Lies about vinyl vs digital

[esldude]

On 2/18/2019 at 10:52 PM, John Dyson said:

A significant component of that warmth is IMD (intermodulation distortion.)  IMD can either sound 'harsh' or 'mellow' depending on certain mathematical attributes.  Tape compression tends to have the 'mellow' attribute.    The tape compression tends not to be too awful until the IMD starts becoming more apparent as a kind of distortion (e.g. birdies are an extreme case.)

Analog tape requires some expertise to use to its maximum quality -- recording at a moderately high level to end  up well above the noise, but not so hot as to cause significant distortion that sounds like distortion :-).  It isn't a really difficult problem unless using tape professionally and trying to get the absolute maximum quality when dealing with multiple generations. 

 

Using tape at speeds of 15ips and 30ips help to allow using hotter signal levels, get above the hiss, and if possible -- try to avoid noise reduction systems.  30ips has other troubles, but if you really, really want to avoid NR -- then 30ips will be your best bet.   Every NR that I know something about (I'll be learning a LOT more about C4 soon -- so I don't know much about that) produces significant distortion or has problems with transients.

 

I've heard some 1st gen 30 ips reel tapes.  They do sound fabulous.  

 

The lies are that vinyl is reference grade.  It is MP3.  Reel is where it is real in the analog world.  

[esldude]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

Anybody know how to SAVE .mp3s from Dropbox instead of just playing them with their crappy gear ?

 I don't have a problem when downloading .flac etc. from them.

 

1st impressions are way too much sibilance and too abrupt compressor action at times .

 His voice is a bit too " hard sounding" too., i.e.  loss of natural warmth.

I also found another .mp3 of the same track online that sounded closer to the CD version.

i.e. less annoying to me personally. .

 

 P.S.

 As this .mp3 is likely to be less than most email limits in size, perhaps it could be sent via email or if possible, in a PM ? 

I downloaded it and can send it to you Alex.  Give me a minute. 

 

BTW, it sounds exactly as described.  Sibilant, over active compression (maybe MP3 artifact), and too sharp. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

See my question, embedded^^^

 

Let's get with it, people!

I think dynamic, but since it was an MP3 is could be some of both.  I've since decided it was dynamic with more data to go on.

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Repeat 1,000 times:

 

MP3 AND YOUTUBE DO NOT CAUSE DYNAMIC COMPRESSION

MP3 AND YOUTUBE DO NOT CAUSE DYNAMIC COMPRESSION

MP3 AND YOUTUBE DO NOT CAUSE DYNAMIC COMPRESSION

MP3 AND YOUTUBE DO NOT CAUSE DYNAMIC COMPRESSION

MP3 AND YOUTUBE DO NOT CAUSE DYNAMIC COMPRESSION

MP3 AND YOUTUBE DO NOT CAUSE DYNAMIC COMPRESSION!!!!!

You have misunderstood badly.  No one said it did. 

 

I'm having a bad week for communicating it appears.

 

 MP3 can have artifacts including increasing sibilance and sharpness.  So can dynamic compression.  So when I hear something encoded as MP3 with some extra sibilance and sharpness, it could be from either or both causes.  That dynamic compression and data compression happen in the same file is unfortunate.  There was never any confusion in my mind about the difference.  

 

Should I mention EQ is partly responsible or do I have to shout, MP3 AND YOUTUBE DO NOT CAUSE EQ?

 

Some compression is only over part of the spectrum and I suspect that was done or EQ followed by compression in this particular case.

 

Carry on.  

 

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

In my experience, those dynamic compression artifacts are more likely caused by a signal that exceeds 0dB "true peak" values.  That "inter-peak distortion" can cause a nails-on-the-chalkboard screech depending on the DAC.  To me, any digital mastering that exceeds 0dB True Peak is incompetent.  But some in the music business call it "competitive". 🙄

 

 

That wasn't the problem at all in the mp3 from John Dyson.  Though it does happen way too often. 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I don't think that we are getting anywhere here -- just note that I am not an audiophile, I am an engineer who writes DSP code (among other things), and recognize that things aren't always as straightforward as they seem from a non-technical standpoint.

