[HN Gopher] A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile worl... ___________________________________________________________________ A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire Author : mtg Score : 141 points Date : 2022-08-05 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com) | zac23or wrote: | Audiophile world is strange... | | Monster cables vs Coat hangers: | https://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-... | Warm up new headphones: | https://soundsightheadphones.com/guides/do-i-need-to-warm-up... | allears wrote: | People who claim CDs have more dynamic range than analog are | missing the point. Think of it in terms of graphics. 8 bit | graphics can represent totally black, or totally white. That's a | complete dynamic range. But it's the in-between shades that | require more bits to specify. | | It's the same with audio. It's not how soft or how loud a | recording can get. It's the subtle shades of variation. 16 bits | is pretty good, but not as good as 24 bits. You can tell by | listening to the shimmer of a cymbal, or a plucked string fading | to silence. You may not experience it as "stair-stepping," but | there's an added degree of realism that more bits can confer. | | And similarly about frequency range. Any audio system or media | has more linear reproduction in the middle part of its range. So | if you design a system that exceeds the range of human hearing, | you'll get more linearity within the audible part of that range. | mav88 wrote: | 16-bit 44kHz is fine for playback and stair stepping does not | exist: | | https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | No. A CD audio recording can contain literally all the | information in the audio spectrum with enough dynamic range to | capture human breathing and a jet flyover simultaneously. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theor... | Sporktacular wrote: | You are not understanding his point. Linear PCM systems | encode quiet parts of music with a lower signal to noise | level than louder parts. So by over-engineering the bit | depth, you keep the quantisation noise further from | perceptibility than without it. | | I think everyone gets sampling theory by now, your response | was to an audio engineer. | WiseWeasel wrote: | 1 bit color encoding is black and white (represented by 0 or | 1). 8 bits can encode 256 colors (2^8). | bfgoodrich wrote: | Kirby64 wrote: | I don't think they are. Dynamic range is easily quantifiable | and vinyl has worse dynamic range, full stop, compared to CDs. | Anyone claiming otherwise does not know how to measure dynamic | range. | | Likewise for bits, there is very little evidence (and, in fact, | lots of evidence to the contrary) that you can detect the | difference between a 24-bit and a 16-bit recording, assuming | they're mastered the same way. | apohn wrote: | > You can tell by listening to the shimmer of a cymbal, or a | plucked string fading to silence. | | I don't think this is true. A long time ago I was involved in | the headphone audiophile community and people were always using | the shimmer of a cymbal as how they could tell the difference | between MP3s and Lossless, Analog vs Digital, CD vs SACD or | whatever. Then they'd do a blind test using Foobar2000 and | start saying the whole blind testing methodology is flawed | because surely they can hear the difference under normal | listening conditions with their $1000 headphone connected to | their $3000 amp using their $2000 DAC. | | My favorite quote was from somebody who said "Nobody in this | community cares about music. They only care about their | equipment." | allears wrote: | I'm a recording engineer, and I can tell you that there | definitely is such a thing as high quality audio. Certainly | there are people who believe in snake oil and like to parade | their ignorance as though it were knowledge. But if you | bother to study the science of audio, read trade magazines, | or hang out with engineers and studio owners, you will find | that just quoting frequency range or dynamic range, or even | noise floor, is not enough to specify an excellent audio | signal. And if you think CD audio is as good as it gets, and | nobody can tell the difference between that and a studio | master tape, for instance, you are dismissing the expertise | of the people who have studied and worked to make the | recordings you love. | Kirby64 wrote: | The reasons for higher quality audio (24/32-bit data, | higher frequency, etc) have value in the mastering process. | For recording, yes there is value in it. It gives you | freedom to adjust your recording without running out of | headroom. | | For listening, no. Find me a double-blind test where 16-bit | 48 or 44.1 kHz audio compares poorly to 24-bit 192 kHz | audio. You won't find it. You'll find PLENTY of people | claiming they can tell a difference, but it's just | unfounded claims. | hakfoo wrote: | I wonder if there's some real-world "resonance" we're | ignoring. | | I could imagine an accurate statement like "the converted | signal out of the DAC never diverges more than 0.005% | from the original input", but could some aspects of that | .005% produce some outsized weight when fed through a | real audio system? I could imagine circuits that "rang" | if given something that looks a little too square-wavey | or hitting non-linear spots on the speaker's response | curve differently. | | It would be interesting to do some sort of A/B/C/D | testing-- analog and digital, on two different audio | systems, for example, to see if some systems are more | subject to that. | apohn wrote: | So don't take this personally, but comments like yours | are one of the major reasons I refuse to participate in | any audiophile communities. | | There's always a hypothetical edge case for some | audiophiles to claim that what they hear is possible. And | no matter how much blind testing, research, or | engineering is done, this hypothetical edge case means | that something has not been proven. It's both pointless | and exhausting to discuss anything with these people | because the end result is always that the possibility | that an edge case exists means you can't claim something | is BS. | | Imagine somebody claimed that people can fly by flapping | their arms. You say this is nonsense, but they said you | have to prove it. So you ask 10 people to try to fly by | flapping their hands and they cannot. This is not enough | proof for them. So now you ask 1000 people to try it. | Then the person claims maybe people in your country | cannot fly this way, but in other countries they might be | able to. So you go to 10 countries and ask 1000 people to | try. Now the claim is that you did not test enough people | who went to the gym every day and you should have asked | the strongest people to fly. When nobody from this group | can fly, maybe you should test the lightest people with | light bones. This keeps going forever because there is | always yet another edge case. Welcome to Audiophilia. | Sporktacular wrote: | He's spot on. There are dozens of parameters that can | describe audio quality. And his comment compared CD/44.1 | kHz to master tape. He said nothing about hi-def. | tptacek wrote: | In 2021, on the MoFi page, about their one-step process: | | _MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes and | meticulously cut a set of lacquers._ | | Today: | | _MFSL engineers begin with the original master recordings, | painstakingly transfer them to DSD 256, and meticulously cut a | set of lacquers._ | | Meanwhile, Michael Fremer, "the dean of audiophile writing": | | _I've now spoken to someone who would know and who confirmed, | out of necessity off the record for now, that in 2018 Mobile | Fidelity cut lacquers using analog master tapes (not copies). | Will speculative click bait YouTube videos claiming otherwise be | taken down after reading this?