Lies about vinyl vs digital

[semente]

4 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

So....vinyl is intrinsically better?

 

Wow, the truth FINALLY COMES OUT.

 

I hope you haven't watched the video.

[GUTB]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I hope you haven't watched the video.

 

I watched the video. A crappy DR8 Redbook file got transformed into a DR12 vinyl cut by no other cause than being cut to vinyl. The fact he couldn’t hear that much a difference on his crappy digital system isn’t that relevant.

[firedog]

30 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I watched the video. A crappy DR8 Redbook file got transformed into a DR12 vinyl cut by no other cause than being cut to vinyl. The fact he couldn’t hear that much a difference on his crappy digital system isn’t that relevant.

Yeah we understand that you know more about it than the guy who mastered the album and prepared both the CD and vinyl for release. 

[Kimo]

So he mastered the files and isn't sure why there is a 50% difference.  Okay,  but I often see vinyl releases measuring the same as the digital counterpart?

 

Does this mean that when I see this that the vinyl was mastered from a 50% less dynamic source?

 

 

[PeterSt]

On 7/30/2018 at 2:31 PM, semente said:

In this video you can hear/compare the different between a CD and a vinyl recorded made from the same digital file:

 

I don't dig it. Btw, this starts with the man being deaf - or better : his ignorance to the differences heard.

So I (too) know better than the man himself ? maybe.

 

It is not even easy to digest what he's really saying (starting at 4:50 into the video). At 5:25 he says "the file looked the same as the CD file you see here". Yeah ? prove it. What he shows or testifies here doesn't tell me a thing other than "error".

 

Where he explains the differences in "slope" (which really don't show vinyl characteristics but limiting in the CD version) he is just bland or flat or whatever the English for it, and accepts that he knows hiss profession but still doesn't know what he sees. Mind you, this is different from explaining it.

 

If it were for me, he forgets to interpret the difference between internal 40+ bits processing compared with the 24 bit end result, and the limiting allowing for the 0.001 whatever DB differences you can see when zoomed in on the slopes. Thus in 40 bits you see the better defined peaks and in 24 bits that difference has been flattened out. Something like that.

 

Digital is full with interpretation error and again, with his being ignorant to actual facts and let them be, he could make any kind of error without noticing.

There is just no single way the vinyl shows the "lively" song (which you can easily hear for its openness) from a plain flat file the CD version shows (as the so called base, though indirectly).

 

Btw, this digital (for what he says) does not sound crispier in the highs, but distorted.

 

More ignorant me.

[Fokus]

On 7/30/2018 at 4:46 PM, GUTB said:

 

I watched the video. A crappy DR8 Redbook file got transformed into a DR12 vinyl cut by no other cause than being cut to vinyl.

 

The video shows that the TT Dynamic Range meter can be fooled easily. This has been known for years. Take a file with DR10, run it through an all-pass filter, presto, it becomes DR15 (or whatever).

Does it sound better? Nope ...

 

[firedog]

Sony just announced a super high end headphone amp/dac. the DMP-Z1, that will sell for $8000. It can also accept a USB input from a computer. Here's a description of one of the many features: 

Vinyl Processor

Give the warmth and character of vinyl back to your digital tracks, and get lost again in the richness of the melodies and dynamics of your favorite albums. Subtle reproduction of the low-frequency resonance, tone-arm resistance, and surface noise deliver an authentic listening experience.

 

Sony apparently didn't intend any irony. But basically they said, "we'll add back in the noise and distortion you hear when playing an LP, so you can be happy with the sound"

[Ralf11]

You can also use the low-frequency resonance of the Sony to call in whales

[PeterSt]

and experience it with the Whaleman.

[ajay556]

Time and time again vinyl has been sweeter and smoother than digital. And the proof is in the engineering of storing and retrieving data. Cannot agree with science.

 And please don't get me started with digital cameras and film cameras. Film photos is far superior in quality than digital's resolution -  any day

 

A very good comparison is a sketch artist

One draws a picture of a person based on data given by another person  - DIGITAL

Other draws a picture of the person from the person sitting right infront - ANALOG

 

Go figure which picture will be more accurate!!!!

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, ajay556 said:

Time and time again vinyl has been sweeter and smoother than digital. And the proof is in the engineering of storing and retrieving data. Cannot agree with science.

 And please don't get me started with digital cameras and film cameras. Film photos is far superior in quality than digital's resolution -  any day

 

A very good comparison is a sketch artist

One draws a picture of a person based on data given by another person  - DIGITAL

Other draws a picture of the person from the person sitting right infront - ANALOG

 

Go figure which picture will be more accurate!!!!

 Don't write off digital

If you are able to, download the attached as 3840 x 2160 .webm and see the difference, even when downsampled to be viewed on a 1080P monitor.

UHDTV 8K Video Ultra High Definition 7680x4320 - 8K Hub Ultra HD  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIAhOVpnD8g

 

 

P.S.

 I use the free version of WinX YouTube Downloader.

[The_K-Man]

12 hours ago, ajay556 said:

Time and time again vinyl has been sweeter and smoother than digital. And the proof is in the engineering of storing and retrieving data. Cannot agree with science.