 

First -- when I write that it is technically necessary (well, call it practically technically necessary) to do certain things at faster than 44.1kHz in order to get good results for audio reproduction -- I mean it as an engineer/DSP person.  To do the kind of production done nowadays, sample rates higher than 44.1kHz are needed (sometimes rather fancy techniques can be used to get around some of the limitations -- not worth it).  Fine point # 1

 

Purely for HEARING -- the simple conversion of digital to analog audio, 44.1k/16 (or a bit less) is usually sufficient:  Fine ponit #2

 

Simple decimation/interpolation are much cleaner than general rate conversion:  Fine point #3

 

For various good reasons -- including those above, pros often use 48k/96k/192k/etc: Fine point #4

 

Why not just use a rate that fits all of the critera above?  48kHz...  Answer;  CD audio.

 

CD audio is the sole reason for using 44.1k instead of 48kHz (AFAIR.)  Of course, there is legacy material, but all it needs is upconversion ONCE, then stay in the 'clean' domain...  This is one reason for using 88.2kHz on legacy material, but all it takes is one conversion to be compatible once-and-for-all.

 

*added this -- part of my reason for preferring the integral changes of sample rates is that it is cleaner/less errors/less noise/fewer weird things going on :-).

 

Of most people on this group (probably EVERYONE else), I am less an audiophile or golden ears as anyone is.  I don't expect to be considered as such, but I enjoy audio stuff.  That is the primary reason for my ethic of avoiding 'teaching'  people who already know.

 

John

John, 

I don't know what the deal is with K-man.  You can't agree with him as he still finds some point of disagreement.  He really is badgering you over nothing in his recent posts.  I'd suggest simply ignoring him. 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

A few pages back I standardized the terms to describe the two main forms of compression:

 

Dynamic range compression: DRC or DYNAMICALLY COMPRESSED

 

File compression: DATA REDUCTION or PERCEPTUAL/LOSSY CODING.

 

Please use the terms in bold in the future, to differentiate.

 

Thank you

You've not standardized anything.  You mainly seem to display poor reading comprehension and create disagreement where none exists in this thread.  As kumakuma has said, in context there never was any misunderstanding or any disagreement with what you think you have standardized.  So slow down, read with care, take into account context.  Your inability to do this doesn't obligate us to specify every little detail that should be very obvious. 

[esldude]

23 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I will have to reread that old AES paper again, but in section 6.2, they are showing a peak spur of -126.9db,  116.4db THD+N, and a pass band of 17.97khz for a 48k to 44.1k conversion, which is one of the worst conversions of course. (It was 2005, they did not do high res as we know it today. That poor SHARC would have rolled over and died if it could handle it at all.  )

 

I am not sure exactly what that is saying, but it seems like a pretty small conversion penalty. And we have better algorithms and processors today.  That isn’t to dispute your experience, just an observation.

 

Plus 48k was chosen just to match an existing tape recorder I think, not a lot of “sound” science behind it! (Pun intended!) 

 

 

Hey those early Sony PCM machines ran at 44,056 hz and we just play them at 44,100 hz.  Close enough I guess.  The funny thing is both 44,100 and 48,000 rates were chosen because of video one way or another.  If I were emperor of audio, I would have just picked a nice round number like 50 khz. 

[esldude]

29 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

There was a lot of advocacy for 60hz if I recall correctly. But video was the 800# 🦍 that won. 🤪

I don't really think video was the 800 pound gorilla.  It was simply a matter of economics.  Sony et al figured out they could easily adapt video recorders to store digital data easier and less expensively than making dedicated gear for that initially.  So 44,100 was a rate that could be used with both NTSC and PAL video recorders in frames.  44,100 would evenly divide into both frame rates. 

