Lies about vinyl vs digital

[Confused]

36 minutes ago, firedog said:

But other people - including some on this forum- love the Innuos and can't say enough about it. 

I've extensively auditioned one Devialet model (I think it was a single 400) and thought it sounded quite good. Tastes differ. As do setups and what else is involved in the audition, such as speakers...

Devialet sucks!

 

Although I have the dual mono which is better, because it double sucks.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Finally you guys are seeing the light!  ?

Only when I open the fridge door....

[Confused]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, classical works are frequently made up of splices of a number of takes - that is perfectly OK. The problem arises when the engineers haven't taken enough care to ensure that the tonalities match reasonably well - I have had albums where it resembles a pop hits compilation; every so often it's a "completely different sound" - they swapped the Stradivarius for a school orchestra workhorse.

But surely this does not matter if you can connect to the music via a properly sorted rig?

[Confused]

8 hours ago, Teresa said:

The theory that sounds the most plausible to me is audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly. When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is IMHO.

I have heard this theory too.  The problem is though, that if the upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly, then this can be recorded by a microphone and captured at 16/44.1.  If you record and capture at 24/192, you might then reproduce the lower frequency as effected by the original overtone and then recorded, as well as reproducing the upper overtones again during replay, which will effect the lower frequencies which we do hear directly for a second time.  Thus reproducing the ultrasonics during replay will actually reduce the accuracy of the sound. 

 

(you could go crazy thinking about this too much!) 

[Confused]

11 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Have to disagree with that. If ultrasonic overtones effect lower frequencies, they can have no effect if you record at 16/44.1 kHz since the ultrasonic overtones are removed by the brick wall filter at 22.05 kHz. So for them have an effect they have to be in the recording. Or to put this another way if you remove ultrasonic overtones they can no longer effect the timbre of the fundamental tone.

Actually, the fact that 16/44.1 removes the ultrasonic content was key to my point, although I do not think I explained the point very well.

 

Looking at this another way, if we give a name to the audible change made to the fundamental frequency that is caused by the ultrasonic content, lets call this "toneX".  During the original performance the subject instrument will generate the ultrasonic content, create tonex, and tonex can be recorded with brick wall filtered 16/44.1, because it is in the audible range.  During playback via 16/44.1, tonex will be reproduced because it has been recorded and is in the audible range.  

 

Using say 24/192, tonex will be generated during the original performance and recorded.  During playback, the original recorded tonex will be reproduced, the original ultrasonic content will be also reproduced , and this will generate a second tonex.  So using 16/44.1 you would get one tonex per the original performance, using 24/192, you would get an additional tonex generated during reproduction, which would be a distortion to, or at least additional to, the original performance. 

 

I am not sure if that explains it any better, but it makes sense to me at least!

[Confused]

17 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The "anything undesirable" is some quality in the recording which catches out the playback chain - spotlights the weaknesses in the replay quality, which makes the particular recording significantly more unpleasant to listen to. 

 

A sorted setup will reproduce all 'standards' of recordings with ease - just like a modern car can handle all types of road surfaces far better than the ones engineered many decades ago - only in audio is the road required to be of 'prime' quality, to be fit for human consumption ... .

 

Just tried John's latest decoding examples - but even over the tinny sound of my current laptop it is clear that far too much has been lost in the processing; the treble of the synthesizer sounds has been dulled down to a completely boring component in the mix.

So how did you find the comparison of the uncoded clips with and without pre-emphasis?

[Confused]

22 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Here is a decoded Luka snippet.  I didn't do the entire album with the new style of formulas, so there might be more quality issues than if I consider the entire album.  (Note that when I do decodes, I am not looking for 'good sound' as much as avoiding defects.)  Sometimes, I don't even remember the material when concentrating for problems -- weird, huh?

Comment -- I do believe that Vega's recording should be a little more hot/brighter than something like S&G, so I tried to make sure that I didn't dull the material too much.  I did a straight -1, -2, -1, -2, -1, -2, -1, -2 EQ -- which seems to be a relatively common EQ value (the freqs are (4250, 4500, 5750, 6000, 8750, 9000, 11750, 12000), all Q=0.50.  Almost all (I mean ALL) decodes need EQ at these frequencies or 0dB sometimes for 4250/4500 and once in a LONG LONG while, 0dB at 8750 on up.  Note that the 250 Hz offsets are totally critical -- amazing, eh?

 

 

Luka.mp3 2.1 MB · 2 downloads

This sounded great to me, but in terms of tonality I personally found it a touch on the bright side, not excessively so, but personally I would have probably dropped the HF a little. 

 

As it happens, I have a copy of this track the "KEF 50 Years" compilation CD that came with my speakers, in terms of tonality, this sounds very similar to your snippet.

[Confused]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

One of the various markers that one gets when replay SQ reaches a competent standard is that it always "sounds good", whether whisper quiet or running at the maximum SPLs that the system can operate at while still maintaining its integrity. The trouble with highly compressed recordings is that this subjective sense of the presentation breaks down - the average sound levels are now so high that your hearing system is overloaded very easily; you are exhausted after hearing just one track, say. Reducing the volume only partially solves the problem; the sense of aggression in the sound can be overwhelming - only a rig in absolutely optimum status could possibly allow one to listen to this material in complete comfort.

Except, of course, a scenario when the maximum SPL the system can comfortably operate at whilst maintaining its integrity would make the listener suffer hearing loss.