Lies about vinyl vs digital

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Why zip the files in the first place?

 

Some people believe that digital files lose quality when sent over the Internet and putting them in a zip container prevents this from happening.

[lucretius]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

Some people believe that digital files lose quality when sent over the Internet and putting them in a zip container prevents this from happening.

 

Thanks.  First time I've heard that.

[kumakuma]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

Thanks.  First time I've heard that.

 

It's complete BS, of course.

[lucretius]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Are you unable to understand what I typed ?

 It's simply a waste of my time further discussing things like this with members who refuse to accept ALL Subjective reports, even when performed by a highly acclaimed Recording Engineer.

 

IF you are genuinely interested,  send elcorso a PM for details on the series of tests that were carried out.

 

 

No need for hostility.

 

I assumed the degradation mentioned related to compressing files, so uncompressed files were the way to go.  Now I see you mean that a zip file somehow prevents the music file from being degraded.

[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.  

[STC]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

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.

 

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. 

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, esldude said:

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

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

 My hearing limitations are much worse than yours but I can still hear differences between flac and the original .aiff or .wav file, and RBCD and the higher resolution formats. Even the same audio at 16/48 kHz on a video sounds better to me than the same on 16/44.1

[Rexp]

29 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. 

I used Vox player on a Macbook and thought the 24/192 much better, will give another listen..

[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.  

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

@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.  

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 

 

 

[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. 

[Paul R]

12 minutes ago, esldude said:

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.  

Yeah - an embarrassing mistake on those first files. Apologies guys.   I appreciate it is a lot of trouble to listen to even a couple minutes of sample sound. Thank you!! 

 

I am always willing to throw out any theory of mine if I find - or someone else finds -  one better. By better, I mean it gives more accurate predictions. I may not like giving up a pet theory, but a better one is always exciting to find.

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

22 minutes ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

I will definitely have to do it blindly, because I  think I can tell differences besides the click/pop.   I will just load both versions into a Roon playlist, and set it on an infinite loop. I'll go away for a while then come back and join it "in progress." Not truly blind, because I could cheat. But I won't.

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

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.  

 

Reading the other thread by PKane ( is it Paul or Peter?) , it just shows how different machines performance differently. 

 

There are simply too many variables that it is hard to discuss about the difference one hears without knowing his setup ( and state of the mind at that moment).  Let's take an example of Audacity and compare 16/44.1 and 24.192.

 

1) Do you set the project rate at 44.1 or 192?

 

2) Do you set the soundcard at 44.1 or 192?

 

3) How will the soundcard treat the noise in the different sampling rate?

 

4) Is this truly a blind test with all other setting being the same?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if I were to upload two identical files and do a blind test by looking for a marker, they might be distinguishable.

 

Having said that, I am happy with 24/96 and iTunes downloads sound  transparent enough. If it doesn't,  then make it sound good. I didn't buy high end to listen to recordings that are  approved by audiophiles to sound good. We should have the freedom, like a sound engineer to tune our system to make every recordings to be better than what it is.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

I used Vox player on a Macbook and thought the 24/192 much better, will give another listen..

 Please my reply to Esldude above. 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

I used Vox player on a Macbook and thought the 24/192 much better, will give another listen..

 

I am not into .aiff , as l use a Windows 10 PC not a Mac,  and use JRiver with .wav. files 

These files opened for me using Foobar 2000, and I also found the 24/192 version sounded much better, and was quite a bit more enjoyable.

 

So Dennis , you appear to be the odd man out on this occasion, and I know that it's not due to your hearing capabilities as you have previously demonstrated with samples from John Kenny of Shelby Lynne, which perhaps brings us back to what we have been privately discussing via email today ?

 

Quote

This alone should make the 44.1 sound different-fas42 (Post 1392)

Agreed.

[STC]

31 minutes ago, STC said:

4) Is this truly a blind test with all other setting being the same?

 

5) how the amp behaves when hiRez signal is fed to them?

 

My Classe amp ran hotter when I played DSD files compared to normal 16/44.1. The amp indeed will sound different at different temperature. 