 

60 khz would actually have been better for all purposes such as working over all video frame rates and such.  But TV, did cause a 48 khz compromise that worked with most frame rates evenly other than NTSC.  And everyone thought 60 khz was excessive.  

 

Oh well standards are like that and we are stuck with split rate families based upon 44 and 48 rates.  Maybe if we'd had 60khz that is all we would have needed. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, KingRex said:

I use DB Power amp with a Nimbi Robot to batch rip.  Everything is ripped to WAV

You would be better off ripping to FLAC or AIFF.  Those support cover art and such better than WAV.  

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Bullshit !

KingRex has already VERIFIED hearing differences, and accurately described the  differences, between 2 versions of John's SOS file with identical .md5 checksums , so stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it !

 

 Don't even bother replying as you have nothing of further interest to say to me, and you will be ignored !

 

You mentioned this before (I think in email), but I thought the two SOS files had different EQ?  If so they wouldn't have identical checksums.  Which two files are you referring to exactly. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

The 16/44 sounds a tad muffled compared to the 24/192, could be for a number of reasons I guess. Since I like some 16/44 DDA recordings on vinyl I have thought that 16/44 is enough and it is the CD medium itself that is at fault. The last CD player I demoed was an Audio Research CD9 and even that failed to satisfy. If you are telling me 24/192 downloads sound as good as your rips I might have to go that route. 

I think there are a lot of things being mixed up here.  If you like 16/44 put to vinyl, but not CD, it most likely is because you like the color of vinyl sound.  If you also like the 192 rips of vinyl, it is likely because of the color of vinyl sound.  If you get 24/192 downloads, it isn't really a matter of good, or not good sound, it is they are not going to have the color of vinyl sound being digital recordings.  You may not like them, or may not like them as much.  

[esldude]

17 hours ago, Paul R said:

Well, talking about them is nothing like hearing them for yourself on your own system. 

 

I grabbed an old album, in this case a 1967 release of a 1959 Angelicum Chopin Recital by Alberto Mozzati. The record is in pretty good condition. This is just about a minute of the 5th track on the 1st side. Etude in G Flat Major Op 25, no 9.  A bit of thunderous piano, followed by a bit of delicate piano work. 

 

I did apply RIAA equalization to the music when I wrote it out along with some gain. This is what I normally do anyway. So here, in fact, is what the original recording at 192K sounds like, and the same file after having been subjected to SRC to bring it to 16/44.1.

 

A Chopin Recital 

 

 

 

A Chopin Recital (44.1) (AIFF).zip 10.92 MB · 6 downloads A Chopin Recital (192) (AIFF).zip 42.14 MB · 5 downloads

What SRC did you use Paul?  It looks like it cut off at about 20 khz.   I don't hear a difference if I use Audacity like Frank did.  It uses Sox which isn't the very best, but it is very, very good.  There are still an unfortunate number of SRCs that are audibly different upon careful listening.  

 

Just listening, it sounded like the 192 has a half octave more extension in the bottom end verses your resampling to 44.1.  I'll have to look at it in Deltawave or maybe @fas42 can show us the graphs from where he has already made it work. 

 

There is some audible hum.  Might be in the recording itself or might be in your setup.  I know hum is hard to get out of LP setups.  I've owned them in the past. And that sometimes connecting to an ADC will cause some hum that otherwise isn't there.  

[esldude]

Here is an Audacity resample of the same 192 file.  I saved it as a wav instead of an aiff, but that won't make any difference.  

 

https://send.firefox.com/download/1af2ef1d48ecda79/#792ya3sGL2JKAH0pFhJYKQ

Just click on the link to download.  Available for 7 days or until 50 downloads.  

[esldude]

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

That Audacity / SOX resample sounds pretty nice.  

