Got me a record player!

Originally posted by The Devil
This is why we prefer vinyl: the sound quality is better than CD. Where it loses out is convenience & fragility, that's all.
Click to expand...
I personally have never heard a vinyl setup that was close, for my liking, to even moderate (eg my DAC64) CD setups but then I've heard very few decent vinyl setups.

Still, of all the people I know (and here in the forum) who have done unbiased and valid comparisons, nearly all have said that in the end the sonic differences were not a question of bettter/worse, just personal preference. CD certainly does some things (eg detail) better than vinyl.

Michael.
 
Well, Tony, how can things be different? Your CDP is just a variation on a theme, most decent CDPs sound pretty darn similar to each other, the best ones are those with an accurate clock.

However wonderful your player is, you are still stuck with a low sampling rate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by The Devil
However wonderful your player is, you are still stuck with a low sampling rate.
Click to expand...
So low in fact that it merely captures the full audible frequency range of the human ear :rolleyes:

Vinyl is not better, neither is CD. They're just different.

Michael.
 
Originally posted by The Devil
I think the reason a lot of people prefer vinyl to CD comes down to CD's low sampling rate.

This weekend I heard a 24bit/96kHz live recording played back in its original version, then played again at CD quality.

The difference was most illuminating, and far from subtle. A lot of information was lost at 44.1kHz.
Click to expand...

Whether it captures the full audible frequency range of the human ear is debatable. What is not debatable is the loss of information & sound quality that the 44.1 kHz sampling rate dictates.

Your different is my better!
 
Originally posted by The Devil
Well, Tony, how can things be different? Your CDP is just a variation on a theme, most decent CDPs sound pretty darn similar to each other, the best ones are those with an accurate clock.

However wonderful your player is, you are still stuck with a low sampling rate.
Click to expand...

Ok James, Most decent cdp's Don't sound same Ifeel (or at least the one's we tried and tested, DCS is Not Wadia, Wadia is not Gryphon, BOW Tech is not Naim. Naim is not Electrocompaniet, EC is Krell or M/L or Accuphase, they all have the own twist on the sound, weather 16 bits and 44.1 or 192 and 24 bits, just pick the one you like.
You are right I'm stuck at 48hhz, and 24 bits, however I do have the choice of one or dac's, and I prefer for the music I like the lower rates, I can as Merlin and Henry do adjust my sample and resolution rates to suit what I'm listening too.
I'm not going in to the TT are worse or cdp's are better, because its all personal, and if you been listen in Vinyl for years then I feel nothing will change your record collection :)
But because you have not heard a cdp yet, that gives the buzz, doesn't mean they aren't any about that's all. Tone
Just a point here, I feel that the 24 bits, produces a 'better uplift' than say 192khz, maybe not as open and wide, but a darn cite more dynamic and musical :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by merlin
I have to agree with you Antonio, it's really a case of whether you are prepared to put up with the inconvenience in order to enjoy the results. For me, and my listening habits, it is proving difficult. I like to do other things whilst listening to music, this is a problem when you have to change discs every 20 minutes or so. It's an eye opener though. The top end of vinyl is highly seductive and well resolved, putting even fine CD to shame. Whatever WM says, in terms of overall refinement, resolution and naturalness, even his highly tuned rig doesn't approach good vinyl. It's a question of listening for the signature, and once you recognise it, it's hard to ignore. If I had a sizeable vinyl collection my feelings would be very different, and I doubt I would be interested in CD as a format had I continued with vinyl since the eighties.

What we need really is one of the hi rez formats to get a foothold. Whilst it won't satisfy the vinyl guys, as it would not offer the same tactile experience, it would satisfy people like me who want both the quality and the convenience.
Click to expand...

Yikes! What a breath of fresh air Merlin!!!:D As someone who was raised on digital but has recently being turned on to the delights of vinyl, I now understand where all those vinyl die-hards are coming from but I see no reason to abandon red-book CDs as I enjoy them immensely. Man!, I'm even considering a tonearm upgrade.:D Having spent the last few months listening to a couple of SACD players, I can say that the potential is there in the SACD format to trample all over red-book but what SACD has also done for me is to really appreciate my vinyl set-up and congratulate myself for buying a TT as some of the traits I heard in SACD I also hear in vinyl although the SACD format does not present the full picture yet. I hope the format takes off and that more DSD derived recordings are issued not just PCM to DSD transfers. Btw, I agree, red-book CDs regardless of the player on which they are played would not sound as natural as analogue recordings played on a half decent turntable.

