Jump to content
IGNORED

Lies about vinyl vs digital


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

They are flac, but only CAREFULLY MADE 16 bits/44.1k for now.  I'll make 88.2k/24 available later.  I JUST MIGHT make a few tweaks and re-upload a few select songs, and ask for a choice.   The vinyl sounds so dead, it would give me the ability to do some casual changes.  (It might mess with the stereo image, but give a more conventional sound.)

 

Note that the dynamic range on these is HUGE.   This has more dynamics than Crime of the Century, so might be a little MEAN sounding.   The experimental versions will have -2 in the filenames.   Coming in 15 minutes

 

Both the original and a few -2 versions are uploaded.  Tell me which one you like.  I'll move to the PM group for further discussion.

 

John

 

Do you mind posting Dreams here, thanks

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

the biggest mp3 problem that my hearing can detect is temporal resolution.  That is the only thing that I have been able to reliably detect the difference on certain music.   MP3 isn't great, but not quite as bad as it is made out to be.   I prefer opus, but normally only need data compression that everyone is compatible with, so choose mp3.  (Opus has slightly better termporal resolution, and works well at lower bitrates, but I don't care about that.)

* I do get the feeling that I don't prefer MP3 over proper flac, but that is a 'feeling', not a measurement.

 

John

 

 

I'm aware of Ogg Vorbis, can convert to it, but do not have playback support.  Have you ventured into it?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I'm aware of Org Vorbis, can convert to it, but do not have playback support.  Have you ventured into it?

I have all of the source for Ogg  here, and can build it, but normally I only locally build/maintain the Opus tools.  I think that sox supports the whole .ogg thing, and I have heard that Ogg is pretty good, but that is truly all that I know.

 

John

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Do you mind posting Dreams here, thanks

I'll post these for a few hours.  Of course, cannot keep them up publically for a long time.  I will post both versions, both Dreams and Dreams-2.   I'd suspect that eventually Dreams-2 will win as the better sounding choice.   I'll pull back the link in 4Hrs.   (Next time, we can do this by PM.)   I was enticed by the incredible stereo image on the original.  There is a problem with 'Dreams' at 2 minutes, and I am addressing it.  

Most importantly, I am not done with it (again.)  When Alex made the LP version available, it gave me some hints, so the next version might/will be a little more tame, but much the same sound.

 

EDIT:  added another nice sounding song also.

(Doing another one in about 1Hr -- so be patient with me...   These are too much more hot than the LP.)

 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7y83pkzg0ybhinh/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 02. Dreams-2.flac?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfipto70bh957zm/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 02. Dreams.flac?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hmw7nwvtcxut1bh/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 04. Don't Stop-2.flac?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dj83bznaf9s8kr/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 09. I Don't Want To Know-2.flac?dl=0

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

the biggest mp3 problem that my hearing can detect is temporal resolution.  That is the only thing that I have been able to reliably detect the difference on certain music.   MP3 isn't great, but not quite as bad as it is made out to be.   I prefer opus, but normally only need data compression that everyone is compatible with, so choose mp3.  (Opus has slightly better termporal resolution, and works well at lower bitrates, but I don't care about that.)

* I do get the feeling that I don't prefer MP3 over proper flac, but that is a 'feeling', not a measurement.

 

John

 

 

I did some experiments with the LAME encoder, attempting to retain the "last ounce of juice", by playing with every setting available for fine-tuning the operation. And used my instance of the Sharp boombox recently pictured in a post by me - in 'raw' form 😁 - to check the transparency. Was always detectable, changed the feel of certain passages enough to make it obvious - didn't sound 'worse' ... just, different.

Link to comment
Just now, fas42 said:

 

I did some experiments with the LAME encoder, attempting to retain the "last ounce of juice", by playing with every setting available for fine-tuning the operation. And used my instance of the Sharp boombox recently pictured in a post by me - in 'raw' form 😁 - to check the transparency. Was always detectable, changed the feel of certain passages enough to make it obvious - didn't sound 'worse' ... just, different.

That is all I can say -- lame feels like it sounds different, but I haven't been able to reliably measure anything except temporal resolution issues.  That is probably what I 'feel' is different.

 

John

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

I did some experiments with the LAME encoder, attempting to retain the "last ounce of juice", by playing with every setting available for fine-tuning the operation. And used my instance of the Sharp boombox recently pictured in a post by me - in 'raw' form 😁 - to check the transparency. Was always detectable, changed the feel of certain passages enough to make it obvious - didn't sound 'worse' ... just, different.

 

DId you encode at minimum 256kbs?  Because this old crow for sure cannot hear a difference at or above 192kb mp3, for that matter.

Link to comment

Guys (and Gals!!), I think that I missed a feralA filter, and that is the reason why the result is too hot.  I should have detected it earlier.