 

I just used PV as the SRC to downsample that originally. And it looks like it ran though some processing in RX7 I didn't intend it to run through. (It's setup to do some automatic workflow, like de-clicking...)  In any case, I think I added gain twice, which would surely bring out any hum.  I think that is the cables routing too near power.  Careless of me.

 

I re-recorded it at 44.1k instead of just resampling. And made sure it did not go through any processing at all, save for equalization when I wrote it out. I may have to rethink things yet again here, but at the moment, I am still liking the 192K version myself, but I think what caught my attention in the graphs below will be readily apparent. And I have trouble explaining it.  

 

-Paul 

 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uecebg1wc0rjcf/Chopin* - Alberto Mozzati.zip?dl=0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.  Nothing like audio to keep a guy humble!

 

 

Well these are about 16 db lower in level.  And these didn't go thru any declicking as there are some clicks.  These seem to have a more open clear sound to them. So I wonder if de-click processing is good or not.  A friend has Pure Vinyl and I've seen the same thing with his rips.  

[esldude]

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

An offside gripe ... Firefox and Dropbox don't like each other - the number of times I've tried to download something, and stupid Dropbox just refuses to co-operate - you have to access something in exactly the right way, otherwise it clams up - I hate programmers!!

Well Firefox and Dropbox work fine for me, but it is on Linux.  I use Chrome on Windows for Dropbox.  

 

On Win10, I used to use PeaZip, but have found 7zip to just work with less hassle on Win10.  Neither causes any hassles very often. 

[esldude]

35 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Thanks, my view is clearer, CD sounds crap, lol

Well CD is clearer.  

[esldude]

18 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

there may be genuine musical content past 50kHz these days, however you would need a damn good dog and pet dolphin to take full advantage of it

The dolphin is why your sound must flow like water.  

 

Should I mention the old method of wet LP playback?   I never did get wet CD playback to work. 

[esldude]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Only if you don't consider 18khz - 20khz+ as being supersonic. 

 

I'm a little confused which what you are saying.  It is quite possible that supersonic frequency reproduction is nothing more than a blue herring. But many audiophiles find that higher sample rates equal better sound.

 

Now that is partly due to equipment and various digital filters, and it absolutely is not due to some kind of fairy dust magic.  But the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes.

 

Many audiophiles probably would find cable lifters made of blue herringbone to be a sonic improvement.  The truth might be somewhere in between.  But I bet it leans very heavily in one direction vs another.  

 

And since when did 44.1 khz loose the ability to reproduce 20 khz?

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Well reasoned, but a couple of other factors may be there as well. 

 

First, in the theory presented above, the results of ultrasonic sound may not be directly audible, but instead may change what a lister hears.  This is loosely-goosey without a lot of research, but it is at least possible. 

 

Any further, in in relation to commercial releases of music as well as to things like recorded vinyl, there is the issue of what CD Format does to the music. Commercially, you have brick wall filters that do all sorts of irritating things - alias problems, phase shift problems, and other similar issues. Can these change or affect the sound? I do not think it is even slightly controversial to answer that with a yes. They can certainly change the sound, usually for the worse. 

Usually it is those non brick wall filters that have aliasing and imaging problems.  They also are the ones that generally cause more phase shift than brickwall filters.  As all the available evidence is we don't much care about phase in the upper ranges the filters with a sound are those that do something else.  Like minimum phase to fix ringing when ringing isn't really a thing we hear anyway. 

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

In in relation to recordings of vinyl, same issues may apply. Vinyl certainly has content above the Nyquist limit for audio. Can you hear that directly? No. Does filtering it out for CD resolution change the sound? Arguably yes. With vinyl, it is a little bit tricky, since when vinyl music is recorded, the bass is turned way down and the treble is turned way up. Equalization is required to make it sound right.

 

Incidentally, this is also one reason why CD and vinyl can sound different, even when from the same master. The CD process either did not turn down the bass, or sometimes even turned it up, since digital can easily reproduce it. Sometimes the treble was modified too. Point is, there are always more factors to look at than might be obvious when this subject comes up.