_ | | (A bunch of this is in the article, I just think the quotes are | kind of funny). | topgun77 wrote: | ben7799 wrote: | Audiophile is full of nonsense but one of the more hilarious ones | in something like this where the goal is "no digital" is it's | been a long time since you could guarantee there was no digital | going on between the instrument and the master. | | They talk about Thriller a lot. Is it possible to have a | completely analog copy of Thriller if it turned out a guitar went | through a digital rack unit or a digital synthesizer was used? I | don't know the answer to the question but in 1982 there were | plenty of digital effects available. | | The more recent you get the more unlikely it is the signal got | from the instrument onto the master without going digital at some | point, even if the recording is done on tape and then transferred | to vinyl in a completely analog old fashioned sense. | | If I plug my guitar directly into my amp and you're in the room | you hear 100% analog. If I use the pedal board it got transferred | A <->D <-> at least once before it went into the amp. Possibly | with a dry signal staying analog but the effects might be digital | and mixed back in. | acomjean wrote: | Digital was a badge of honor back in the 80s and 90s when CDs | were new. No hiss, better sound. They Used to label CDs with 3 | letters (the SARS code) : A for analog D for digital. For | recording, mixing and mastering | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code | | We had a high school radio station (10 Watts, mono FM). One kid | had all these great classic rock albums he was getting from his | neighbor who was giving him them when he got the redone CD | versions. | | Even my old Sony V6 headphones have a "For Digital" sticker on | them which thinking about it is pure marketing. | | I mean we tried A/B testing when I was kid, CD vs Cassettes. The | Cassettes with dolbyC sounded better when recorded from CD onto | decent tapes (they were a little louder) and it was hard to tell | the difference anyway. Maybe in the quiet passages you could hear | hiss... CDs were a better format though and we knew it. Becuase | cars and cd walkmans were rare, my CDs were often copied to | cassettes. | | At some point its good enough, just enjoy the performance. | taylodl wrote: | Nyquist Theorem - learn it, love it, live it. I'm a musician and | my mates and I have been going round and round on this issue for | years. They _swear_ analog is "warm" and "captures the whole | wave." It's all BS. It's _always_ been BS. | | What the vinyl lovers never stop to realize is the audio signal | has to be modified to record on vinyl - you're not listening to | the music as recorded on the master tape, you're listening to an | altered copy of it. Why is that? Because of limitations of the | playback mechanism - you can't impart too much kinetic energy | into the needle. So, the bass gets rolled off, pop filters and | transient filters are employed, and high hats get dialed back. | All to keep that stupid needle in its groove. Bottom line - the | music is altered, the dynamics have been diminished, and it all | sounds muddier, i.e. "warm", as a result. | | The problem is a couple of generations grew up listening to this | and thinking it was what music sounded like. The musicians making | the music always complained that it never sounded right, but had | to accept the limitations of the playback medium. I grew up in a | musical family. All my friends played music. We always knew, and | thought everybody else knew, that the music on records didn't | sound right, it sounded muddy and compressed. | | Then CD Audio came out in the 80's and what a difference! The | bass was punchy instead of muddy, the high-hats and riding | cymbals rang, the dynamic range was breathtaking and the stereo | separation was unreal! I was elated the first time I heard an | audio CD. | | Then the critics came. It sounds "harsh" or "cold", it lost that | "warmth", computers can't capture the actual analog waveform. | That's when I began to realize that these audiophiles and critics | didn't know what they were talking about. They obviously weren't | musicians. | | Fast forward 30 years and the only people still debating this | topic are the rock & metal guys. The Jazz and Classical musicians | quickly recognized the superiority of digital audio. But the | masses don't listen to Jazz and Classical music, they listen to | rock and metal (and pop - but the pop world doesn't seem to care | one way or the other). I don't even know what to say to the rock | and metal guys anymore (full disclosure - I'm a guitarist | primarily playing rock, metal, prog and folk - they're pretty | much all in the same camp on this issue). Rare is the guitarist | that isn't using a pedal board. Extremely rare is the guitarist | using an all-analog pedal board. Many guitarists are using SS | (solid-state) amps now. They're recording into a DAW ( _digital_ | audio workstation). Then they claim that somehow distributing the | end result of vinyl is somehow pure? It 's nuts, it's simply | nuts. Add to that almost none of us are playing our amps clean | and pristine, so what - you think it matters how accurately you | capture our harmonic distortion? | | Yet I see people lining up paying $40-$50 to get these albums | thinking they're getting something different. Which I guess they | are, they're getting an altered recording. This only reinforces | what I've been saying for decades - vinyl is a scam and these | people are laughing all the way to the bank. | | I'm hoping now we can _finally_ put this issue to rest and get | everyone on board with digital audio. Now if we can talk to the | recording engineers about these stupid "loudness wars"... | GuB-42 wrote: | > Fast forward 30 years and the only people still debating this | topic are the rock & metal guys. | | An it makes sense. Rock and metal are played with electric | guitars, and electric guitars are not much unless they are | plugged into an amplifier. What it means is that the amp is not | just part of sound reproduction, it is actually part of the | instrument. | | It is especially true in metal, where amps are frequently | overdriven for that characteristic sound, here the idea of | sound reproduction completely goes out of the window, the sound | characteristics come as much from the amp as they come from the | guitar itself, if not more. And if you look closely during | rock/metal concerts, guitars are almost never plugged directly | into the PA system, the band come with their own amps and if | necessary, the sound is picked up using microphones and then | sent to the PA system. | | So it make as much sense for guitarists to want a specific kind | of tube amp as it is