[fas42]

There wasn't any point in more closely examining Pauls' first set of files, because of the extra processing that had occurred. But an interesting aspect in the second lot is that the energy in the above 10kHz region is greater in the 44.1k capture, increasing to about 3dB difference by 20k, where it obviously then drops to nothing - compared to the 192k capture. This alone should make the 44.1 sound different, though I haven't tried to listen for this - if one is not favourable to the treble in one's system then this would be enough to make one version preferrable. In the following, pink is the 44.1k version of course,

 

 

Why there should be this HF boost in Paul's 44.1k compared to the 192k capture is possibly a relevant factor.

 

[Teresa]

20 hours ago, Confused said:

Actually, the fact that 16/44.1 removes the ultrasonic content was key to my point, although I do not think I explained the point very well.

 

Looking at this another way, if we give a name to the audible change made to the fundamental frequency that is caused by the ultrasonic content, lets call this "toneX".  During the original performance the subject instrument will generate the ultrasonic content, create tonex, and tonex can be recorded with brick wall filtered 16/44.1, because it is in the audible range.  During playback via 16/44.1, tonex will be reproduced because it has been recorded and is in the audible range.  

 

Using say 24/192, tonex will be generated during the original performance and recorded.  During playback, the original recorded tonex will be reproduced, the original ultrasonic content will be also reproduced , and this will generate a second tonex.  So using 16/44.1 you would get one tonex per the original performance, using 24/192, you would get an additional tonex generated during reproduction, which would be a distortion to, or at least additional to, the original performance. 

 

I am not sure if that explains it any better, but it makes sense to me at least!

 

If "toneX" with ultrasonic content is recorded at 44.1kHz it no longer has the ultrasonic content because the brick wall filter removed it. The only way ultrasonics can effect audible frequencies is either live in person, or recording and playing back the ultrasonic frequencies.

 

17 hours ago, SoundAndMotion said:

...You and I interpret what @Teresa said differently, and what you are saying doesn't make sense to me anyway. I interpret what she says to mean timbre (a perception) is changed by the combination of tones, even tones you can't hear when presented alone. Say an instrument produces 7, 14, and 21kHz. I think she is saying ( @Teresa correct me if I'm wrong) that 7+14+21kHz may sound different to someone than just 7+14kHz, even though they can't hear a 21kHz pure tone. I don't know if that is true or not, but since the ear is certainly highly non-linear, it is not impossible. The shape of the wave could produce different responses, even if an ultrasonic sine wave can't be perceived...

 

Yes, your interpretation of what I said is correct. Your example of an instrument that produces 7, 14, and 21kHz. 7+14+21kHz may sound different to someone than just 7+14kHz, even though they can't hear a 21kHz pure tone.

 

It's the overtone series that determines how the fundamental tone sounds, thus why oboes and clarinets sound different playing the same note. Many instruments have overtones outside of the audible range, some as high as 100kHz. The theory is that just as the overtones in the audible range color the fundamental tone, so do inaudible ultrasonic frequencies, thus the tone produced is more accurate and more like what we hear live.

 

I think Chandos Records describes it best, see the end of the booklet of their newer SACDs.

 

Quote

...The theory is that, even though we do not hear it, audio energy exists, and it has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear , the higher sample rate thereby reproducing a better sound...

 

[Teresa]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

You do realize that you can have uncompressed FLAC files?

 

Uncompressed FLAC files are what I use, the file size is slightly larger than WAV as the metadata are stored in the music file.

[The_K-Man]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

LOL!  Well said.  There is not any real advantage of AIFF over FLAC, it is just that why even bother to compress them if you don't need to? Since yours are already compressed FLAC files, I would not change them. 

 

Most of my online storage is AWS or Apple, so I think that pretty safe. I do worry about the terabytes of images I have stored up with Adobe though. Have to do something about that sooner or later. Something besides keeping a copy here on local storage, which I already do.

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Sure, and that is probably a good option.

 

There is nothing wrong with keeping your files in either AIFF or FLAC format. Or WAV or ALC if those are what you prefer. I just feel a little more comfortable with my files in uncompressed format. That is just me though. 

