Lies about vinyl vs digital

[fas42]

And it gets worse. Stupid Windows can't handle the name of the folder, even PeaZip throws up its hands - Paul, an asterisk in the name is death to Windows file handling, needs to be excluded for anything to work.

[fas42]

Ahhh, thanks for that, Dennis! I haven't fired up 7-Zip for ages - and it did the job; need to update the beast, .

 

Yes, Chrome is better behaved with Dropbox - I've resorted to using it on several occasions, as a workaround.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Y'all need to take a step back here. You are both right, and to some degree, both wrong too. 

 

Alex, it is not possible for anyone to hear a signal at 50khz. It isn't a theory, it is indeed fact. Our auditory systems are not sensitive in that frequency range. 

 

Ralf - it is possible that capturing the entire signal, including inaudible parts, also captures something, or enables something, that we can hear. I do not know what and don't even have a viable theory about what that something would be.

 

 

Because the explanation is remarkably simple, it's largely ignored - not chewy enough! The hardware, the circuitry, because of how it's engineered, implemented will just happen to do a better job translating into analogue from some formats, adding fewer audible, irritating anomalies - unfortunately, this is in the realm where one can't have fancy handwaving debates about how to do things; this is all about taking great care on "tiny" details.

 

Precision, being fussy about everything, is the answer - and always will be ...

[fas42]

Ultrasonics are a nonsense, as far as making replay sound "more real" - the transition into convincing SQ occurs when the level of certain anomalies in the sound field drops below a particular level; the brain then "fills the gaps". Unfortunately, it is far from trivial achieving that quality; at the moment, spending decent plus to absurd money for the 'right' components should get one mighty close - otherwise, experienced tweaking is the answer ... .

[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.

 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Rexp said:

Just tried comparing in Foobar and the 24/192 is clearly better than the 16/44.1 its not even close. Maybe the down sampled file would sound better if the original was recorded at 24/176.4? Very interesting, Thank you @Paul R

 

Just be aware - unless Foobar has significantly changed in the meantime - that the ABX module is useless for comparing this sort of thing; the software resamples what you're comparing to a common rate, and saves temporary copies to a work folder - that's what you are actually listening to.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

I first suspected the cart, but if anything - it is something to do with the recording setup. What, given the only change needed to produce that bit of oddness is the recording sample rate, I do not know. Cables are impedance matched of course correct resistors in them, correctly grounded, etc. Channel-D built these cables, but same result with home built cables. 

 

It it could be something inherent with the sample rate but I cannot imagine what, and am very unwilling to go down that road. Operator Error is much more likely. 

 

Okay Frank - this sounds like you believe this is a problem in your kinda world. Where in specific, would you look?  

 

 

 

 

I can't imagine that it's anything to do with the rig - unless the cartridge has warming up behaviour. I once heard a very ambitious setup, with a Benz catridge, change very considerably over an hour - the owner accepted that the cartridge had this characteristic - I would have a hard time doing so!

 

More likely that there is a setting somewhere in your recording chain, that is effectively giving this result. Which may be buried deep inside some menu, and you have to know it's there. Just to confirm that it is the recording setup, I would feed in say a white noise track from the analogue outputs of a CD player and record that at both 44.1 and 192k - and see what shows. If there is still a tilt, then you need to go over every settings area with a fine tooth comb.

[fas42]

Regarding calibrating visual displays, I used the Joe Kane DVD kit to get our flat screen the first step of the way. Which still resulted in an unsatisfactory picture. So I used manual tweaking to squeeze it into best alignment; which has lasted, untouched, for many years.

 

The problem now is that the channels are being run by the kids, and they love colour pumping - super orange, super pink presenters. At times you get the bizarre presentation of three talking heads on a split screen; one natural, one orange, and one pink - one almost needs dynamic colour correction to get rid of the cartoon colour fetishes of the networks.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Likewise . I used the Joe Kane DVD from Widescreen Review magazine for calibrating my TV, but it still needed a little tweaking , perhaps due to ambient lighting differences ?.

 

Mainly, it was too coarse in what it provided as tools for getting the colours spot on - things like gardening shows were giving me poor greens; I have plants outside my window to immediately compare with, and the TV colours were just wrong. Spending time over several days playing with the the RGB drive settings got it closer and closer - get it right, and the picture always satisfies.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

  A good question. Perhaps the shape of the actual binary waveforms are a little different ?

You MAY be able to see the differences using Hospital Grade imaging ?

 John Swenson has also stated from his experience in a HDD fabrication plant that system noise is also stored on the HDD, albeit at a low level that he believed should not affect data retrieval.

 

 

The answer is that at many points in the reading of the signal analogue processes are doing the work, and that directly, or indirectly affects signals elsewhere in the playback chain; in the key, analogue areas at the DAC and after - it's a noise issue, and even if it's not obvious how there can be a relationship - it most certainly is there; if you have no trouble hearing a difference.

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Barry and his wife accurately described the differences.

An extract only : " as though some random treble energy surrounded the details in the recordings."

 This was with the portable DVD USB powered writer version only .

