Jump to content
IGNORED

Lies about vinyl vs digital


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Many  of you know that I consider the problem of DolbyA decoding to sometimes be one of the quality differences between vinyl and CD.  I just got an answer (after 3+yrs and writing my own -- VERY GOOD -- DolbyA decoder) from someone who actually does do 'CD greatest hits' type releases.

First -- the problem with CD releases is true, and it happens a lot.

Next -- It is not a planned thing, and apparently it is not an intentional 'shortcut' per-se. 

Next -- The problem depends on the record label and their record keeping/library integrity

 

Paraphrasing what was 'splained to me -- the paper records and tape labels are sometimes not in very good shape.  Some tapes are even missing calibration tones, but the various identifiers on the tapes are sometimes missing.  Since an EQed DolbyA encoded tape doesn't sound horrible, the wrong choice of decoding is very often made -- and (my idea inserted:  decoding  is an extra step that is easy to avoid).

 

So, from the  horses' mouth -- the leaked DolbyA does happen *often*, but is apparently unintentional.

 

Finally -- I found the right place (a secret place) to ask these questions.  I wasn't even told that I am an idiot or there is something wrong with me because of my suspicion :-).

 

John

 

What are the audible effects of:

 

Encoded with Dolby A but no decode on playback?

 

Not encoded with A but decode enabled on playback?

 

Both encode and decode present, but poor alignment?

 

If I knew what to listen for on my CDs that would be helpful in determining if a better version of some is  out there.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

If I knew what to listen for on my CDs

 

That would require a deep knowledge of ABBA first. Haha.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
23 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

I'm trying to promote the production values that resulted in albums like Joel's 'The Stranger' from 1977.  Blows away any recent Bieber album in terms of any measurement of actual fidelity.

 

And indeed that is exactly where it stops. Maybe it is good to take into account that you could be too obsessed about numbers as such, because The Stranger sounds all but good. That is, in the original version as far as I can tell and with only slightly "worse" figures than the Supertramp album I talked about. The exhibit is further quite the same. Cardboard drums and in this case also flat with as extra bonus that it is almost mono. Keep in mind please, all is relative but the so small channel separation is rather "special". Possibly it was created from LP.  swoon.gif.c7728ac9948ed7b2d56aa7293675bad5.gif

 

Now on to The Moody Blues.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

And indeed that is exactly where it stops. Maybe it is good to take into account that you could be too obsessed about numbers as such, because The Stranger sounds all but good. That is, in the original version as far as I can tell and with only slightly "worse" figures than the Supertramp album I talked about. The exhibit is further quite the same. Cardboard drums and in this case also flat with as extra bonus that it is almost mono. Keep in mind please, all is relative but the so small channel separation is rather "special". Possibly it was created from LP.  swoon.gif.c7728ac9948ed7b2d56aa7293675bad5.gif

 

Now on to The Moody Blues.

 

I'd rather a CD - properly Dolby-A'd - from a LP master than one from a squashed, brickwall limited and loudened up remaster, any day!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The_K-Man said:

 

I'd rather a CD - properly Dolby-A'd - from a LP master

 

In the context of what I told ?

No.

I'd rather pick up model railroading.

 

And the Dolby-A is utter BS (with respect to John btw).

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

What are the audible effects of:

 

Encoded with Dolby A but no decode on playback?

 

Not encoded with A but decode enabled on playback?

 

Both encode and decode present, but poor alignment?

 

If I knew what to listen for on my CDs that would be helpful in determining if a better version of some is  out there.

 

Encoded but no decode, No EQ to compensate in released copy:

Seldom happens, but shrill/intense highs, flat stereo image, strange bass, choral vocals tend to be harsh, obvious HF compression, lots of hissssss...  My ABBA Gold/1992 and More ABBA Gold/1993 are both good examples of totally un EQed DolbyA... An example from 'More ABBA Gold" "The Day Before You Came"

Undecoded:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n5unhmx2ozpqzk9/ABBA-DayBeforeYouCame-undecoded.mp3?dl=0

Decoded:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5om7sc0397359gk/ABBA-DayBeforeYouCame-decoded.mp3?dl=0

 

Encoded but no decode, some EQ to help compensate:

Unreal/springy highs, flat stereo image, strange bass, harsh choral vocals, excess hiss -- but not severe.  Much materail has been passed as 'good', but is actually undecoded DolbyA.  When material has been EQed, but is electronic-type pop material  - it can be super difficult to distinguish undecoded material...  Here is material with more natural sound that is undecoded (directly from the Brasil'66 album -- natural type recording) -- first three seconds blank.  There is also the decoded version (unmastered -- just decoded):

undecoded:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xu6aat13grifn7e/Brasil66-03.With A Little Help From My Friends-undecoded.mp3?dl=0

decoded:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nhma4bq3mdx9ujh/Brasil66-03.With A Little Help From My Friends-DHNRDSDA.mp3?dl=0

 

 

Not encoded, but attempted decode:

Jumpy sound, gating (soft material disappears), jerking in peaks, sometimes 'DEAD' sounding,  sometimes very excess sibilance (old recordings had a lot of 's' enhancement, but made much worse when attempting to process material that hasn't been encoded.)