for a violinist to care about the wood | their instrument is made of. | brightball wrote: | I spent a year working on a site that catered to the audiophile | world and it blew my mind at the time. The lengths that people | will go to are incredible. | | There was one guy who had a $200,000 house with over $2 million | worth of audio to setup his sound system. He had these special | electrical units installed outside his house that were supposed | to guarantee a perfectly steady current. | Sporktacular wrote: | Seems like if they had used high quality analog tape instead of | DSD they would only be getting criticism for not calling it 'two- | step'. | | There are some amazing analogue mastering recorders like the | Ampex ATR-102 which they could have used. Tape wear would have | been an eventual issue if they had to re-press hundreds of times, | but that's just what the vinyl nuts want right? | | But on the other hand, they lied. Seems Jim Davis deserves every | bit of criticism he gets. As do some of the golden-eared | audiophile journalists who also happily oiled the BS machine. | politelemon wrote: | _> That visit resulted in a second video, published July 20, in | which MoFi's engineers confirmed, with a kind of awkward | casualness, that Esposito was correct with his claims._ | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shg0780YgAE | eertami wrote: | https://archive.ph/z83rO | everyone wrote: | This does seem more like a religious issue, eg. its more about | faith, dogma, orthodoxy, and heresy, than it about anything | tangible. | focusedone wrote: | Bingo. Audio religion begging to be marketed to. | egypturnash wrote: | _Syd Schwartz, Mobile Fidelity's chief marketing officer, made an | apology._ | | _"Mobile Fidelity makes great records, the best-sounding records | that you can buy," he said. "There had been choices made over the | years and choices in marketing that have led to confusion and | anger and a lot of questions, and there were narratives that had | been propagating for a while that were untrue or false or myths. | We were wrong not to have addressed this sooner."_ | | That sure is a lot of words to say "Yeah, uh, we lied, and we got | caught. Sorry." All these "choices" and "narratives" that just | sort of... appeared... without _any_ source to them. | AlbertCory wrote: | Heavy use of the passive voice -- the dead giveaway for BS. | | It's interesting whether "digital is better than analog" but | hardly relevant here. There are people who believe it's not | true, and MoFi lied to them. | thih9 wrote: | > "These people who claim they have golden ears and can hear the | difference between analog and digital, well, it turns out you | couldn't." | | But was there an album without DSD to compare to and hear the | difference? I guess most people heard just the album with DSD | (that admittedly sounded great). | | What would happen if there was also a One Press version without | DSD? Would people with "golden ears" be able to recognize it in a | blind test? | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Almost nothing has ever been recorded and released using only | DSD. Why not? Most fundamentally because you can't edit DSD | data, it has to be converted to PCM format first. This means it | can only be used for live takes, with nothing done except | topping & tailing the recording. | | There are are few "ultra-audiophile" recordings that have been | made this way, but so few of them that the question of whether | it's better or audibly different is almsot irrelevant. | thih9 wrote: | > Almost nothing has ever been recorded and released using | only DSD. | | I don't understand; I was talking about an album without DSD. | Why are you referring to albums produced with only DSD? | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | My point was tha an album _with_ DSD (only) is so rare that | asking about a comparison to album _without_ DSD is a | little strange. Almost all albums are produced with digital | technology that is not DSD, even the ones that include DSD. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Who knew that snake oil might not turn out even to be made from | snakes?! | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | Audiophools got played yet again. | user_7832 wrote: | > Audiophools | | You don't need to attack any community, no matter how stupid it | may be, if they are just minding their own business. | isatty wrote: | Audiophile here - if they were using a proper master, minimally | a true lossless file I don't really see the problem. | | On the other hand, it seems to me like I meet more people who | are just into buying new gear rather than enjoying the music, | which is what the hobby is to me. Don't even get me started on | snake oil like cables. | criddell wrote: | Can you reliably hear a difference between a lossless file | and a modern high bit rate MP3 (or other lossy format)? | | I can't, but then I have tinnitus... | isatty wrote: | Depends on the music. 320k mp3 is actually pretty good. | | Anyway in this case I want a studio promising that their | records were pressed from a high quality master to actually | use a high quality master. It doesn't matter if I can't | distinguish it. | | Just because a Camry can also transport my ass from a to b | does not mean the Porsche dealership gets to sell me one | over another car I specifically wanted. | allears wrote: | Depends on the signal level and the impedance. For speaker | cables, all you need is a big enough gauge to carry the | current. But for low level signals, especially less than line | level (magnetic phono cartridges, microphones, guitar | pickups) a good quality cable with proper impedance and low | capacitance can make a big difference. If you look at | professional studio and broadcast supply catalogs, you will | see mic cables with a specified capacitance per foot -- | that's a spec that engineers look for. And I can personally | vouch that an expensive guitar cable sounds better than a | cheap one -- I was a skeptic until I tried one, and compared | it with the standard cable I had been using. The difference | wasn't subtle. | isatty wrote: | The average person buying $2000 snake oil cables have no | idea about impedance or capacitance. I'm not talking about | studio professionals buying gear here. | | Idk what the cheap guitar cable was but any decent guitar | cable will be indistinguishable from an expensive ass cable | sonically. This doesn't take into account better quality of | construction and better connectors etc. | bayindirh wrote: | There's a fine line between a healthy audiophile and an over- | obsessed one. Latter is a bad slippery slope, too. | AdmiralAsshat wrote: | Seems like now that it's out in the open, there'd be a lucrative | market in selling the DSDs directly, rather than waiting until it | goes to the labels or vendors to re-rip the vinyl remasters into | FLAC/MP3? | radicaldreamer wrote: | There is a market for DSD albums: https://www.nativedsd.com/ | | I can see why people would be angry about the deception, but | DSD is probably the highest fidelity audio anyone has ever | heard (with the right equipment). | | Audiophiles should be celebrating a situation in which we today | can listen to albums in higher fidelity than anyone except | those who were around when they were being recorded... and that | quality is accessible basically anywhere via the internet. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | You can't edit DSD data in any conventional sense. This makes | the use of fully DSD recordings rather limited in more or | less any style of recorded music. | kazinator wrote: | > _But these days, with the right equipment, digital recordings | can be so good they can fool even the best ears._ | | "These days" being what, 1982-2022? | gwern wrote: | "The fallout of the MoFi revelation has thrown the audiophile | community into something of an existential crisis. The quality of | digitized music has long been criticized because of how much data | was stripped out of files so MP3s could fit on mobile devices. | But these days, with the right equipment, digital recordings can | be so good they can fool even the best ears. Many of MoFi's now- | exposed records were on Fremer and Esposito's own lists of the | best sounding analog albums..."One of the reasons they want to | excoriate MoFi is for lying," says Howarth. "The other part that | bothers them is that they've been listening to digital all along | and they're highly invested in believing that any digital step | will destroy their experience. And they're wrong."...And Randy | Braun, a music lover, Hoffman message board member and lawyer in | New York, hopes that, in the end, the MoFi revelation will prove | what he's been saying for years, that the anti-digital crowd has | been lying to itself: "These people who claim they have golden | ears and can hear the difference between analog and digital, | well, it turns out you couldn't."" | | Hard to imagine a better A/A-test. | apohn wrote: | >The fallout of the MoFi revelation has thrown the audiophile | community into something of an existential crisis. | | Don't worry, the crisis will not last long. Audiophiles will | find a way to get over it and buy some better cables that would | have revealed they were using a Digital source all along. | floren wrote: | Cables are all well and good, but the quest for perfect audio | will continue until somebody invents a gadget which makes you | 15 years old again, hanging out in your friend's basement, | having just tried pot for the first time and hearing Led | Zeppelin III on a cheap Sears record player. I don't know | exactly what this gadget will look like, but it's the only | thing that will get audiophiles the sound they've been | chasing. | user_7832 wrote: | > Don't worry, the crisis will not last long. Audiophiles | will find a way to get over it and buy some better cables | that would have revealed they were using a Digital source all | along. | | You don't need to attack any person or community - especially | given that rich people buying expensive stuff is hardly | hurting others directly. Please make good faith arguments. | Sporktacular wrote: | If they just bought it and shut up about it maybe. | bambax wrote: | > _especially given that rich people buying expensive stuff | is hardly hurting others directly_ | | Superstition is always bad. | user_7832 wrote: | If superstition is always bad, I take it you're also | annoyed/angry at Wayne Gretzky or Serena Williams? Or any | athlete engaging in superstition? | | (https://thevarsity.ca/2022/03/20/athletes-superstition/) | bambax wrote: | I have never heard of Wayne Gretzky; Google tells me he's | a hockey player. I don't think I have ever seen a match | of hockey in my entire life. I'm not annoyed by what I | don't know. | | But the "superstitions" that the linked article mentions, | are rituals, lucky charms. They're much less dangerous | than going around pretending that something exists, that | provably isn't there. | | Audiophiles are moon-landing deniers. Some might think | it's funny or harmless. I think it's terrifying. | allears wrote: | That's a little simplistic. You can certainly tell the | difference between a good analog recording played on a high | quality system vs. an MP3. But once you throw enough samples | and bit depth at it (more than are on a standard CD), you get | quality that's equivalent to, or better than, most analog | media. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | >(more than are on a standard CD) | | Sorry, but CD (16bit PCM) has better dynamic range than | vinyl. The best vinyl systems can have dynamic range of | around 80dB. 16bit PCM is 96dB. | bayindirh wrote: | Unless it's brick-wall normalized during mastering. | masklinn wrote: | Sure but that's got nothing to do with the CD itself. | Except in that you would not be able to brick-wall a | vynil at all so you don't. | kstrauser wrote: | That's a real thing, to be sure. The Loudness Wars have | completely ruined any number of otherwise decent | recordings. The worst I ever heard was Dropkick Murphys's | "The Meanest of Times" which had the dynamic range of an | air conditioner in Phoenix. | | Still, you can always take a great analog recording, pipe | it into a good ADC, and listen to that sample forever | without degradation. I think almost everything can play | FLACs now. | vosper wrote: | Which is not an issue with the digital format, but with | the mastering. | bayindirh wrote: | However, you can't change the mastering of the album you | have bought. When the CD version of the album you have | bought has subpar audio quality, the abilities of the | medium has no value and importance. | Sporktacular wrote: | "When the CD version of the album you have bought has | subpar audio quality" | | Yes, but these mastering choices could apply to the vinyl | version too. In other words, your response had nothing to | do with a comparison of the two media. | bayindirh wrote: | Telling this out loud upsets a lot of people, but I'm on the | same boat with you. | | A good lossless album, regardless of the medium played | through shows a significant difference in soundstage given | the system can handle the resolution thrown at it when | compared with a MP3/M4A file. | masklinn wrote: | > Telling this out loud upsets a lot of people, but I'm on | the same boat with you. | | It "upsets a lot of people" in the same sense and for the | same reason as telling them drinking alkaline water cures | cancer. | TylerE wrote: | I suspect the real reason is that vinyl largely escaped the | ravages of the loudness war, because physics. | | (And also much of the digital gear in the 80s when the first | wave of CD releases was pretty crappy) | bayindirh wrote: | And the standard equalizer you need to apply during | record/playback of the medium. | jrajav wrote: | 44100hz sample rate is enough to reproduce well above the | highest frequency even young humans can hear, and 16 bits of | depth is enough for 96db of dynamic range, enough to make the | noise floor of any consumer system totally inaudible. | | Standard CDs might not be good enough for archival and | further production work (where you also need wiggle room for | further processing or format changes), but they have plenty | of headroom to reproduce any kind of sound for playback | purposes. Any more is just placebo. | doix wrote: | So it's been many years since I looked at this stuff, but | the reason for higher sample rate isn't to do with humans | being able to hear over 20khz. If you sample at 44khz you | need a high pass filter at 22khz to avoid aliasing. Since | that's pretty