Lies about vinyl vs digital

[fas42]

9 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

You don't even know which compression you're talking about.

 

You appear to have problems separating dynamics compression done in mastering, which is what I was obviously addressing, from data compression used to take less bandwith and space - want a link to something that explains this?

[fas42]

I note that The_K-Man did explain himself in his next post ...

 

Dynamic compression is a mongrel - I've had a go several times over the years at reversing this, and a very respectable result is possible. Helps that I have almost zero interest in popular music done over the last couple of decades; it's very rare that I hear something that does not speak of being churned out by a highly ritualised music making machine ...

[fas42]

 

3 hours ago, KingRex said:

The major consensus among people who have compared top vinyl and top digital conclude that well done vinyl bests well-done digital. Currently my digital setup is much better than my vinyl. And my vinyl isn't that much of a slouch. With work and considerable expense I'm pretty confident I can learn how to make vinyl sound better than my digital. The opting phrase being learn how.

 

Trouble with vinyl, played conventionally, is tracking error. Unless you have a TT setup that can manage that by one of the numerous techniques tried over the years, it becomes a really irritating anomaly. A nearby audio friend has got a rig working well enough to make it easy to hear how the tracking error impacts the sound - the sound steadily improves as it reaches the sweet spot, then degrades slowly as the error worsens.

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, SJK said:

That has to be a very poorly setup turntable. 

 

Alignment is almost everything for your average bear, that and a suitable tracking weight. That sets the vertical tracking force and allows you to properly adjust anti-skate. For most people, you’re done. 

 

If you’re a bit persnickety then you move on to stylus rake angle and azimuth adjustment. 

 

Admittedly, most turntables were likely never setup properly and most people never knew.

 

 But if you’re actually hearing a difference from track to track, then there’s something very seriously wrong. 

 

Oh, dear ...

 

 

Notice the spots with zero degrees ... that's where you get best performance - and everywhere else it's "not quite as good" ... a well setup TT makes it easy to hear this ...

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Incorrect.  I already know the difference.  It again is YOU that seems to have the problem differentiating.

 

DRC affects dynamics.  Data reduction affects file size - and to varying degrees sound quality, but NOT dynamics.

 

Got it now, for the umpteenth time?

 

Confusion reigns ... I'm not sure what you're saying, but it appears to be, that YouTube is applying dynamic compression to everything that is posted - is that what you're implying?

[fas42]

Just now, KingRex said:

John, I just laughed out loud when I read you saying you can't trust your hearing for comparison. Everything we are doing is listening and hearing. If you can't hear any sort of difference,  then what's it matter, play whatever you want. The point is we feel we can hear a difference. Am I missing something?

 

Most audiophiles don't know "how to listen" - I've been at sessions where the distortion is extreme, worse than a car radio in the areas that really matter, and the other listeners are completely oblivious - they're too busy ticking off the "audiophile boxes", and completely miss the fact that the SQ is terrible ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, The_K-Man said:

 

NO.  Stop playing mindgames.

 

 Let's try again - one can download audio from YouTube, that's been dynamically compressed by the original mastering, and is data compressed by virtue of uploading to YouTube. Then, one can undo the dynamic compression, in the same way as if one had access to the master mix data, without worrying in the slightest about the data compression.

 

This is the same answer as originally given by myself, just more long winded, in the post you reacted to - which you seem determined to misunderstand.

[fas42]

My very specific interest is not touching the the released recording data at all - the playback rig has to be brought up to a standard where the 'most obnoxious' mix still works as a listening experience - no tampering with the source!

 

This works on everything but extreme, yes, dynamically compressed material - this is last frontier, for me. Judicious undoing of this silliness is a workaround - I still would like a rig to tackle such items without fiddling with the data, but it may always be necessary for the worst offenders.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

"Determined to misundertand"?   You make it sound like I was purposely misunderstanding.  The proper terminology was not employed.

 

See my corrections, in caps, above.  Now it makes perfect sense.

 

I know that YT does not dynamically compress audio tracks.  But it seems like some on here thinks it does.

 

When I earlier asked the question "what type of compression" I already know the correct answer.  I just wanted to see if you and the others did.   It is you who misunderstood my way of finding out if you guys know the one type of compression from the other.