Over-decoded "day before you came" -- really dead:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hai1eiin74r026n/ABBA-DayBeforeYouCame-OVERDECODED.mp3?dl=0

 

Poor alignment:

Similar to 'not encoded', but usually less severe. Finding correct alignment and corrective EQ on 'leaked' consumer material can be a game of whack a mole.

 

Trying to detect 'leaked' material vs. artists intent:

The easiest way to determine is to have correct reference material (of course.)  It can be very difficult to conclusively decide whether an audio issue is 'artists intent', 'poor recording/mastering' or undecoded material.

 

Here are some hints for detection (assuming they used EQ to partially correct the sound -- makes it more difficult):

Listen carefully for vocal sibilance being a little too sweet.  Listen for the springy sound of HF compression.  Listen for a little bit more hiss than usual.  Oddly thin bass (the feeling that a bit more bass is needed, but not really...  Almost seems  like a suppression of the upper low end -- like 100-300Hz... Probably most egregious when it happens:  flat stereo spatial relations.  Audio effects not quite as effective as they should be (listen to the 'Moving in Stereo' example that I pointed to earlier -- the undecoded had an 'ok' stereo picture, but with proper decoding, then the meaning of the song becomes more obvious.)

Moving in Stereo:

undecoded:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y8czwibps2chg1n/Cars-06. Moving in Stereo-undecoded.mp3?dl=0

decoded:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bfertqaeabt5dnd/Cars-06. Moving in Stereo-decoded.mp3?dl=0

 

Detection of DolbyA encoding is VERY difficult without knowing the original material.  The undecoded version of the Cars examples that I have discussed privately doesn't sound deadly bad -- but then after decoding, then the problem of not-decoding becomes obvious.

 

Finding out if something needs decoding or not is a lot like fixing an audio problem -- it isn't nearly as noticeable until the problem is actually solved -- then the original problem becomes more obvious.

 

Listening to my online examples might be a good first cut for training for undecoded vs decoded listening.  I can come up with more training example also -- but trying to be 100% accurate is futile.  It is difficult for me to be totally correct about DolbyA compression, and I have been 'training' myself for several years.

 

My own procedure is something like this:

1) listen to a recording, if something seems to be 'wrong' (e.g.  a little too obvious HF compression, dead stereo spatial depth, thin/unreal bass, slightly 'sweet' sibilance....  If there seems to be something wrong -- go to the next step.

2) listen more carefully -- try to find significant audible hiss.  With my old hearing, if hiss is very audible, then that adds to the 'probably need to decode' tally.  Hiss is NOT a good first qualification though.  If does pass most 'probably encoded' tests -- go to the very last step.

3) if still not quite sure, take a look at the spectogram.  if there is a moderately strong veil of noise (default setting of audacity, 100dB range) that can be seen without gain-up on the spectogram, or if the veil around the spectrums seems too strong -- then do a gain-up.  If before or after the gain-up, there is a general increase in hiss between about 12-15k and 20+kH, then the liklihood of DolbyA is higher.  If there is a fairly strong veil around the spectrum spikes, but the background noise is a little stronger than it should probably be -- then that is another kind of DolbyA encoding instance.  (There are several combinations of this descriptions that indicate DolbyA -- and are only valid if some of the tests in item 1 or 2 above are passed.)

 

4) (final) -- try to decode the materai.  Search the common calibration levels for 'leaked' consumer material -- if there is a calibration point that sounds more normal, and doens't have new artifacts -- then the liklihoold of encidng is VERY high.

 

The only time that I am 100% sure about whether or not something is encoded:  that is, when I have a professionally decoded copy (most often inferior) and compare it with my own decoded copy.  If they end up being very similar -- then my original was encoded.

This last direct comparison is almost like -- you'll pass the test if you already have the answers :-).

 

Summing my very long answer up:  Impossible to be 100% whether or not something is encoded & all these lack of absolutes are one major reason why the decoder can not be a normal consumer product.  There would be WAY WAY WAY too many support issues.

 

John

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

In the context of what I told ?

No.

I'd rather pick up model railroading.

 

And the Dolby-A is utter BS (with respect to John btw).

Just got confirmation from an engineer who put together 'greatest hits' type releases in the 1990s'.  He said that it IS a problem, and he explained the reasons from his standpoint.