close to 20khz, it needs a pretty sharp drop | off. Having a filter with a sharp drop off can introduce | artifacts. | | With 96khz sampling rate, you don't need as a sharp drop | off in your filter. | | The above is mostly accurate, hopefully someone else will | comment and tell me how I'm wrong and correct the | inaccuracies. | | Edit: to anyone reading this, read the replies if you want | the correct explanation. To everyone that replied, thank | you :). | kazinator wrote: | You are correct; with a 96 kHz sampling rate, you don't | need such a brick wall filter. But then you dohn't have | to actually keep the data at 96 kHz; it can be reduced to | 44, this time using a digital filter. | | A sharply cutting off analog filter is expensive to | produce. It has multiple stages to create the multiple | poles. High precision resistors and capacitors have to be | used to get all those circuit stages to line up. The | filter will have phase distortion. | | That's the basis of "supersampling": sampling at a higher | rate with a simpler filter with less of a cutoff, then | completing the job with a digital filter to get to the | target sample rate. | | This can be done in reverse, in reproducion. Take, say, a | 48 KHz signal, and digitally interpolate it to a higher | sample rate like 96 KHz. That is fed to the DAC. The | filter after the DAC then doesn't need such a steep | cutoff after 20 KHz. A greater bit depth can be used; | like 16 bit samples interpolated to 24 bit at a higher | rate, fed to a 24 bit DAC. | | The digital filter or interpolator doesn't care about | accurate resistors, capacitors or drift in component | values over time or due to heat; it does the same thing | with the same data every time. | | Digital filters can look at future values also. The state | of an analog filter is determined by only the current and | past values of the signal; but digital signal processing | can delay the signal a little bit and look at a "box" | around the current value. I think that is key to | preserving phase relationships. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > with a 96 kHz sampling rate, you don't need such a | brick wall filter. | | This is incorrect. See my comment above/below. | TylerE wrote: | Yes, i hate when people talk about Nyquist as if its some | Panacea. | | Its vwry "spherical cow". It assumes all your filters, | DACs, are perfect, and that time is infinite. | masklinn wrote: | The exact same spherical cow issue applies, with worse | effects, when you increase your sampling rate | unnecessarily. | | And you can use oversampling to correct for the filtering | issues. That's pretty standard in modern DACs and ADCs. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Nyquist isn't about such assumptions at all. It is an | information theoretic value, based on the provable claim | that there is zero information present in the original | analog waveform that is not represented in the digital | version. | | Yes, your filters, DAC and _speaker wire_ could still | create a less than ideal listening situation, but the | fundamental aspect of the Nyquist frequency is not | concerned with any of that. | kazinator wrote: | There is zero information present in a waveform that is | not contained in the digital version, if that original | waveform is confined below the Nyquist limit. Either it | is that way already, or else is derived from an original- | original waveform that isn't, by low-pass filtering. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | That's an excellent coda/qualification of what I said. | Put into a more listener centric context: there's no | audible information in a waveform that is not captured by | sampling it at 44.1khz. | masklinn wrote: | Anything above 44 is problematic because lots of systems | have non-linear responses and will create audible | intermodulations of the ultraharmonics. | | Monty (of xiph) has an article on the subject (well on | 24/192 but it applies all the same) which goes into the | gory details: | https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html | ajross wrote: | That's the "further processing" notion the grandparent | comment talked about. A correctly processed signal at | 44.1kHz is more than sufficient to reproduce all audio. | But if you're going to do something with the sample | series (like low-pass it for aliasing protection in your | example, or to resample it for conversion, or for any | effects or mixing step really) it's good to have extra | data in there to prevent headaches. Likewise sampling at | 24+ bits prevents accumulated error in repeated | processing, etc... | | There's a space in the audio world for more bits of data. | But the final output format isn't where it belongs. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | That's fine - but, to the extent that's true, it's true | only about the recording and mastering process. CD, as a | delivery mechanism, is totally fine and perceptually | flawless. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | [ EDIT: contents of this post were factually incorrect. | What Kazinator wrote in response is correct, and I don't | want to leave incorrect ideas floating around. ] | mturmon wrote: | This explanation loses me at "infinity per dB" ... and | I'm an EE. I think you're trying to cover too much ground | here, it's really confusing to try to understand what you | mean. | | I believe the comment you're responding to is talking | about the analog filter that is needed to avoid aliasing | -- as the first words of your comment correctly | note/explain. | | And in particular, the original comment seems to be | noting the phase distortion (in frequencies near the | cutoff) that analog brick-wall filters will cause. This | has been a design contention for decades, really, ever | since the CD format was introduced. | | It's a big design space, with options for gentler analog | filters, followed by very fast digital sampling, and | further tricks with filtering in the digital domain, | where you don't have to worry about getting great | capacitors, etc. | | It may be out-of-scope to lay all that out in one | paragraph! | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | That's why I had some blank lines in there :) | | You're right that its a big design space. The key | takeaway is that "yes, higher sample rates can actually | make a difference, but almost entirely down to the filter | design, not because Nyquist moves ... and you probably | cannot hear the difference." | kazinator wrote: | If the goal is audio capture and reproduction, the filter | used when sampling at 96 kHz still starts rolling off at | around 20 kHz. The wrap-around aliasing artifacts do not | begin until around half of 96 kHz, or around 48 kHz. So | the filter only has to be steep enough to hit a large | attenuation at 48 kHz: full signal to virtually nothing | over the space of 28 kHz. | | If you're sampling at 48 kHz, the signal has to be | severely attenuated already; it has to go from 20 kHz to | deep cutoff in just the space of a few kHz. | | At 96 kHz can achieve the _effect_ as if you were | sampling at 48 kHz, with a steep filter. You sample at 96 | kHz with a milder filter, and then purely in the digital | realm, you down-sample to 48 kHz. There is an overall | filter consisting of the original analog one plus the | digital processing. | | That is cheaper and more reliable than doing it all in | analog. | | An analog filter with a steep cut off will be challenging | in mass production because of the strict component | tolerances. | | Sure, you could use a steep filter with 96 kHz also. Say, | a steep filter that starts cutting off at 30 kHz. It | would still be a less demanding filtering application | because of the margin that you have in the frequency | domain. The multiple poles of the filter don't have to be | lined up as well. E.g. if the first pole starts rolling | off at around 30 kHz, and then next ones at 31, and the | third one at 28, ... it doesn't matter because you're | still hitting the absolute target of there being next to | nothing at 48 kHz, and nearly the full signal at 20 kHz. | Sporktacular wrote: | Sure, but going to disagree about the numbers there. I | have a DAW interface which is exceedingly linear (+/- | <0.15 dB) up to 35 kHz. Don't need to start filtering so | low to hit those results. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | You're right, and I'm wrong. | kazinator wrote: | Not only that, but _what_ you hear at those upper | frequencies isn 't tone anyway. the highest harmonics of | tonal sounds live in that region, plus aperiodic signals | (the hiss from sibilants, cymbals crashing, and so on). | | The content can be faked, and this is used in low-bandwidth | codecs and such. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_extension | throwawaycities wrote: | > Hard to imagine a better A/A-test. | | In part it goes to prove Mark Twain's quote that it's easier to | fool people that to convince them they have been fooled. So | many people build their identity around being something like an | audiophile and something like this demonstrates the are mostly | frauds...not all of it is a bad-faith fraud either which makes | it so much more difficult for those people who believed they | had a genuine passion and talent to accept. | | On the other hand there are people who really don't give a shit | and just shill themselves in a given industry to make money as | self-proclaimed experts. It's part of a sickness social media | pushes on people where they think they are brands...as opposed | to actual humans. These people have no allegiance and will | readily move on the the next money making opportunity so long | as they can...probably high priced wines. | kstrauser wrote: | That whole line of thinking just blows me away. It's possible | to accurately sample and reproduce _any_ vinyl recording in the | digital realm. It 's absolutely _not_ possible to accurately | record _every_ digital recording onto vinyl. For instance, it | 's not hard at all to make bass so loud that it causes the | needle to leap out of the track, or treble so high that the | needle can't accurately track the high frequency vibrations. | | In fact, part of the record player spec is the "RIAA | equalization"[0] that attempts to account for the fact that | vinyl isn't good at recording a wide range of frequencies well. | On recording, you cut the bass and jack up the treble. On | playback, you boost the bass and reduce the treble. Without | that, vinyl would be even worse than it is today. | | It's absolutely, 100% fine for someone to say that they | subjectively prefer the sound quality of a record player to a | CD. I don't, but that's fine: it's purely a preference thing. | But to claim that vinyl is objectively better in some way is | just ludicrous. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization | jrajav wrote: | Most of the time people will argue that vinyl has "warmth" | and this makes it subjectively better. This is true, but it's | actually because of the pleasing distortion record players | add to the music. Being distortion, even if it improves your | listening experience (and this depends on genre, though it | generally does), it is certainly objectively worse in terms | of accurate reproduction. | taylorportman wrote: | An instrument amplified by vacuum tubes does have a | distinct sound, "vinyl" also has its own signature.. | magnetic tape is pretty analog too. All of these signature | sounds can be digitized/discretized at sampling rates that | preserve the vinyl crackle or tube warmth or combinations. | To me it seems like marketing and the consumers | justification of their susceptibility. | pessimizer wrote: | I still think that "warmth" is a way to describe not | actually hearing the separate digital samples | subconsciously, and just hearing the sounds gliss into each | other. I also think it's an anachronism that comes from way | back when the digital sample rate was often a lot lower | (and people would insist that their live digital effects | sounded as good as analog, when you could sometimes even | consciously hear the samples jumping into each other.) | Other than that, it seems like something that people | project onto music with bassy reverb. | kstrauser wrote: | Exactly. If you like that warmth, awesome. There's not a | thing wrong with that. It's when people confuse "warm" for | "better" that the problems start. | christkv wrote: | Reminds me of the tube vs transistor amplifiers discussions | where tube amplifiers are supposed to have a warmer sound. | mod wrote: | Can't the warmth just be reproduced in a digital player | anyway? | kstrauser wrote: | Yup. Boost the mids on your EQ and you're halfway there. | djbusby wrote: | What's the other half? Magic in the amp-circuit? | cool_dude85 wrote: | Thousand dollar rocks and crystals to place around your | room. | masklinn wrote: | Well yes but that's not actually what the intent was. | | Though I would expect it'd be more of an eq profile | thing. | mrandish wrote: | You can also bake analog sounding warmth into your hi-res | digital master and it's done all the time. There are a | wide variety of different digital mastering plug-ins | which do remarkably sophisticated analog modeling. | | Ultimately, this boils down to signal which vibrates | speakers. As a thought experiment, if you use some kind | of theoretically perfect surface-sampling laser to | capture every movement of the speaker surface at | sufficient frequency and fidelity to reproduce all of the | information in the original signal and speaker surface | vibrations (ala Shannon->Nyquist), then a digital | playback of that signal which vibrates the same speaker | surface identically will sound exactly the same. | | Individuals can prefer different sonic characteristics | encoded in an output but that's an aesthetic choice. The | entire signal chain creating that output is the result of | creative and technical choices. It goes from guitar | string to studio acoustics to microphone to mixing board | to outboard processing gear to recording medium to | duplication to distribution to playback to amplifier to | speakers to room acoustics to human ear. Most of those | elements significantly color the sound. Yes, mistakes can | be made in the downstream signal chain which diverge from | the creative intent. However, those mistakes are | exceptions, and not inevitable. Done correctly, there's | no reason a digital step in the chain shouldn't be | completely undetectable. | KennyBlanken wrote: | > Individuals can prefer different sonic characteristics | encoded in an output but that's an aesthetic