 

Here is what I listen for:  phasing effects and vocals all residing where they should.  Also, Sibilance living in the voice where it comes from, not swirling or slewing around.   I tuned out most of those distortions, but I left in too hot of a sound.  I understand the filter and where it goes.   It is just that the Fleetwood mac stuff uses a slightly different filter set (like Supertramp does also.)

 

Give me 2 more hours -- you won't believe your ears!!!

 

John

 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Because their digital counterparts have suffered from artists and labels desire for LOUDNESS over liveliness.  You can't have have both, although you can have varying degrees of both, depending on what serves the song/album.  

 

Thus, digital formats such as CD are unable to fully showcase their potential for accommodating dynamic material - and ignorant consumers - including audiophiles - blame the format! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

 

 

Intelligent mastering can deliver a decent dose of both ... I'm thinking here of Canned Heat; have an album of greatest hits, and an effort done in 2000. The latter is vastly higher in SPLs than the former, but none of the character of the Canned Heat sound has been compromised, in any obvious way.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Intelligent mastering can deliver a decent dose of both ... I'm thinking here of Canned Heat; have an album of greatest hits, and an effort done in 2000. The latter is vastly higher in SPLs than the former, but none of the character of the Canned Heat sound has been compromised, in any obvious way.

 

Your comment brings to mind this, buggle gum pop for sure, but in my opionion relatively crankable, for a modern hit!...

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

DId you encode at minimum 256kbs?  Because this old crow for sure cannot hear a difference at or above 192kb mp3, for that matter.

 

320kbs. Variable rate, constant rate; forcing encoding right out to 20k, and various compromises of that. Always sounded different, using each combination of settings.

 

To make it a fair fight, I burnt the orginal track along with "best decoding" into WAV onto a disk, of all the encodings. So what was being played was always the same format, what varied were the losses in the encoding/decoding, software path.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Guys (and Gals!!), I think that I missed a feralA filter, and that is the reason why the result is too hot.  I should have detected it earlier.

 

Here is what I listen for:  phasing effects and vocals all residing where they should.  Also, Sibilance living in the voice where it comes from, not swirling or slewing around.   I tuned out most of those distortions, but I left in too hot of a sound.  I understand the filter and where it goes.   It is just that the Fleetwood mac stuff uses a slightly different filter set (like Supertramp does also.)

 

Give me 2 more hours -- you won't believe your ears!!!

 

John

 

I prefer the rip but I'm interested in seeing if you can improve your version. Your solution is for older analog recordings, do you think modern digital recordings can be improved? 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Rexp said:

I prefer the rip but I'm interested in seeing if you can improve your version. Your solution is for older analog recordings, do you think modern digital recordings can be improved? 

Will help modern digital recordings ONLY if they are feralA.  I have found some material that is, but it shouldn't happen all that often.

 

Most new material that might be feralA is when/if it was created back in the past.

 

John

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Rexp said:

I prefer the rip but I'm interested in seeing if you can improve your version. Your solution is for older analog recordings, do you think modern digital recordings can be improved? 

 

Analog or digital format doesn't matter: Damage can be inflicted in both.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

are they in the review repository as mp3? or FLAC?

 

They are only available in .flac for a small group of members from both sides of the great divide ,who are assisting John in his small PM group , and are intended for evaluation only, NOT file sharing.

This is mainly for copyright reasons.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I'll post these for a few hours.  Of course, cannot keep them up publically for a long time.  I will post both versions, both Dreams and Dreams-2.   I'd suspect that eventually Dreams-2 will win as the better sounding choice.   I'll pull back the link in 4Hrs.   (Next time, we can do this by PM.)   I was enticed by the incredible stereo image on the original.  There is a problem with 'Dreams' at 2 minutes, and I am addressing it.  

Most importantly, I am not done with it (again.)  When Alex made the LP version available, it gave me some hints, so the next version might/will be a little more tame, but much the same sound.

 

EDIT:  added another nice sounding song also.

(Doing another one in about 1Hr -- so be patient with me...   These are too much more hot than the LP.)

 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7y83pkzg0ybhinh/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 02. Dreams-2.flac?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vfipto70bh957zm/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 02. Dreams.flac?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hmw7nwvtcxut1bh/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 04. Don't Stop-2.flac?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dj83bznaf9s8kr/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 09. I Don't Want To Know-2.flac?dl=0

 

Here are the new ones coming off the presses right now...  These are MUCH more sane...  Thanks, Alex!!!

The final version will be just a BIT more tame yet, but these are close.  THIS IS HARD STUFF TO DO, it isn't like a tone control at all!!!

First one is 'Dreams', Second one is 'Second Hand News'

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wgtjk5xbzpmihox/DreamsNew.flac?dl=0

 https://www.dropbox.com/s/6o1nwz6ydb2945a/SecondHandNewsNew.flac?dl=0

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

They are only available in .flac for a small group of members from both sides of the great divide ,who are assisting John in his small PM group , and are intended for evaluation only, NOT file sharing.