 

Never fear, Alex, I get it ... a typical shortful of less than optimum digital playback is that the treble is poorly executed - the treble is there, but it's quite unrealistic; doesn't measure up to what the actual sound would be like. Whether it sounds like excess energy depends on everything - this is a key part of optimising replay, and it's like the "snap to" behaviour of software graphic editors; the treble 'snaps' into alignment, and you can't imagine that it could sound better than it currently is.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

I have always used standard or natural with slight adjustments. Skin tones are the hardest to reproduce accurately. Photographers can confirm that. 

 

Don’t expect the skin color to be natural as all of them would have painted their skin to look good on screen. I mostly watch documentaries relating to nature and that gives a nice reference for accurate adjustment. For movies, my preference is not shared by daughter. My son and wife don’t care. 

 

But the adjustments is always going on depending on movies. 

 

Presenters on shows have plenty of foundation caked on - in fact it looks pretty silly at times, because the texture variation between the face, and exposed skin elsewhere on their body is far too obvious. Best is often news reports, where people on the street are interviewed, etc; for checking skin tones.

 

If you're interested in plants that is often the best; the kick of the flower colour contrasting with the sudbued greens, and browns of the leaves and stalks should come across as being "right".

 

Period movies and series quite often have the colours cut right back, to emphasise the "old worldliness" of the setting - I like that type of thing, and don't try and compensate.

[fas42]

44 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 It's even worse than the attached these days .

 

Actually I don't see a problem with the 'louder' versions here, until the 2000 one - up to 1993 it's just slightly increasing the peak value; only the 2000 version has limiting or clipping taking place, meaning dynamics are lost.

 

This is purely from looking at the visual capture of the waveform, from that gif.

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Frank

 I have seen many recent recordings that are far worse than this since then.

 

 What many people don't realise is that this excessive compression destroys most of the background ambient information, and with female voices for example, makes them sound far harder sounding, losing any natural sweetness that most males appreciate in a female's voice. It tends to make many female voices sound much the same, losing their individuality.

 

Of course that's the case - but I would just say that your gif is not a particularly clear, and obvious, example of the poor attitude used in much current mastering.

 

The compression doesn't destroy the ambient information, at all - but it adds a relentless, in your face quality to the presentation - very tiring to listen to. Which is why these recordings can be rescued - intelligently undo the worst excesses, and the transformation is truly remarkable!

 

Harder sounding, loss of natural sweetness occurs because the playback rig is working in a zone where it's not comfortable - it's testing the competence of the system for handling the much higher average levels ... I have CDs which are a torture test, for the sort of tweaks I do, because of this characteristic.

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I don't agree. I f the compressed recording isn't a basket case, you can often retrieve the markedly degraded ambience information by using a program such as SeeDeClip Duo Pro, which can often also be very worthwhile with many earlier music videos too, if you extract the audio, declip it and remux it back in with the original video.

 

Alex, you misunderstood. I agree that a rescue is possible, meaning that the ambient info is much easier to hear - IOW, it hasn't been destroyed by the poor mastering; it still exists on the source.

 

47 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 That may be the case with your gear, but it certainly isn't the case with mine.

 

The hardest recordings to 'tame' are those with excessive limiting, played as mastered. Adele's 21 is one that is a good sorting tool, I've found - previous rig struggled with it, current NAD setup handles it nicely.

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

And the public is conditioned to it.  Then when they hear correctly engineered live music, or properly mixed and mastered recordings, it sounds somehow 'off' to them.  If it sounds strained, squashed, loud all the time, instruments and vocals all blended into mush, it sounds great.  If it sounds crisp, snappy, with overall levels that breathe, ebb and flow, and instruments you can tell apart, it's sounds 'wrong'.

 

Yes. Which is why I never go to 'live' shows; the PA is set up to do as much damage as possible - "You mean, you want me to pay to come in and listen to this awful sound!"

 

Quote

 

It'll take years to get it all sorteduncompressing out, what's good sound and what's not. 

 

And guess what: An 'audiophile' stereo system on a PENTAGON-budget won't make that SHIT sound even 0.0001% better.

 

It will take years ... but uncompressing, and unmixing the master will solve many of the issues with the stuff they're doing now - this sort of processing is being actively investigated; and will keep getting better ...

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Anything they can do to Britney (sp?)  Spears is gotta be an improvement. Retirement maybe?  

 

 

The type of limiting that is often done on the final mix, which never actually clips, is not too hard to reverse - done adroitly, it becomes a very reasonable recording to listen to.

 

There was a famous example of extreme compression that was applied to a heavy metal band track that I had a go at once - Metallica?? - and it turned out quite well; there will be an industry doing this one day ...

[fas42]

10 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

By sorting out I meant otherwise: Reconditioning the public to what a good pop song can sound like again.

 

 

Two things need to be done: yes, the public needs to be 'educated'; but also all the material that has been brutalised in the last couple of decades should be salvaged - I reckon there's probably at least a dozen good songs done over that period ....