Originally posted by sideshowbob
As to upsampling/downsampling, it doesn't matter if something is recorded at 64/192 if the CD is then mastered at 24/44.1. No upsampling CD player is going to restore what was lost in the downsampling process to produce the CD master.
-- Ian [/B]
Click to expand...
Hey Sideshowbob,

So what you are saying here is "there is only so much juice that one can squeeze from a lemon", right?:D



Enjoy the music!!

Lawrie:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony, I agree that they don't sound identical, but more similar to one another than different.

I'm reasonably happy with the Naim player. The reason it's a good player comes down to the extremely accurate clock (I think!).

I don't see how increasing the sampling rate in the player can get more music out of a 44.1 recording, but there you go.
 
Originally posted by wadia-miester

But because you have not heard a cdp yet, that gives the buzz, doesn't mean they aren't any about that's all. Tone
Just a point here, I feel that the 24 bits, produces a 'better uplift' than say 192khz, maybe not as open and wide, but a darn cite more dynamic and musical :)
Click to expand...

Tony, I am full of admiration for what you have acheived with the "humble" CD medium, I hope you know that. What I am talking about is a certain quality that you do not realise is missing until you hear it via another medium (be that vinyl, DVDA, SACD or whatever). If one of the forum members like say Chris identifies that quality, then they simply ain't gonna get it with CD no matter what. If however, you do not notice this high frequency refinement, and are more aware of background noise and tubby bass, then you will be convinced that CD is great. That's why the debate exists I feel, but I can now understand why people who are into vinyl find all CD to be poor (yes even yours and mine:D ).

CD certainly does some things (eg detail) better than vinyl.
Click to expand...

Sorry Michael, but I have to agree with Devil again here, if you listen to the music rather than the hifi, the increased resolution and hence detail of the TT is unquestionable. Hi Rez digital formats however will be a different matter I suspect.

Tony, I don't know your source, but the industry has been recording in 24bit/96khz since the early nineties I believe. Indeed, the newer technology is a minimum of 24/192. DSD has been used to archive Sony masters for over 10 years, hell even the processing in my TacT is 48bit 384khz:eek:

Let's not have this descend into a one is better than the other rant, please. My only comment would be that :

When analogue is good, it's very very good.

When it's bad, it's a frickin pain in the ass;)
 
Originally posted by merlin
When analogue is good, it's very very good.
Click to expand...

As someone who never gave up vinyl (started collecting in the early '70s), I totally agree. I think it's remarkable (and rather pleasing) that a relatively primitive medium going back to Edison and Berliner at the start of the last century can hold its head up so well against modern technology. However, I've never heard it to be better than CD. I'd love to, if only to understand what all the vinyl enthusiasts are so wild about, but I can't. (Don't laugh - you'll all be old one day too...).
 
You are all familiar with the placebo effect... Well, I am convinced it plays a major role with TTs, some want it to sound better, after all it is a lot more tweaky and exclusive then mere CDs, so they do their best to "justify" it, even "transforming" its defects in qualities... :rolleyes:

I have heard very expensive setups, and people kept trowing sand into my "ears", saying, can't you hear, it has more detail and more bass, where all I could hear was more boom and surface noise, wich, of course, the CD din't have... :JPS:
 
james,
44.1 khz or 44,100 samples per second is quite fast enough to capture any musical detail hearable by the human ear. the big advantage of higher sample rates is the fact that the digital filtering that (to simplify) recovers the music from the bitstream or wordstream can be done at a higher rate. this pushes ringing well out of the audio band at 88 khz or above. this advantage can be carried over to some extent by up / over sampling 44.1 data.
the reason that 96 or 192 khz is chosen when as tone points out 88.1 or 176.4 would make much more sense is down to the proliferation of chips running at these speeds thanks to the a/v explosion and the low cost of said chips thanks to the economis of scale.
i would suggest that your hearing extra information is either placebo or more likely the player in question having a badly ringing digital filter which is obsuring the detail you are hearing at 96 / 192.

as to the mastering rates i always thought they used 48khz and dat before moving to hard disk at the same rate.

i'm with michael on this one. i've heard some very impressive vinyl and cd systems and all had strengths and weaknesses.
cheers


julian
 
Originally posted by julian2002

44.1 khz or 44,100 samples per second is quite fast enough to capture any musical detail hearable by the human ear.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. The deterioration in sound quality between 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz is grimly obvious. If it were true, then why do the new formats have/need higher sampling rates than 44.1 kHz?