 And please don't get me started with digital cameras and film cameras. Film photos is far superior in quality than digital's resolution -  any day

 

A very good comparison is a sketch artist

One draws a picture of a person based on data given by another person  - DIGITAL

Other draws a picture of the person from the person sitting right infront - ANALOG

 

Go figure which picture will be more accurate!!!!

 

The digital could have been sweeter than the vinyl, but for the mastering.  THAT's the difference you're hearing.

[Ralf11]

21 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

The digital could have been sweeter than the vinyl, but for the mastering.  THAT's the difference you're hearing.

 

or maybe he is obeying the thread title...

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

The digital could have been sweeter than the vinyl, but for the mastering.  THAT's the difference you're hearing.

Mastering a vinyl record is so fraught with nasty pitfalls, I'd say it's a miracle it works at all! The quality available from a well mastered LP is very impressive. Good bass, decent highs (up to about 12 KHz - Maybe 15 KHz the first time the record is played) and what distortion there is happens to be very euphonic. But I must say as someone who has more than 4000 LPs, that out of that lot, perhaps 100-150 fall into the category of being the best that vinyl has to offer. Most LPs, unfortunately, sound pretty mediocre and far too many are next to unplayable. The person who looks back on the LP with nostalgia is viewing it through rose-colored glasses, I'm afraid. I have a far fewer percent of my CDs sounding bad than of my LPs. That doesn't mean that CD is perfect, far from it. But it's problems are different. With an LP, things can go wrong at any point along the production line, starting with the microphone and ending with the packaging of the LP. While CDs (and other digital media) can have the same problems in the microphone capture and the musical production stage of the process, by the time the master glass is made, the chance for there being a manufacturing defect has fallen to practically nil. Of my thousands of CDs/DVD-As/SACDs/ Audio Blu-Rays, I think I recall getting like three defective discs. 

Those analog lovers who are actually on to something are those who consider analog magnetic tape to be the best format for capturing music. If you've ever made/heard a 1/2 track (on 1/4-inch tape) stereo recording made at 15 or 30 ips (inches per second) and played back through a good system are truly in for a treat. Yes, tape's dynamic range (65 dB at best without noise reduction and perhaps 75 dB (and I've heard of special decks that can do close to 80 dB) with it (DBX) is less than digital, but still, it sounds like music and the reverb fades a way in a natural way that most digital recordings just don't. I had two (and wish I still had 'em) two Otari MX5050 half-track stereo recorders that ran at 15 and 30 ips. I modified the record electronics on both. I incorporated low noise resistors in the record path of both as well as polypropylene and polystyrene capacitors. I also used a published modification to better linearize the bias oscillator in each machine. Even at 15 ips, the recording I was getting were dynamite. Then I started on the playback amp of one of them. Did the same thing, replaced resistors with low noise values and and either replaced the capacitors with audio grade versions (polypropylene and polystyrene) and bypassed the electrolytics in the playback preamps with small polypropylenes. The result of a round-trip record/playback on that machine using Sony FeCr tape was simply breathtaking! Unfortunately, I never got around to mod'ing the second machine's playback electronics and as I succumbed to the freedom of relatively small digital recorders (involving laptop computers as the recorder) with less to carry and much less to set-up, the Otari's got less and less use. I sold them. If I had the fully modified MX5050 back with me, I'd be buying those half track/15ips 1-to-1 copies of master tapes that several companies are selling and gladly pay the several hundred dollars apiece for them.      

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Don't write off digital

If you are able to, download the attached as 3840 x 2160 .webm and see the difference, even when downsampled to be viewed on a 1080P monitor.

UHDTV 8K Video Ultra High Definition 7680x4320 - 8K Hub Ultra HD  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIAhOVpnD8g

 

 

P.S.

 I use the free version of WinX YouTube Downloader.

I find modern digital photos to be quite satisfactory. I have made 16 X 20 prints of some of my digital photos and they look very good. However I know that the difference between a 20 Megapixel Raw digital  image blown up to fit a 100" screen and a Kodachrome color slide projected with a Leitz Pradolux projector on the same 100" screen would favor the Kodachrome absolutely, the digital picture wouldn't suffer too badly! 

[hifitommy]

one thing that digital cameras do is handle low light situatins more easily than film.

[Ralf11]

digital cameras are far better than film cameras and have been so for several years

[diecaster]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

digital cameras are far better than film cameras and have been so for several years

 

I sure do miss Kodachrome 64........

[Ralf11]

so do I (and even Kodachrome II, which I started with) - but you can apply 'filters' in post to get that look

[AudioDoctor]

On 7/4/2018 at 3:30 AM, adamdea said:

As ever your contribution might as well have been scripted as demonstration that being an audiophile is less a hobby than a way of life based on the rigorous pursuit of nonsense, superstition and self regarding vanity.

 

 

Sounds like a particular orange politician I know...

[Ralf11]

56 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Sounds like a particular orange politician I know...

 

what did Bart Simpson get elected to?

[AudioDoctor]

54 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

what did Bart Simpson get elected to?

 

Thats not fair to Bart, even he had a sense of right and wrong and some knowledge of honesty and truth.

[diecaster]

Let’s keep political opinions to one selves...otherwise we can discuss how that orange guy is way better than the crappy alternative. 

[AudioDoctor]

19 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Let’s keep political opinions to one selves...otherwise we can discuss how that orange guy is way better than the crappy alternative. 

 

Death?

[diecaster]

1 minute ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Death?

 

HRC