 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

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

[davide256]

On 5/14/2019 at 8:21 PM, Teresa said:

 

Have to disagree with that. If ultrasonic overtones effect lower frequencies, they can have no effect if you record at 16/44.1 kHz since the ultrasonic overtones are removed by the brick wall filter at 22.05 kHz. So for them have an effect they have to be in the recording. Or to put this another way if you remove ultrasonic overtones they can no longer effect the timbre of the fundamental tone.

???

an overtone is created by the fundamental frequency, a harmonic, a resonance of the instrument. The total composition of overtones is what makes its signature, why we

can tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a Guarneri violin. Overtone resonance creation is stimulated by lower frequencies, not vice versa... think of it as a waste product.

from the fundamental.

 

Its basic indisputable research anyone can do at home to prove to themselves  that ultrasonics cannot be heard and that high frequency hearing declines with age...

asserting otherwise is believing in "phlogiston" and  going down a path that will only yield results by coincidental accident.

 

Instead look at the assertion that 44.1/16 rate can chop at 22khz without affecting  content in the 10-20khz range... that's  demonstrably false when compared to 96/24

for any piece with complex instrumentation.

 

 

[mansr]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

LOL!  Well said.  There is not any real advantage of AIFF over FLAC, it is just that why even bother to compress them if you don't need to?

Lower risk of damage from random data corruption. Hell, if you compress the files, you can even store two copies for extra safety.

 

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

Most of my online storage is AWS or Apple, so I think that pretty safe. I do worry about the terabytes of images I have stored up with Adobe though. Have to do something about that sooner or later. Something besides keeping a copy here on local storage, which I already do.

I keep backups of my photos on both Google and Amazon cloud storage. It seems unlikely that they'd both die at the same time.

[Teresa]

34 minutes ago, davide256 said:

an overtone is created by the fundamental frequency, a harmonic, a resonance of the instrument. The total composition of overtones is what makes its signature, why we

can tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a Guarneri violin. Overtone resonance creation is stimulated by lower frequencies, not vice versa... 

 

I agree with this, indeed in post 1393 I stated the overtone series is why an oboe and clarinet sound different when playing the same note. It's the different spacing of the overtones that causes the fundamental note to sound either like an oboe or clarinet or any other instrument. By removing overtones over 20kHz we are removing part of the overtone series that differentiates one instrument from another. I think it is better not to throw away the overtones over 20kHz if one wants more accurate timbre.

 

34 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Its basic indisputable research anyone can do at home to prove to themselves  that ultrasonics cannot be heard and that high frequency hearing declines with age...

asserting otherwise is believing in "phlogiston" and  going down a path that will only yield results by coincidental accident.

 

No one says ultrasonics can be heard, it is said ultrasonics effect what we can hear. Once again the quote from Chandos Records:

 

Quote

...The theory is that, even though we do not hear it, audio energy exists, and it has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear , the higher sample rate thereby reproducing a better sound...

 

34 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Instead look at the assertion that 44.1/16 rate can chop at 22khz without affecting  content in the 10-20khz range... that's  demonstrably false when compared to 96/24

for any piece with complex instrumentation.

 

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Lower risk of damage from random data corruption. Hell, if you compress the files, you can even store two copies for extra safety.

A serious question :

 When was the last time this happened to you ?

Modern computers appear to be far more reliable.

 I think that you are far more likely to have problems due to human error these days.

 A backup copy on a different drive should normally be all that is needed, although it doesn't hurt to save really important stuff on Optical media as well, and put it safely away.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

A serious question :

 When was the last time this happened to you ?

Modern computers appear to be far more reliable.

 I think that you are far more likely to have problems due to human error these days.

 A backup copy on a different drive should normally be all that is needed, although it doesn't hurt to save really important stuff on Optical media as well, and put it safely away.

The risk is small yet non-zero.

 

Going back to the why bother argument, that is actually stronger in the other direction. For music distributors and online stores, storage and bandwidth do matter, so they tend to keep the files as FLAC. They then sell you the same FLAC. Why bother decompressing it?