choice. | | I find that listening to one of three different sources | (earbuds, gaming headset which is EQ'd via open source | software, and inexpensive-but-fancy headphones) causes me | to adjust to that particular set of headphones' sound. It | seems to be like the equivalent of our brain continuously | auto-white-balancing our vision. | com2kid wrote: | Yes, the "warmth" generated by from literally any | possible analog circuit can be reproduced digitally. | | Physics doesn't care about people's beliefs, but sadly | many people also don't care about physics. | 323 wrote: | In theory. | | In practice, if I give you a random analog box, | transforming it into an accurate DSP algorithm it's an | extremely difficult problem. | | Which is why people instead of doing that, they recreate | the "idea" (reverb, delay, ...) digitally, but it's not a | copy. | conradfr wrote: | Although for some reasons 2021 was a great year for | distortion/saturation plugins. | smnc wrote: | Any recommendations? | conradfr wrote: | The hotly debated P42 | https://www.pulsarmodular.com/product/p42-climax-line- | amp/ | | The popular Kelvin Tone Shaper | https://www.toneprojects.com/kelvin-tone-shaper.html | | Maybe you want tape? London Acoustics Tapei | https://www.londonacoustics.com/product/taipei-studio- | tape-r... | | As for freeware, the comeback of Variety of Sound with | https://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/2021/11/30/tesslase- | mki... or the less subtle | https://kitplugins.com/pages/burier-free | | This is just a part of (good) saturation plugins from | 2021... | analog31 wrote: | My son told me that some hip-hop recordings incorporate | digitally generated tics and scratches to simulate vinyl. | bambax wrote: | YES! The article says this: | | > _But a few specialty houses (...) have long advocated for | the warmth of analog. "Not that you can't make good records | with digital, but it just isn't as natural as when you use | the original tape," says Bernie Grundman_ | | which is absurd. "Warmth" is a kind of distortion, and if a | signal is distorted then it's less accurate or "natural"! | | They can't claim "fidelity" and "warmth" at the same time. | It's one or the other. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | But if analog is what you knew, that wasn't "distortion". | That was "natural", because it was what you grew up with. | That was the way things were supposed to be. | | So "fidelity" means "fidelity to the way I remember" (and | like). | ryukoposting wrote: | I absolutely despise most of the vinyl community. Don't get | me wrong, I love my records. I have hundreds of them and I | play them regularly. For some reason, almost everyone I come | by has this delusion that vinyl is objectively better than a | good digital recording. Anyone who dissents from that | narrative gets gaslit: | | "oh what kind of turntable do you have? oh that's not good | enough, there's your problem right there." | | "what speakers do you have? what about your phono + power | amps? oh that's not good enough, there's your problem right | there." | | "how did you place your speakers? oh, you should have them at | 45 degrees, not 60." | | "is it a re-pressing? from whom? oh, there's your problem | right there." | | The end result is a bunch of nerds ruining their credit | scores because someone told them they need gold-plated | hydraulic bearings in their tonearm to properly listen to | their mom's copy of Led Zeppelin IV. | | Does it sound different? Yes. Does it sound better? If you're | really trying to get the most out of _the music itself_ , no. | Warm [?] good. | | Vinyl is great because you aren't just listening to music. | The medium demands something from you. It's tactile. The | album artwork is a complete ensemble, rather than a little | icon on your phone. In my case, I had to put in effort to | restore the equipment I play my records on, so there's a bit | of pride in it. It's a more intimate experience. | dekhn wrote: | There definitely was a short period in college where I | needed to spend money I barely had to upgrade my system. | This was when CDs first came out. I could tell, when | listening through my stereo (as compared to plugging my | headphones into the CD player) that there was a ton of | extra noise/distortion and most importantly, a very high | noise level (audible hiss). Ended up having to go to | Salvation Army to buy a $25 used receiver and the speaker | store to buy a pair of $200 speakers before I got decent | results. Even after that, I had no end of problems with the | analog cable. it took a long time to switch to digital. | | Nowadays I can get excellent audio quality watching good | Youtube videos or streaming from my preferred music site (I | only listen through headphones now). | | I'm super glad I was able to get to the quality level I | liked for fairly cheap. | madengr wrote: | jgust wrote: | There is a certain ceremony involved with choosing and | playing vinyl that cannot be recreated with digital media. | That, to me, is the magic. In modern times a full digital | setup is going to provide a more "faithful recreation" than | anything analog. | gerdesj wrote: | Been there. Browsing vinyl involves flipping fore and aft | and is very tactile. Browsing tape and CDROM involves | running your eyes over them but you can run a finger | along them to get another sense involved. | | Loading a record is quite the event: slip out of the card | sleeve, then slip the dic out of the waxed paper sleeve | and pop it on the spindle without scratching it. There is | of course the correct way to handle them that if you are | around or older than my age (52), you already know - the | delicate fingers on the rim and your thumb on the centre. | | I can remember my Dad going to the "biggest NAAFI in the | world" (Rheindahlen) and coming back with a brand new | record player in around 1978 or 79. This thing could | handle something like five LPs at once and play them | sequentially. | | Pissing around with Spotify isn't quite the same and I do | understand why people enjoy the theatrics but to be | honest: I turned my CDs into FLACs and ditched the tapes | a long time ago. I still prefer to buy my music by the | CDROM and rip it to FLAC or mp3 or whatever - now that is | me showing my age! | JJMcJ wrote: | There is also some with CDs, but vinyl's the real deal. | The record cleaner brush. Inspect the needle for dust. Be | sure the record is properly seated. Sit back and enjoy. | jgust wrote: | Just watching the record spin is so incredibly | satisfying. | JJMcJ wrote: | Yes, a connection to the physical world. | | Sometimes especially on Zoom I look at my cabling and | think it's amazing that images of other people and their | voices are going through that cable. | | Only on Zoom and similar video conferencing. For all | other uses I don't even think about it. | xbar wrote: | Is this not the experience in every human community? | | For the record, I like your approach to music enjoyment. | hbn wrote: | I recently got a record player and have been amassing a | small collection of my favourite albums. Including the | reasons you gave, my excuse for buying/listening to records | is I like having a physical representation of albums I | like, and something that won't disappear because a contract | expired with