 

It is like storing your files in compressed format. Probably little or no harm storing in FLAC instead of AIFF, but with disk and cloud storage so cheap these days, why would you bother with compression that *might* have an effect in the future? Same idea also applies to high res. If you have genuine high res, why throw it away? It *might* make a difference to you in the future, even if it does not now. 

 

Just my $0.02 there! 

 

-Paul

 

Vinyl is simply a second rate medium for basic fidelity.  Some people may like it, but it isn't of as high a fidelity as digital.  

 

AIFF and FLAC are not going to have an effect in the future because they don't have an effect now.  They do store metadata better.  That will effect you now and in the future.  

[esldude]

I've a weak digestive system. I couldn't stomach those TAS articles again.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

Do you think your 16/44 wav sounds the same as Pauls 24/192 aiff:

https://audiophilestyle.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=56129 42.14 MB · 9 downloads

? 

@Rexp

With a level matched listen yes they sound the same.  I spent some time listening to it several times relaxed.  And spent more time listening to snippets I thought might uncover something. 

 

I've not done an ABX test of it.  Sometimes in those I correctly pick up a difference that I am not aware of with normal listening. 

 

My speakers go some ways past 20 khz, but my aged hearing doesn't.  

[esldude]

50 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Try with different PC or system. I am suspecting something is going on when they process different sample rate. I know for some of the stuff I am doing does not work with some pc despite the soundcard is set to exact value as the other. 

Maybe the one where it differs is defective?

 

There is no good reason these should sound different.  I've given this idea the benefit of the doubt several times attempting to hear it.  I also find it interesting you guys haven't commented on Paul's later files.  They sound so much better, warts and all, no one would want either of the first downloads once they hear these.  Yeah, there are pops and noise and stuff, but they are alive.  They sound closer to the soul of the music plain and simple.  

 

In doing rips myself in the past, I used 88.2 khz because 44 and 48 weren't as good.  I'm pretty sure the issue was a moving coil with a nasty tip resonance being in use.  There was no benefit to going higher in sample rate to my ears or those of a friend.  I think the tip resonance would have caused aliasing back down in the audible band.  

 

I've not given these ideas much merit since years ago using an AM radio to listen in on RFI.  I had a couple desktops and laptops.  Each had a completely different RFI signature.  Not even similar.  Plus you could change from Windows to one linux or a second linux and all were obviously different in RFI patterns just down in the AM radio band.  I could tell which was which just by that.  And I am supposed to believe a difference in processing FLAC or WAV or AIFF has a consistent signature in the analog result we listen to thru all of this chaotic interaction.  Simply not credible.  If there were such an effect it would vary radically with OS, or even version of the OS or with hardware.  You quickly run into enough variables you know that isn't what is happening at an audible level.  For any given person it would be a unique result and in no way would everyone find FLAC sounds bad, or zipping protects the file or Wav is the better of them on all the different gear we use.  Bullocks.  It simply is ridiculous.  

 

The amazing thing is with Asynch USB and good gear all of this crazy stuff is incredibly isolated.  Your DAC outputs an analog result that none of this touches very much at all.  

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

That's kind of cool, though my old ears want to disagree.  I guess I have to setup some blind testing yet again for myself and see how I do with that. 

 

Whatever the results, it is definitely cool to find out a new truth. 🤪

 

Are you testing with the recorded 44.1k or the resampled version? 

 

-Paul 

 

 

In this case they sound the same either way.  Resampled and declicked version or native sampling and both sample rates.  Now I can differentiate the native versions, but that is because some noise and pops happened differently on one playing vs the other. 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 

How are these FLACs being compressed, dynamic range or size?

Do a search on FLAC and figure it out for your own good.  No need to start this crap again. Of course you already know the answer to that question.