Playback was via computer & mixing desk into my preamp. Several people were present. We all just looked at each other.

"So that's why CD is crap!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Come on James - you're a doctor and should know better. How many patients have you examined that can hear frequencies higher than 22Khz? :rolleyes:

And sample rates of 96 and or 192Khz would be completely absurd if it wasn't for the reasons (digital filtering issues) that Jules pointed out. You may be recording the bats 80Khz bleating amongst the beams of the studio but no-one will ever know :D

Michael.
 
Hi there, well I'm not an audiologist, so I don't know how many people can hear frequencies that high. Personally, I can hear bats squeaking, but that isn't really relevant.

Higher frequency sounds than we can hear are relevant because they may modulate those frequencies lower down that we can hear.

In any event, after this weekend's demonstration of a live acoustic recording in my living room (two guitars, two vocals), I'm convinced that I know why I prefer live music to recorded, and good vinyl to CD.

It is the sampling rate, honest! I am not making this up.

You have to ask yourself: 'What's in the gaps between the samples?'

The answer is: 'A lot'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very interesting thread for this vinyl junkie :D

Last week my younger sister stopped by my place. I played an old LP of Rampal for her, and she was quite surprised by how realistic the sound was. I then played a flute sonata CD, and she said the music does not have as much "life" in it.

Admittedly, my analog front costs more than twice the digital front. In my system both fronts have very similar tonality and overall musical character, but the turntable kills the CDP when it comes to resolution, naturalness, refinement and life, just as merlin has observed. I can enjoy the music coming from a CDP, but it doesn't give me the realism of a well-sorted table.

I'd like to point out to merlin that background noise and tubby bass are not the inherent character of LP. OK it won't be as quiet as CD but in my place most of my LP are in decent (not perfect) condition and the noise level is low enough so that it doesn't matter for enjoying music. BTW I'm not one of those people who think that the background noise "enhances" the listening experience, the noise bothers me when it gets my attention. My guess is that the tubby bass in merlin's case has something to do with the choice of cartridge.

Joongul
 
Having high frequency hearing loss myself and having to get check ups every year I believe the normal hearing range is about 15hz-20,000hz. Some people can hear 22Khz at normal speach level, I can only hear upto 16khz at normal speach level, but because music is amplified I can hear most the high frequencies when listening to music it just means I have to have it on louder than average to hear them, quite music (anything below 9:00 o'clock) sounds lifeless and flat to me.
 
Originally posted by The Devil
You have to ask yourself: 'What's in the gaps between the samples?'

The answer is: 'A lot'.
Click to expand...
The answer is actually "nothing that the human ear can hear". However a DAC converts discreet samples into an analogue waveform, whether they smoothly interpolate "join the dots" or if they were to stick some random ultra high frequency white noise in there it would sound no different to us as we simply cannot resolve those frequencies which are necessarily higher than 22Khz.

I don't buy the "modulation" argument either. If those lower freq. sounds were being modulated at the time of recording then the effect of that modulation on them would have been recorded and hence would be reproduced anyway.

There is no clear evidence of how ultrasonics affect human sound perception or even if they do affect it at all.

Michael.
 
Michael, I think you are perhaps missing the point that I am trying to make. This is NOT about reproducing inaudible supersonic frequencies.

If you ever get the chance, please listen to an original studio recording at x-kHz (where x >> 44.1).

Then listen to the same recording mastered down to 44.1 kHz or CD quality.

Then you will know exactly what I'm talking about. Information which is easily audible in the original is missing from the CD master.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I ever have the chance I'll certainly try your experiment. However, inaudible supersonic frequencies is all that can possibly exist "between the samples" or, to put it another way, all that could be "lost" in a 44.1Khz recording. Anything else would necessarily be at frequencies lower than 22Khz and therefore captured in a separate sample.

If there is an audible difference between 96Khz recordings and 44.1Khz ones then it is due to some effect that I (and I suspect no one else either) knows about.

Michael.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top