 

This shows that sometimes 'Mavericks' with integrity are correct -- but skepticism is also good.  Being closed to analysis, new thoughts and ideas is NOT a good strategy.  Finding things out that cause a bit of an emotional threat to people can be problematical...

There was a Saturday Night live skit where Steve Martin played a genius caveman who created fire.  His cohorts thought him to be odd, and killed him.

 

(with respect to those who have disagreed with my observation -- geesh it was just an observation of fact -- not so much a personal opinion.)

 

John

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Just got confirmation from an engineer who put together 'greatest hits' type releases in the 1990s'.  He said that it IS a problem, and he explained the reasons from his standpoint

 

Wait ... The context is more complicated, but it almost gets personal (not for attacking, but for view points or reason for life etc. blahblah). I mean:

 

I stopped listening to hits when the 80's were under way. That is a personal thing.

I most certainly don't even dare to turn on the radio in the 2010's because of the Justin Bleeper effect. This is hardly personal were if for audiophiledom. There's just no discussion needed. It is nothing - period (but I hope you agree - haha).

 

I also don't play ABBA and the like, because it is not my music at all. This is most certainly personal, although it is hard to see how an audiophile as such can like ABBA. Same thing for Billy Joel (personal again, and my view on it again is personal).

So from these perceptions there is nothing to do on whatever what (not) happened to that material. BUT:

It is your best working material, as I understand. This is a bit of the same as my preference for ambient/goa/whatever sh*t because I think it is the most demanding (and thus build the "designs" around that) while nobody likes that music, *if* it's not test tones to begin with (at least my wife calls it that).

Now suppose e.g. House is poor sounding ... I would not talk people into a general problem only because of House fails. Only a few House (Party) bold heads may suffer.

 

What I responded to was a. K-man and b. his perception of how suddenly Dolby-A failure let fail all my music (no he did not say that, but this is what can be derived from it). I call this utter BS because I don't recognize it. But I also don't play 90's hits etc. However ...

I most certainly *do* play the 60s and 70s hits and nothing sounds more good and beautiful than stuff of that era. Try Middle of The Road, to name something. Again 1000s if you count out the hits. 100s for the very best ones. Of course these are transfers because no digital existed at the time. Obviously one must still avoid the "remasters" but let's say I can find my ways in that (already because I own a lot of "hits of" right from the start in 1983 - and btw this is more a Europe thing than a USA thing, as I found).

 

John, you know I'll do anything to improve sound again. But this is from the perspective of being an audiophile who merely explores on behalf of customers, putting himself ahead by no coincidence. I won't waste time because I get it back a 1000 times.

But to state I am in lack of something ? no. Nowhere. And I guarantee you that this counts for customers as well. We don't need -  nor can use talking into trouble. K-Man does too much of that IMHO and you just do great work.

You might try to go a Ray Brown route. Or maybe Led Zeppelin. And again 1000s more. Now your audience grows which may also count for the labels (in the end your target).

 

Best regards,

Peter

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Wait ... The context is more complicated, but it almost gets personal (not for attacking, but for view points or reason for life etc. blahblah). I mean:

 

I apologize for misunderstanding -- you might not believe the backpressure that I have gotten.  Frankly, I cannot stand to listen to one more minute of ABBA...   I lost interest in music 100% in the late 1980s (coincedentally, but not because of MTV quit being MTV.)

 

My actual motivation is 'problem solving'...   I saw an engineering problem and I am an incredibly compulsive person -- with a compulsion to 'fix or make' things.  I will spend any available resource to solve a problem...  (That is why I was given the really outlandish projects at Bell Labs -- it wasn't because I was a 'good programmer', even though I was.)  It is because I pull resources together until problems are solved.


That means -- TADA -- I can be difficult, which means that sometimes situations become uncomfortable.

Now *I* have a problem -- that is -- problem solved, now where is my next project?  Telcom C4 doesn't turn me on, but I am obligated to do it -- because I CAN.  Even the guy who has been trying to do it over the years wants my help...

 

Come-on, anyone got any ideas (other than Prozac?) :-).

 

John

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Come-on, anyone got any ideas (other than Prozac?) :-).

 

Have a really loud laugh like I am having over here now ?

 

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I saw an engineering problem and I am an incredibly compulsive person -- with a compulsion to 'fix or make' things.

 

Tell me about it. The base problem could be being an audiophile. :)

 

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

you might not believe the backpressure that I have gotten.

 

Wasn't that for real ? I think so ...

 

Heads up, John

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
On 5/21/2019 at 10:44 AM, Paul R said:

 

Okay, I grant you are correct in your conclusions. Let’s say then, I strongly believe all, or at least the vast majority of all music on iTunes has a high res original, be it 24/48 or 24/96, or above. 

