Lies about vinyl vs digital

[The_K-Man]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't think decorative mirrors were what jabbr had in mind.

 

We have them all, plenty of them, from 30x50" 100pound ba$tards to the ones you hang in back of your bathroom door, to little hand-held ones.  

 

Nowadays, it's just easier to grab your comb, phone, and hit 'selfie' mode.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

Nowadays, it's just easier to grab your comb, phone, and hit 'selfie' mode.

Comb? I thought a credit card or razor was the proper tool.

[mav52]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Comb? I thought a credit card or razor was the proper tool.

Depends on the wealth, nasty dirty comb with no doubt lice ( poor) credit card a richer user ?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, mav52 said:

Depends on the wealth, nasty dirty comb with no doubt lice ( poor) credit card a richer user ?

Does it work better if the card has a high credit limit?

[mav52]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Does it work better if the card has a high credit limit?

Sure , these days a higher credit limit allows you to buy a higher grade product, and provides a smoother cut, of course these users are only in the finer clubs while wearing their 30 lbs of gold chains and 1 lb of gold and diamond rings?

[semente]

The Audiocheck website is back on again today so here's the link to the 16-bit dynamic range test:

 

Audible Dynamic Range Sound Test

Dynamic range represents the ratio between the loudest signal you can hear and the quietest. Dynamic range is expressed in terms of decibels (dB). Being a ratio, the decibel has no units; everything is relative. Since it is relative, it must be relative to some reference point that has to be defined. Our reference point here is the loudest level you can comfortably bear for one second.

This test helps you benchmark the dynamic range of your sound system.

The file first starts with a reference point: a slightly compressed pink noise which tops out at 16-bit full scale (0dbFS). This noise plays for 1 second. Adjust the level of your system so that this noise plays loudly, without being uncomfortably loud.

Right after the noise, a voice is played back at a specified level. Noise references and voiceovers alternate with each other, with the voice being played at decreasing levels.

Play the file until you can't hear the voiceover anymore. The dynamic range of your system is roughly given by the level the voice message was playing at when it was still (barely) audible.

Interestingly, much emphasis is put on 24-bit audio recordings nowadays, with a dynamic range exceeding 140dB. Our example is only 16-bit, with a maximum dynamic range of 96dB, yet that should be plenty. Judge for yourself.

 

https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_dynamiccheck.php

[mansr]

On 7/6/2018 at 8:10 PM, GUTB said:

Okay guys, help me out. What CDs or digital albums feature powerful dynamics / transients?

I just thought of this one:

 

DR12 overall, reaching DR18 on one track.

[Rt66indierock]

Little Feat Representing the Mambo (Rad Gumbo Box Set) CD DR 14 minimum DR 18 Maximum

The Band Moondog Matinee  (1990) CD DR 13 minimum DR 15 Maximum

[The_K-Man]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Little Feat Representing the Mambo (Rad Gumbo Box Set) CD DR 14 minimum DR 18 Maximum

The Band Moondog Matinee  (1990) CD DR 13 minimum DR 15 Maximum

 

Mastering engineers - such as a couple on Head-fi -  will tell you that those numbers, and the application producing them, mean "nothing".  

[Rt66indierock]

Just now, The_K-Man said:

 

Mastering engineers - such as a couple on Head-fi -  will tell you that those numbers, and the application producing them, mean "nothing".  

 

Those numbers match my own testing.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

Mastering engineers - such as a couple on Head-fi -  will tell you that those numbers, and the application producing them, mean "nothing".  

The numbers mean something, it's a simple algorithm to calculate them after all, but bigger isn't always better.

[esldude]

6 hours ago, semente said:

The Audiocheck website is back on again today so here's the link to the 16-bit dynamic range test:

 

Audible Dynamic Range Sound Test

Dynamic range represents the ratio between the loudest signal you can hear and the quietest. Dynamic range is expressed in terms of decibels (dB). Being a ratio, the decibel has no units; everything is relative. Since it is relative, it must be relative to some reference point that has to be defined. Our reference point here is the loudest level you can comfortably bear for one second.

This test helps you benchmark the dynamic range of your sound system.

The file first starts with a reference point: a slightly compressed pink noise which tops out at 16-bit full scale (0dbFS). This noise plays for 1 second. Adjust the level of your system so that this noise plays loudly, without being uncomfortably loud.

Right after the noise, a voice is played back at a specified level. Noise references and voiceovers alternate with each other, with the voice being played at decreasing levels.

Play the file until you can't hear the voiceover anymore. The dynamic range of your system is roughly given by the level the voice message was playing at when it was still (barely) audible.

Interestingly, much emphasis is put on 24-bit audio recordings nowadays, with a dynamic range exceeding 140dB. Our example is only 16-bit, with a maximum dynamic range of 96dB, yet that should be plenty. Judge for yourself.

 

https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_dynamiccheck.php

I managed about 60 db below full scale.   Lawnmower running across the street or I might have gotten one more step.  Isn't out of line with similar noise added testing I've done.  Because of a stimulus closer to our peak hearing frequencies those net about 10 or 15 db lower before they aren't heard.  

 

Dithered 16 bit is enough for playback.  And few if any real recordings will actually tax that. 

[danadam]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

I managed about 60 db below full scale.   Lawnmower running across the street or I might have gotten one more step.  Isn't out of line with similar noise added testing I've done.  Because of a stimulus closer to our peak hearing frequencies those net about 10 or 15 db lower before they aren't heard.  

 

Dithered 16 bit is enough for playback.  And few if any real recordings will actually tax that. 