This is mainly for copyright reasons.

 

sandyk WTH is your problem with just about every example linked to recently in this conversation??  I see a red crossed circle from you after each one!

 

Explain.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

Here are the new ones coming off the presses right now...  These are MUCH more sane...  Thanks, Alex!!!

The final version will be just a BIT more tame yet, but these are close.  THIS IS HARD STUFF TO DO, it isn't like a tone control at all!!!

First one is 'Dreams', Second one is 'Second Hand News'

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wgtjk5xbzpmihox/DreamsNew.flac?dl=0

 https://www.dropbox.com/s/6o1nwz6ydb2945a/SecondHandNewsNew.flac?dl=0

 

So in a very real sense, you are, by virtue of changing encoding parameters on these examples, remastering them!  

 

I'll pass.  My Rumours CD, and mp3s from it, will do just fine.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

So in a very real sense, you are, by virtue of changing encoding parameters on these examples, remastering them!  

 

I'll pass.  My Rumours CD, and mp3s from it, will do just fine.

Enjoy what you have!!!   Do give the new attempt a listen -- it is most likely better (but no guarantee!!!)

 

The big difference is that I am not changing things dynamically, and being careful to FOLLOW RULES, and FIX BUGS, not do artistic modifications  Sometimes material just sounds strange, and that needs 'fixing bugs', not doing complex tone control.

 

A good example is stereo image.  Believe it or not, the frequency response balance can change the stereo image.  Sometimes things can be strange, yet fixed with maybe 0.25dB here or there.  That kind of thing  -- yes, i'll do.  However, making substantive changes outside of apparent artists intent, then I ask for feedback.  Also, the stereo image needs to be modified before decoding -- how much of a change i needed?   Answer:  I listen for expander surging, and when I find it, I fix the problem.

 

Sometimes poeple want a tone control -- the listener has a tone control.  if I make a change JUST FOR MY TASTE, then I always get in trouble...   I don't make changes for taste, I do changes for bug correction.

 

 

John

 

Link to comment

Here is an example of a completed song...  It might need one more iteration, but this is damned close to correct.

It cannot get much better (in fact, a DolbyA HW cannot do this good.)  This has detail that has probably not been exposed since the recording.  YOU WILL HEAR RECORDING DEFECTS THAT HAVEN"T BEEN HEARD -- EVER!!!  If anything, I might need ot do a slight cut of -1.0 dB at 14.75kHz and -1.0dB at 15kHz with Q=0.50,

which will soften the highs a little.  Earlier decode attempts had those pre-decoding EQ, but that EQ is needed before decoding, another Hr away!!!   (The defect is that there is an 'edge' in the vocals -- and beleive it or not, a cut at 15kHz makes a HUGE difference, even in the vocal range -- it is all related to the behavior of DolbyA decoding.)

 

EDIT:  I decided to do ONE MORE attempt tonight with the 15kHz fix, it makes a REALLY GOOD improvement.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t903c51qb781htg/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 11. Gold Dust Woman.flac?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0n0zi6iwp8d5omo/Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 03. Never Going Back Again.flac?dl=0

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

sandyk WTH is your problem with just about every example linked to recently in this conversation??  I see a red crossed circle from you after each one!

 

Explain.

 

 NONE of Frank's YouTube videos have anything to do with the subject of this thread.

Frank loves to post his favourite YouTube videos in almost every thread that he participates in.

 They have zero relevance in this thread.

We are talking about Vinyl vs. Digital,which is  not intended to include terrible sounding YouTube videos with their very low Bit Rate .aac audio.

 IF he was able to post some Videos with LPCM audio  (16/48) that we were able to compare with the Vinyl or RBCD or High Res. LPCM recordings , then that may be a different matter.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 NONE of Frank's YouTube videos have anything to do with the subject of this thread.

Frank loves to post his favourite YouTube videos in almost every thread that he participates in.

 They have zero relevance in this thread.

We are talking about Vinyl vs. Digital,which is  not intended to include terrible sounding YouTube videos with their very low Bit Rate .aac audio.

 IF he was able to post some Videos with LPCM audio  (16/48) that we were able to compare with the Vinyl or RBCD or High Res. LPCM recordings , then that may be a different matter.

 

Favourite? They just happen to be a convenient reference to some audio, which I could refer to by just using the name of the piece, or a straight image. YT combines a picture, with an ability to instantly demo it - if you want a high quality version of such, there are plenty of options ... you could, of course, refrain from clicking the play button ... 😝.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

you could, of course, refrain from clicking the play button ... 😝.

 

Try doing what you are doing in one of the moderated threads and see how long they remain.

 Even the very fair minded Teresa is telling you essentially  the same thing

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

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



×
×
  • Create New...