a brother's heart. "

 

You really think you can hear the difference between 96Khz and 44.1Khz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think you can hear the difference between 96Khz and 44.1Khz?

the finished product resulting from each being used at the recording end? yes. not in all circumstances, or even the majority, but certainly yes.

 

this is most probably due to the extra word size (24bits) that corresponds to 96kHz sampling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesnt hold up either.

 

SACD adds an excess of accuracy. vinyl isnt still around because of its accuracy (of which it has little compared to even CD), its around because of its pleasant inaccuracies [which btw i think The Fuzz is selling short in the OP].

 

the use of 16bit 44.1kHz for recording was overly hasty. at least 20bits and 96kHz are required to avoid things like quantisation error and unsatisfactorily steep anti-aliasing filters.

 

during playback 16/44 is at the very least more than adequate in representing the highest quality recordings. i like the idea of 24/96 though, because it is excessive enough to be irrefutably capable of the accurate representation of frequencies approaching 20kHz and well beyond -- assuming they are even important, which they almost certainly arent.

 

i urge everyone to read this AES double blind experiment comparing SACD and DVD-A versus CD. some may find the results damning to their illusions about the inadequacies of the CD format ;)

What did they expect to find upon downsampling?

 

The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing

the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with

the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and unfortunately when JB stopped stocking SACD/DVD-A it became hard to get them locally.

Really?

My store still has quite a bit of SACD (although I've only purchased 2 so far).

If there's a particular one I want, I get the CD manager to order it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't look real hard but I've never seen any in there.

 

Are they in their own section morris, or just scattered around the place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't look real hard but I've never seen any in there.

 

Are they in their own section morris, or just scattered around the place?

Scattered :(

 

You pretty much need to know which one you're after. That's part of the reason I only have two - because I was looking for these two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a traditional SLR camera, and i suspect i will always like the idea of keeping a dark room (which i dont atm, but will one day), even though the technology has been superceded by digital, or soon will be -- depending on who you ask. similarly, some will go to their graves clutching their vinyl set ups, but even though vinyl sales are up again, they are inferior technology whose days are numbered.

medium format is yet to be challenged by digital, unless you spend 80k on a hassleblad digital back and even then it does not compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and unfortunately when JB stopped stocking SACD/DVD-A it became hard to get them locally.

Really?

My store still has quite a bit of SACD (although I've only purchased 2 so far).

If there's a particular one I want, I get the CD manager to order it for me.

 

The local stores (SA) stopped stopped stocking them about 18 months ago. At bthe time they had a bit of a run-out and got rid of most of them for about $15 wheich is when I bought about half a dozen.

 

While the formats are good, there has never been much uptake of them, About 3 years ago, I visited Blackwood Sound (specialist music + hifi shop in an expensive part of town) and asked about SACD, the guy there laughed because they'd just sent back all their SACD stock having for 18 months stocked every single Sony SACD release and sold very few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i urge everyone to read this AES double blind experiment comparing SACD and DVD-A versus CD. some may find the results damning to their illusions about the inadequacies of the CD format ;)

What did they expect to find upon downsampling?

 

The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing

the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with

the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.”

 

i have nfi what your point is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vinyl isnt still around because of its accuracy (of which it has little compared to even CD), its around because of its pleasant inaccuracies [which btw i think The Fuzz is selling short in the OP].

Well, that's the thing isn't it? Some people find the inaccuracies of vinyl pleasant; other people find the inaccuracies of MP3s pleasant. Other people find both "crappy". Why do we value one set of traditionally-pleasant inaccuracies more than another, more recent set? Edited by The Fuzz damn you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×