 

I also strongly believe, but cannot provide absolute proof of, all new music is recorded at higher than CD resolution, usually much higher, and so providing Apple with high resolutions originals is neither difficult or any extra expense. 

 

How is that?  😎

 

Is this more of the disconnect you talk about? As much as I’d like to criticize Lee Scoggins some more, I don’t see anything wrong with what he wrote January 9, 2018 in the Part-Time Audiophile “MQA files are coming out fast.  Look at the 10K+ titles on Tidal.  They just started in January 2017 with MQA.  By September 31st, Tidal had added in a whopping seven times the total amount of high-res files that existed pre-MQA.  If you like high-res, this is the best chance to get more of it.” Ken Forsythe of MQA told me essentially the same numbers at RMAF 2017. Mark Waldrep has reported similar numbers of high-resolution files.

 

Earlier this month the RIAA reported there were more than 35,000 albums available to consumers in formats 24/44.1 studio production format or higher in the United States.

 

At the Los Angeles Audio Show in 2017 label representatives where asked if Apple had a treasure trove of high-resolution albums just like you believe. They answered we can only give them what we have, and each stated the number of high-resolution they had. Numbers that were consistent with growth to the current number 35,000.

 

For you to be right a lot people are wrong about the number of high-resolution files that exist today or there is a huge number of high-resolution files sitting on servers that labels and other distributors can’t release because of licensing issues. It is unlikely Apple would have these on their servers.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

In the context of what I told ?

No.

I'd rather pick up model railroading.

 

And the Dolby-A is utter BS (with respect to John btw).

 

If you prefer the remaster, remember that will be even more removed from the original sound of the master tapes.  Probably even 'picket-fenced' loud, with 4-8dB of peak limiting.

 

No thanks!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Is this more of the disconnect you talk about? As much as I’d like to criticize Lee Scoggins some more, I don’t see anything wrong with what he wrote January 9, 2018 in the Part-Time Audiophile “MQA files are coming out fast.  Look at the 10K+ titles on Tidal.  They just started in January 2017 with MQA.  By September 31st, Tidal had added in a whopping seven times the total amount of high-res files that existed pre-MQA.  If you like high-res, this is the best chance to get more of it.” Ken Forsythe of MQA told me essentially the same numbers at RMAF 2017. Mark Waldrep has reported similar numbers of high-resolution files.

 

Earlier this month the RIAA reported there were more than 35,000 albums available to consumers in formats 24/44.1 studio production format or higher in the United States.

 

At the Los Angeles Audio Show in 2017 label representatives where asked if Apple had a treasure trove of high-resolution albums just like you believe. They answered we can only give them what we have, and each stated the number of high-resolution they had. Numbers that were consistent with growth to the current number 35,000.

 

For you to be right a lot people are wrong about the number of high-resolution files that exist today or there is a huge number of high-resolution files sitting on servers that labels and other distributors can’t release because of licensing issues. It is unlikely Apple would have these on their servers.

 

No, I was not talking about MQA in any sense.  

 

I was talking about the libraries that Apple, Amazon, and other companies have. Apple at least transcodes the music they deliver to 256 AAC, it is not archived in that format in their library.

 

I believe what Mark and others are reporting is the number of high-resolution files currently available for sale or download, not the actual number that exists out there. Certainly, the labels do not keep masters in 16/44.1 or below, so even at that level, far more hi-res music tracks exist than that figure. 

 

To get an idea, one would need to know how many Albums/Tracks/Singles are released in a year and some idea of the demographics. I have not fully considered the matter, but there are estimates on the net that vary wildly, from 40K to well over 100K.  But it is very unlikely that the source/masters for those songs are in CD format, or MP3, or even MQA. They are almost certainly in hi-res format, even if that is just 24/48k. 

 

So I expect that a total of 35K albums, meaning 350k tracks or thereabouts, is a very low number indeed. 

 

-Paul 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
On 5/22/2019 at 6:27 PM, fas42 said:

Nothing's being remastered - but everything that's on the recording is fully revealed. Which me

 

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.

Link to comment

RPM

.

!cid_e7eb40b0-023d-4ffa-8f16-03d56ef408d7.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
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 :D 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 ...

Link to comment
10 hours ago, fas42 said:

'upgrading' a component or aspect of a setup may be exactly what's required to sort a flaw in the perceived sound.

 

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.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

Some truly believe they could do just that even with a $10 driver. It is an amazing hobby with so diverse beliefs that cannot bee seen anywhere else.  

 

$10 driver - speaker driver?

 

"diverse beliefs" - for sure! Some beliefs formed based on science, and others formed based on marketing  :D

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...