CD verses Vinyl

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='lowdowner' timestamp='1355257811' post='1896115']
I'm an ardbeg or lagavulin fan personally since the re-build of the bruichladdie distillery[/quote]

Wasn't aware of that, though they have just completely renovated the old Port Charlotte distillery & got it working again if you meant that? It's one of theirs that I've just finished *sob*.

[KingBollock]

I can't afford expensive hifi equipment and I certainly can't justify altering a room specifically for listening to music. In fact our main stereo is in the conservatory, so it's surrounded by glass. When I really want to listen to a piece of music, as opposed to having it on in the background, I get the headphones out. My headphones aren't expensive ones either, but they allow me to get swallowed up in the music, for it to be everything, to make my spine tingle and my heart melt. [i]That[/i] matters to me.

[Norris]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355237643' post='1895765']
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.[/quote]
No offense intended, but I think you may have got this the wrong way round. The maximum frequency that can be recorded without aliasing is half the sampling rate. See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate"]Nyquist Rate[/url]. Having said that, I agree with you that above a certain frequency the human ear would have difficulties telling the difference - in audiophile terms known as 'air', the upper frequency range above the limit of hearing.

I still like vinyl, CDs AND mp3s - they all have their place

[51m0n]

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1355317604' post='1896799']
No offense intended, but I think you may have got this the wrong way round. The maximum frequency that can be recorded without aliasing is half the sampling rate. See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate"]Nyquist Rate[/url]. Having said that, I agree with you that above a certain frequency the human ear would have difficulties telling the difference - in audiophile terms known as 'air', the upper frequency range above the limit of hearing.

I still like vinyl, CDs AND mp3s - they all have their place
[/quote]

No I understand Nyquist Rate, it is the lowest sample rate for alias free sampling with theroretically perfect reproduction available. Its theroetical, since there is no such thing as a perfect filter, and therefore there is the need for a transition band above the Nyquist Frequency ( the maximum signal Hz that cna be perfectly sampled) to allow fo ralias filters. Around 2KHz in a CD quality wav.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

For a sound to happen and be entirely missed by the sampler it must happen entirely within the time taken for two bounding samples to occur.

Therefore the duration is less than the time inbetween two samples - less than 1/44100 of a second at CD sampling rates.

In order to play that back a system has to be able to show the entire shape of that signal, be it analogue throughout or digital. It must have the ability to show signals that last that short a time, and furthermore it has to be able to do so with accuracy.

Show me a playback system that can reproduce a signal that would be entirely missed by the system that samples at 44100Hz.

[bremen]

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1355317604' post='1896799']


I still like vinyl, CDs AND mp3s - they all have their place
[/quote]

The Voice Of Sanity

[afterimage]

Neilyoung has anew. Systemcalled. Pono saw him do a interview about it. Google it. Like. Analogue better. A I have avalve hi first setup.

[Conan]

[quote name='afterimage' timestamp='1355326706' post='1896970']
Neilyoung has anew. Systemcalled. Pono saw him do a interview about it. Google it. Like. Analogue better. A I have avalve hi first setup.
[/quote]

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='bremen' timestamp='1355326108' post='1896963']
The Voice Of Sanity [/quote]

No it's not!!! This is ...............

[quote name='KingBollock' timestamp='1355258760' post='1896144']
..............allow me to get swallowed up in the music, for it to be everything, to make my spine tingle and my heart melt. [i]That[/i] matters to me.[/quote]

[afterimage]

Smoother sound

[fumps]

When I was involved in the dance scene Vinyl was the King of all formats, CD's & MP3's were seen as well a poor replacement.

I still know guys who Mix with Vinyl & people who dont go out clubbig anymore because of the loss of sound quality.

I loved mixing with vinyl because of the physical connection you had with it, being able to hold the disc & move it was the great thing about it all. and also because of the physicality of owning the disc, your collection was a very personal thing which other DJ's always were interested in.

Readig this now makes me want to get a turntable & some vinyl.....aww goddam it BC you've made me want something again....grrrr

[afterimage]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1355246070' post='1895897']
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 .
[/quote] indeed. Go to few hi fi. Shops

[Conan]

[quote name='KingBollock' timestamp='1355258760' post='1896144']
When I really want to listen to a piece of music I get the headphones out ...they allow me to get swallowed up in the music, for it to be everything, to make my spine tingle and my heart melt. [i]That[/i] matters to me.[/quote]

[i]That[/i] is what music is for IMO. One can over-analyse these things!

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='afterimage' timestamp='1355326706' post='1896970']
Neilyoung has anew. Systemcalled. Pono saw him do a interview about it. Google it. Like. Analogue better. A I have avalve hi first setup.
[/quote]

Is this a new kind of morse code, or predictive text gone a bit hairy?

[charic]

[quote name='afterimage' timestamp='1355326706' post='1896970']
Neilyoung has anew. Systemcalled. Pono saw him do a interview about it. Google it. Like. Analogue better. A I have avalve hi first setup.
[/quote]

I think this is what happens when you have a sampling rate that is too low

I'm guessing...

[quote] Neil young has a new system called "Pono". I saw him do a interview about it. You should google it. I like analogue better and I have a valve setup[/quote]

[gjones]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1354996224' post='1892861']
just changed my speakers on my Hifi so I've got all enthusiastic about listening to music again, the thing I've noticed if I turn the treble down on CD's they sound a lot better, almost like vinyl but with a little bit more clarity, anybody else do this?
[/quote]

I do it all the time. I don't like the unrealistic hi fizz of hi-hats and cymbals. Most albums these days are mixed for noisy environments like cars with extra lows and hi end added.