 

Time to bury the hatchet ... the term data compression encompasses both lossy and lossless versions of such processing, so it helps to add the extra adjective, for some.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Good boy.

 

Wanna be understood in this field?  Use the correct lingo.

 

You mean, understood in audio forums? ... ummm, you might have a point there ...

[fas42]

Just now, The_K-Man said:

 

Just say DATA REDUCTION or PERCEPTUAL CODING and remove all doubt.

 

Let Wikipedia have the last word, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Audio

 

Quote

Audio data compression, not to be confused with dynamic range compression, has the potential to reduce the transmission bandwidth and storage requirements of audio data. Audio compression algorithms are implemented in software as audio codecs. Lossy audio compression algorithms provide higher compression at the cost of fidelity and are used in numerous audio applications.

 

These algorithms almost all rely on psychoacoustics to eliminate or reduce fidelity of less audible sounds, thereby reducing the space required to store or transmit them  In both lossy and lossless compression, information redundancy is reduced, using methods such as coding, pattern recognition, and linear prediction to reduce the amount of information used to represent the uncompressed data

 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, SJK said:

Oh, I don't dispute what you're saying or question the compromise solution of alignment on a radial tonearm. 

 

My point was a properly aligned tonearm and cartridge should not have audible differences from lead-in to runout.  Measurable, certainly, but audible?  That's what I meant by it must be a poorly setup turntable.  

 

Most certainly is. One way to explain it is that in the sweet spot of the tracking error the SQ is like that of good digital; the treble is exceptional, and you are not aware of vinyl distortions - out of that region and the treble starts to degrade, the whole presentation loses its 'rightness', and you're back to listening to a not quite together audio system.

 

Which of course is the point of linear tracking mechanisms - people who are enthusiastic for the latter say that they can't bear the sound of tracking error; and I would agree with them. But, linear arms can be a nightmare to maintain working properly, or, are very expensive if well done. Best vinyl sound I heard decades ago was using a Goldmund Reference ...

[fas42]

1 hour 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". 🙄

 

 

 

The truth is, there is a lot of digital material out there that has some clipping in it - I've been very surprised to find very circumspect symphonic recordings, "audiophile" jazz tracks to have a couple of transient clipping moments - not dynamic compressing artifacts, purely that the signal went into the red. And it doesn't matter, if the DAC is half decent - the glitch should be completely inaudible.

[fas42]

Note, in the aggro sense of The_K-Man , that it's very easy to have massively bad dynamic compression, unlistenable to stuff, which never clips! A limiter can be set so that the waveform never flat tops, ever, and the maximum level is a touch below the peak - visually, this waveform looks a disaster; sounds a disaster - but, it never clips!!

[fas42]

Mastering doesn't matter, formats don't matter - but the integrity of the playback rig does. If you have a car with lousy shock absorbers, you want someone to go on ahead and fill in all the bumps on the road, to compensate for your bad suspension - but, a well engineered mechanism can handle anything thrown at it, and you always enjoy the ride, .

 

Optimum playback will deliver a powerful presentation, irrespective of mastering and format. Remastering often mean simplifying the textural qualities of the original - and in a comparison will often sound quite boring, and lacking in satisfying complexity, as regards the original.

[fas42]

Nope, John, what you have there is a version that suits systems that can't do treble without distortion - all the sparkle of the synthesizer arrangements has been lopped off - and to be it bluntly, it's boring ...

 

The magic of convincing setups is that they can do high energy, treble laden tracks effortlessly - if one is used to what's possible, conventional high end systems often project a generic dullness - and will never match the real thing.

[fas42]

Alex, my reputation doesn't depend on agreeing with other audiophiles about what "good mastering" is - the least interesting albums I have on my shelves are ones specially made for audiophiles; and hence extremely rarely played.

 

What counts for me is getting the most out of whatever music I happen to access, come across - that's a pleasure that never has a down side, and makes what I'm interested in worth while.

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

^^Spoken like a true audiophile^^

 

Totally ignoring the source itself:  The recording, mixing, mastering, the final product as released.