[fas42]

If you master for CD, you can have dynamics as 'massive' as you want - what trips up then is that the playback chain isn't up to it - and as so often in audiophile land, everything is blamed except what is near and dear to the audiophile; his beloved rig .

 

I have quite a few CDs which I would never bother trying first time on an unknown rig; there is every chance they would make a complete mess of them; and the possibility of getting somewhere with the owner would likely be lost ...

[fas42]

Are you equating

 

Quote

I have quite a few CDs which I would never bother trying first time on an unknown rig; there is every chance they would make a complete mess of them; and the possibility of getting somewhere with the owner would likely be lost ...

 

with

 

6 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Over-compressed, brickwall limited, hyper-EQd and otherwise mangled shit sounds just like that - over-compressed, brickwall limited, hyper-EQd shit - no matter what it's listened to on!  And that's sad, because I do like some of todays's pop, r&b, and rock releases, despite current, hurrible production values...!

 

 

?

[fas42]

The playback system must not add any further distortion to 'poorly mastered' material - this is much easier said than done, and highly compressed recordings put much greater stress on the playback's capabilities; exposing weaknesses in reproduction chain more readily.

 

This doesn't excuse bad mastering; but don't blame particularly poor subjective reproduction as being caused by "accurate" playback ...

[fas42]

10 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I don't know what  to make of ^this^!   Can you sort out that disaster?

 

Pretty simple.

 

Quote

This doesn't excuse bad mastering;

 

Happy with that?

 

Quote

don't blame particularly poor subjective reproduction as being caused by "accurate" playback

 

What people call "accurate" I usually find very obviously audibly flawed - they jump up and down about "great measurements!", but there are deficiencies in the, yes, accuracy which the ears are sensitive to that you could drive a bus through. So, subjectively, they "mess up the recording" - the number of expensive rigs I've heard where half of the detail is missing, and what's left has been energetically trampled on - but the audiophiles around me are blissfully unaware ...

 

IOW, don't point to a rig and say that must be telling the full story, because of a few numbers you throw at me - recordings when competently played back can still be enjoyed as an experience, "no matter how bad", because they allow the ear/brain to hear past the issues.

[fas42]

On 5/22/2019 at 8:05 AM, The_K-Man said:

 

If you're suggesting using the rig to 'remaster' the recording during playback, nahh, I ain't into that freaky stuff.  😜

 

Nothing's being remastered - but everything that's on the recording is fully revealed. Which means that every tiny sound that's in the data is fully available to the ear/brain to process. That includes two things: the actual musical event that took place; and all the processing add-ons, defects of the recording technology, faults in the media archive, everything else. Now, the ear/brain is a magical bit of kit, and when full detail is there the mind can sort everything into different compartments - it's how we in everyday life can handle being in a noisy place, and not go mad trying to follow some particular source of sound - standing besides a busy road, we can easily understand the voice of the person talking nearby.

 

This is what happens with competent playback - what matters rises to the top, and our minds discard what's irrelevant; including 'ugly' stuff done to the recorded sounds. If one has not heard this 'miracle' take place, by listening to a rig that's good enough, then it may seem impossible - but I've experienced this for the last three decades at various times ... so, I expect and work towards this capability.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I was using 'remaster' in a perjorative sense: attempting to improve the sound of a suitcase recording on a home system with EQ, or by upgrading speaker wire or a component, etc.

 

EQ is completely unnecessary if the playback is working to a high enough standard; 'upgrading' a component or aspect of a setup may be exactly what's required to sort a flaw in the perceived sound.

 

You see, I work completely back to front to everyone else; I don't stand on my ego tip toes, and proclaim that "my rig tells me exactly how good the recordings are!", Rather, I view the recordings as the masters  of the situation, and the playback system as the servant; the latter has to be sufficiently worthy to do justice to the music captured ... and having that viewpoint is exactly what has allowed me to extract the potential in the recordings. If I had a dollar for the number of times I have heard an ambitious rig play a recording I know well, and I just shake my head at how pathetic its attempt to make something of it is ... the person demo'ing the setup is of course blissfully unaware ...

[fas42]

13 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

But.... If the "flaw in the perceived sound" is a song or album that is a loudness-war casualty, no upgrade of listener equipment can fix that.  Nor can buying that song in 'hi-res'.  If it's an over-compressed 🦆 it's an over-compressed 🦆!

 

Just making sure all the audiophiles out there understand that.

 

I have already said many times that extreme loudness-war efforts are the hardest to 'tame' - there are a number of relevant factors:

 

• Real life music is never so dynamically squashed, so emotionally these sort of recordings can be hard to deal with - and the more accurate the system the worse this gets; fatigue from dealing with the artificial intensity sets in quickly; IT'S LIKE DEALING WITH THIS SORT OF SENSORY INPUT !!!
• A rig will always have more problems replaying compressed music, everything else being equal, because the power supplies, etc, are being worked harder; the average sound levels are higher which means the circuitry is working closer to the areas where any issues will be more obvious
• A genuine solution is to uncompress what's been delivered to you as the recording - do a one time, professional quality undoing of this 'bad' mastering, save it, and never play the original again ...