[51m0n]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1355327462' post='1896985']
I do it all the time. I don't like the unrealistic hi fizz of hi-hats and cymbals. Most albums these days are mixed for noisy environments like cars [s]with extra lows and hi end added[/s] with large amounts of compression and limiting on individual high energy elements and on the two buss in an effort to reduce the average dynamic range of the track to no more than 4dB so everything can always be heard and everything always sounds loud (though as a result it also always lacks punch as the transient has been crushed to death), even if it sounds like cr4p, in very demanding acoustic spaces like cars, founderies, and underneath a space shuttle as it lifts off.
[/quote]

Fixed for you

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355327920' post='1896996']
Fixed for you[/quote]

[gjones]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355327920' post='1896996']
Fixed for you
[/quote]

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1355327462' post='1896985']
I do it all the time. I don't like the unrealistic hi fizz of hi-hats and cymbals. Most albums these days are mixed for noisy environments like cars with extra lows and hi end added.
[/quote]
post 165 and somebody's answered the original question

[51m0n]

The reality is that when mixing contempory music the mixer is the person who starts the process to enable the mastering engineer to get aboslute maximum level.

By clever use of ducking to keep high energy signal from one instrumetn adding to another at the same time (bass and kick for instance) it is possible to remove the need for the extra dynamic range required by the two together.

On top of this certain instruments (notably but not limited to percussion) have particularly large transients, careful use of very fast or look ahead limiters can catch the meat of these transients, again gaining more dynamic range for the average level.

Using EQ to carve out unwanted areas of an instrument in a mix not only gives greater clarity, but also stops more build up of energy that can rob the mix of potential loudness'.

Compression on pretty much everything set to control level transparently can also help a great deal in taming wilder sections, allowing the overall average level to stay high.

It is very common practice to use huge amounts of automation to keep the level of any important instrument exactly right all the time, intakes of breath are pulled back, louder notes are curtailed, quiet sections are boosted. Every couple of seocnds can have several automation moves in level alone. On several different instruments and the vocal.

In order to make a particular part of the mix easier to hear, and yet leave the maximum average level thoughout its not uncommon to slightly boost the first note of a passage from that instrument (whilst minutely droping competing instruments at the same time) - the result is your ear is drawn to that partiuclar instrument for the duration of its part, without having to actually turn it up.

Parallel compression is used liberally to give instruments more weight in the mix without appearing to lessen their dynamic range (although that is what is actually happening it is much harder to notice with parallel compression)

All of these techniques are commonplace, and have been for over twenty years to a greater or lesser extent. The difference is that if you take them to an extreme all together there can be almost no dynamic range in a piece.

Pass the resulting mix to a mastering engineer with instructions to compete for loudness and he will use several more compressors and eqs, and more parallel compression and multiband limiting, and brickwall limiting to get every ounce of level out of the track.

Ther will be no actual clipping of the digital data, because the limiter algorythms don't allow that, but the transients will be severely curtailed (by more than 12dB easily) over the result if the mixer and mastering engineer were not 'out for level' from the get go.

This adds extra harmonic info (well in fact it raises the level of this info compared to the loudest level in the track) as well as reverb/ambience levels. The sound of the mix will change, it often results in nasty hats and cymbals, the lowest frequencies are boosted to a degree in instruments where those frequencies would be less noticeable too, although there is also plenty of use of eq in the mix to make everything pretty big sounding, huge amounts of low end are detrimental to final level.

Fletcher-Munsen curves describe what frequencies our ears hear best, and its somewhere around 1Khz to 3KHz that we pick out easiest, so if you want your mix to sound loudest, to 'pop' out in a busy shopping centre PA, or over the car/road noise, or compared to the other adverts on the telly, then you give that area (which sounds like garbage quite often, very trashy and unpleasant) and 'healthy' dB or three of boos too, with a very very expensive analogue EQ so you can say you only use the best equiptment when recking the sound of the mix.

This kind of mixing and mastering is absolutely rife today. It is the 'accepted norm'. It sounds like gash IMO. Bruce Swedian was right, its [i]all[/i] about the transients....

Edited December 12, 2012 by 51m0n

[51m0n]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355328161' post='1897002']

[/quote]

I've missed something else here haven't I

[mcgraham]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1355046453' post='1893209']
Does vinyl appear to sound better because of the physical attachment to it i.e. taking this disc out of a nice big sleeve, putting it on a turnrable and dropping the arm on it and being able to watch it go round, therefore enhansing the listening pleasure, or does it actually sound better even though initially CD's do sound clearer, I don't know, but I do know I seem to enjoy vinyl more
[/quote]
It's hard to tell, but why divorce those elements from the whole experience of sitting down to listen to music? (not saying you were, it's at least rhetorical).

You could liken it to great musicians who are technically excellent but who are mediocre to watch, versus those musicians who are mediocre in terms of technical ability but excellent performers - ultimately we're there for the whole experience so why try to pretend one element is irrelevant? Why try to pretend that you enjoy listening to CDs as much as vinyl if you don't? (again, rhetorical) If you enjoy the overall experience more as a result, great!

[51m0n]

Fascinating article on flaws in thinking around sample rates and use of ultra high sample rates for playback and how this realtes to amps, ears and stuff - and pono...

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

[Big_Stu]

I'm convinced that there are some users of this forum who couldn't see the wood in this pic.....

[redstriper]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355333720' post='1897124']
I'm convinced that there are some users of this forum who couldn't see the wood in this pic.....


[/quote]


Are you talking about me?