 

Take the most expensive audio playback components, converters, speakers, interconnects worth tens of $thousands, a professionally treated listening room, run an over-dynamically compressed, limited, and otherwise overprocessed piece of crap recording through it, and guess what you'll hear at the other end: An OVER-DYNAMICALLY COMPRESSED, LIMITED, AND OTHERWISE OVERPROCESSED PIECE OF CRAP.

 

Like Stephen King's character Darnell said in 'Christine'..

 

"Ya can't polish a TURD."

 

I've already stated that I have very little interest in recordings from the last couple of decades - if the artists and producers go to great effort to 'damage' what they've put down, then I am far less motivated to 'fix' what they've done.

 

However - this may be a surprise to you - quite a few recordings were made in the decades earlier than this, and some of what was put down isn't half bad ... I compromise by only listening to this output, .

[fas42]

As you say, Alex, John's work deserves its own thread - this one, should be about,

 

Quote

 

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?

 

 

and that's exactly what I concern myself with ...

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

You just contradicted what you yourself said in #1039.  

 

Make up your mind.

 

Okay, we'll go through it ,

 

Quote

Mastering doesn't matter, formats don't matter - but the integrity of the playback rig does. If you have a car with lousy shock absorbers, you want someone to go on ahead and fill in all the bumps on the road, to compensate for your bad suspension - but, a well engineered mechanism can handle anything thrown at it, and you always enjoy the ride, .

 

Using the car analogy, we have a road, with modern mastering, having continuous, extremely abrupt bumps - only the highest quality suspension will be able to deal with that, and the sheer onslaught of the sense of vibration constantly happening will be tiring, if not in the right mood ... the music has been engineered to constantly demand your attention, and if this is not what you're after, then it's fair dealing to adjust how that source material is structured.

 

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

Because the version on CD was subject to more DRC than what was pressed to the LP!

 

LP has bigger issues with physical limitations than CD, of course - like a young kid, they found they could do crazy things with digital - and therefore, do it!

 

Quote

 

That depends on what decade the CD/digital version was released.  Early generations of ADCs were not quite up to the caliber of converters from the late '90s to present.

 

Hmmm, the earliest release of anything I find to be the best, normally - I grab every 80's version of albums; before they were given the 'sanitizing makeover' of later ones.

[fas42]

Sorry about this, Alex, but there is an important point to be made here - the voices, and the backing synthesizer sound elements are two distinct components in the ABBA sound; when a rig is working correctly they no longer merge, fill the same acoustic space  - the vocals occupy one 'space', and are completely natural, sound like real people; all the backing complexity, with as much frilly treble and reverb as they decided they wanted, exists in other 'spaces' ... this is the "magic" of competent playback; the recorded tracks separate out, like hearing the individuals in a jazz combo - and vocals always sound like real people singing, unless deliberately mutilated by an effects unit.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Frank

 Can you please take your " important points" to another thread instead of encouraging the Trolls who inevitably appear to follow you around, and  who would deliberately disrupt this thread.

Alex

 

Yep, let it go at that ... note, John already has his very own thread about this stuff, here,

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Take a 32bit float, 192kHz studio master, and encode it to 24/192, 24/96, 16/44.1, and even 320kBps mp3, and I guarantee only 1/10 of folks with reasonably good hearing will hear significant differences between that same exact master in all those formats.  Seriously.

 

The next step is to take the 24/96, 16/44.1, and 320kBps mp3 encodings - and upsample them all to 24/192 - and now play each 24/192 version through a DAC that's particularly good with the latter format ... I would suggest that most people would struggle to pick the mp3 originated version, let alone the others.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Why do you think that? Physically, it is a tough media. Sonically, it has way more response and sonic information on it that a CD does. That is easily shown but the hard to displute fact it takes a much higher resolution than 16/44.1k to capture what is on it to a decent digital version. 

 

With regard to LP limitations I meant that certain levels of waveforms are just not attempted, because cartridges will never be able to track them, or adjacent grooves are just too close to each other - that type of thing.

 

I have never had issues with digital "capturing all the information" - CD replay for me conveyed all I have ever heard from vinyl, in the earliest years of the silver disk being around - I can think of only about 2 TT rigs I've heard in the last 35 years that had anything really special about them.