Also that full scale noise between each voice over will limit what you can hear a little. I'm not sure if it is that common to have full scale signal right next to quiet parts in real music. On another page there is a test file without noise, so you can compare: https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_dithering.php

[fas42]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

I managed about 60 db below full scale.   Lawnmower running across the street or I might have gotten one more step.  Isn't out of line with similar noise added testing I've done.  Because of a stimulus closer to our peak hearing frequencies those net about 10 or 15 db lower before they aren't heard.  

 

Dithered 16 bit is enough for playback.  And few if any real recordings will actually tax that. 

 

Yes. 60dB down is a huge jump, subjectively - I have a classic Denon test CD, with the same, classical track attenuated 20, 40, 60dB, without dither - the last, at maximum gain, could only be followed as a musical piece  on the first rig that performed for me, by having one's ear hard against the speaker driver - with the lack of dithering only just audible ... 16 bits is enough ...

[firedog]

At my normal moderately loud listening volume, I can hear to 78db below.

 

At full volume, on a different but similar test, I still can hear a signal at 114 below with my ear by the speaker. 

[semente]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

At my normal moderately loud listening volume, I can hear to 78db below.

 

At full volume, on a different but similar test, I still can hear a signal at 114 below with my ear by the speaker. 

 

That's impressive: either your room is very large and quiet (<30dB) and/or your normal listening level is quite loud.

How far are you sitting from the speakers?

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, semente said:

That's impressive: either your room is very large and quiet (<30dB) and/or your normal listening level is quite loud.

How far are you sitting from the speakers?

Or a 0 dBFS signal would blow his speaker cones into orbit.

[firedog]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

That's impressive: either your room is very large and quiet (<30dB) and/or your normal listening level is very loud.

How far are you sitting from the speakers?

I misspoke a bit. At normal volumes - at75-80db at my chair I can hear the -60 and -66 mark. At louder volumes,  as the test recommends, I can hear the -78 mark. At the loudest I ever listen, I can just make out the 90db down signal.

 

The room is small overall.  I'm sitting 2.85m from the speakers - approx 9.5 ft. 

 

As noted, at full volume, ear by the speaker, I can hear 114 down. 

 

The setup is very quiet. At full volume, with a track called "digital silence" playing, with my ear by the speaker, there is no noise. Really none. 

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Or a 0 dBFS signal would blow his speaker cones into orbit.

Fortunately, the system is designed not to playback something that will blow it out. The DSP is supposed to kick in and prevent it. 

I'm not going to test it for you just to find out...

[semente]

Just now, firedog said:

Fortunately, the system is designed not to playback something that will blow it out. The DSP is supposed to kick in and prevent it. 

I'm not going to test it for you just to find out...

 

?

[Fokus]

36 minutes ago, firedog said:

I'm not going to test it for you just to find out...

 

Pitty. I was just going to alert a few friendly space agencies to this thread.

 

[Rocky Bennett]

On 7/4/2018 at 1:47 AM, GUTB said:

There is a massive proliferation of misinformation regarding vinyl in relation to digital. I realize much of that is just willful ignorance on the part of non-audiophiles / class warfare activists, etc.... however all senior audiophiles seem to know that LPs crush CD and streaming, but if you to get a technical or even theoretical basis for that phenomena by researching it all you find is misinformation about why digital is better.

 

Lie: vinyl suffers from heavy dynamic compression — so why do my LPs display vastly better dynamic power/force?

Lie: vinyl has less resolution — macro resolution is greater in my digital that’s true, but why is inner detail and tonal color so much better on vinyl?

Lie: vinyl suffers from a lot of distortion — perhaps, but why do my LPs sound more live and lifelike than my digital?

 

So what’s going on here? Could the issue be that these aren’t lies so much as not accounting for awful ADCs and digital mastering techniques?

 

 

I am an audiophile that has over 50 years of experience setting up and listening to various systems, both analog and digital and I find your statements to run contrary to hands on experience, and also to simple logic. Digital beats the pants off of analog for dynamic range and sound staging every time. Even on a modest system you can hear the benefits of digital over analog, but the better the system the more obvious the difference becomes.

Where did you find your silly information, on the internet?

 

Rocky Bennett

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

42 minutes ago, Rocky Bennett said:

 

 

I am an audiophile that has over 50 years of experience setting up and listening to various systems, both analog and digital and I find your statements to run contrary to hands on experience, and also to simple logic. Digital beats the pants off of analog for dynamic range and sound staging every time. Even on a modest system you can hear the benefits of digital over analog, but the better the system the more obvious the difference becomes.

 

I agree. Digital has surpassed vinyl IMO for a great many years. The initial introduction was far from "perfect sound" but IME by the late 90's they were getting quite close. Dynamics were better in digital but it somehow messed with the mid-range in the early days.

 

Quote

Where did you find your silly information, on the internet?

 

 

No, he makes it up himself ?

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, Rocky Bennett said:

 

 

I am an audiophile that has over 50 years of experience setting up and listening to various systems, both analog and digital and I find your statements to run contrary to hands on experience, and also to simple logic. Digital beats the pants off of analog for dynamic range and sound staging every time. Even on a modest system you can hear the benefits of digital over analog, but the better the system the more obvious the difference becomes.

Where did you find your silly information, on the internet?

 

Rocky Bennett

 

LOL or from Fox News?

[Blake]

On 7/4/2018 at 2:03 PM, GUTB said:

Time for some real talk.

 

My digital source is better than most members' of CA. Just being real. Most of you guys are running el-cheapo streamers, junk-berry servers with consumer NAS units, laptops, mac minis, etc.

 

There are probably less than 20 people on CA with better digital source systems than what I have.

 

 

 

Hey GUTB.  You have put a lot of thought, time, effort and money into your computer setup.  If we were to roll back the clock a few years, your computer setup might have been competitive.  I am sure it still sounds nice.  However, I would wager that even an entry level device such as a MicroRendu with a decent LPS would easily beat your computer setup.