a streaming service. | JJMcJ wrote: | I remember when CDs were very very new the first review of | them in an audiophile magazine a friend subscribed to. The | reviewer was quite unhappy. | | The next month he reviewed a different player. He basically | retracted his opinion of CDs but said the player from the | previous month was obviously terrible, at least the | particular one that he did his review on, if not the entire | brand. | | And for audiophiles themselves, I notice many of them seem | to have very poor taste in music. Like do you really need | $50,000 of equipment and sand weighted speakers that weigh | 700 pounds each to play 1968 bachelor pad music? | gerdesj wrote: | "I notice many of them seem to have very poor taste in | music." | | Great response and critique until that point. I'm old | (52) enough to have seen quite a few media changes too. I | recall that when you were off your tits at a party, and | discussing music, you tried to find common ground. That | could lead to some impressive contortions! | | Can't say I ever spent much on playback hardware. I | generally went second hand for speakers/amps etc. Once | the Walkman was invented and then rather a lot of Chinese | (and other copies were available) clones appeared then | you could ruin your hearing close up with seriously | decent quality sound on the move. I was still walking | around with a mini cassette player with wired ear plugs | in my jacket's breast pocket until around 1993ish. | | I did lay out something like PS200 on a pair of decent | headphones for use at home. They make anything from O | Fortuna to Ghost Town via say Schehehererherereherezade, | Finlandia and One sound rather ... Special. | analog31 wrote: | There's no _a priori_ reason why any recording medium needs | to have a flat response curve, so long as the curve is known | so it can be reversed. The reason for the RIAA curve is that | most sound has an inverse relationship between amplitude and | frequency. The RIAA recording curve limits the overall | amplitude of the groove, allowing for better management of | dynamic range and distortion in the cutting and playback | processes. The slight lumps in the curve are a concession to | practical filter technology of the 1950s. | | Other analog broadcast and recording media have similar | curves, called pre- and de-emphasis. | | Digital doesn't need it because it has effectively zero | distortion, and dynamic range to spare. | | An advantage of vinyl is that there's a physical deliverable, | making it possible to monetize it. I think that's why a lot | of indie bands use vinyl. | bigbillheck wrote: | > It's absolutely, 100% fine for someone to say that they | subjectively prefer the sound quality of a record player to a | CD. | | There's a lot of weirdos out there, but these ones aren't | hurting anybody. | kazinator wrote: | > _100% fine for someone to say that they subjectively prefer | the sound quality of a record player to a CD_ | | It's not intellectually fine, only fine in the sense that | it's well within the bounds of free speech. | kstrauser wrote: | I subjectively prefer to add sriracha to my burrito. That's | intellectually fine. It doesn't make it an objectively | better burrito. | kazinator wrote: | Yes, because the sriracha can be confirmed to exist. | | If you say that waving your hand over the shriracha while | murmuring a magic incantation makes it taste better, then | that may not be so intellectually fine any more. | Edman274 wrote: | A digital recording has to be mastered with the | understanding that it could end up getting played on a car | stereo, on a bluetooth boombox, on cell phone speakers, in | bluetooth earbuds, at a dance party with a DJ or on a hi-fi | stereo setup that looks like the one from the old Maxell | "blown away" ad. A recording on a vinyl record doesn't. The | person mastering a record doesn't need to care about | bluetooth earbuds, car stereos, cell phone speakers, | boomboxes, and only marginally about DJs at dance parties. | They can tune their mixing and mastering decisions to just | the case of a hi-fi stereo setup with an enthusiast | listening. They have to make fewer compromises because | there are fewer cases to handle. The format enforces those | constraints. You can't just ignore that. | mrandish wrote: | > They can tune their mixing and mastering decisions to | just the case of a hi-fi stereo setup with an enthusiast | listening. | | This is what audio purists should be asking for. Let's | pay the creative production team to create and release a | high-fidelity digital mix optimized for us. No concerns | about radio play, boomboxes or loudness wars. Just their | original creative intent. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | No; it's really fine - same with tube amps etc. It's OK to | have a subjective preference for some kinds of distortion. | It's not OK to say it's "truer to the original sound", | which is where this usually comes off the rails. | kazinator wrote: | Sure, if the artifact you prefer actually exists and you | can confirm it in a double blind test. | wolrah wrote: | You're not wrong in the general "audiophile" world where | fools and their money are parted over snake oil magical | cables claiming benefits only those with the most golden | of ears can enjoy. | | Where you're getting pushback is that this thread is | talking about vinyl records and tube amps, things where | the noise and distortions introduced by their operation | are well known, well documented, audible to anyone with | normally functional ears, and regularly utilized | artistically. These are not the inventions of grifters | with a product to sell, it's just an older technology | that is less precise in a certain predictable way which | some people find pleasant. | cwillu wrote: | "I prefer bit of oregano on my pasta." | | "Not without a double-blind test you don't!" | pessimizer wrote: | "The pasta you just said was the best pasta you ever had | didn't have any oregano on it." | cwillu wrote: | There was no cilantro in the dish you just said was | delicious: we substituted dove-brand soap shavings. | cratermoon wrote: | > it's not hard at all to make bass so loud that it causes | the needle to leap out of the track | | Reminds me of the LP my band teacher in high school had. It | was the 1812 overture, and the groves for the cannon shots at | the end were easily distinguishable with just a casual | examination. Based on what you're saying, I suspect that | recording was pushing the limits of vinyl. | kstrauser wrote: | Yes! That exact song is perhaps _the_ canonical | demonstration of the limitations of vinyl! Here are some | pics of the grooves on that LP: https://imgur.com/a/veVB0 | cwillu wrote: | I'm imagining a recording of a nuclear blast with | sufficiently deep grooves to accurately reproduce the shock | wave. | | With the satisfying full warm tone vinyl is known for. | FullyFunctional wrote: | Flat earth, Scientology, dowsing rods, ... willful ignorance | is hard to fight. | | Anyone with basic understanding of A/D conversion and | sampling theory will understand that you can always exceed | analog with digital, given enough bits (and 2*16 @ 44.1 kHz | is already pretty darn good). | | In the early days of MPEG Audio, Level 2 (not mp3) I spent a | lot of time listening to samples and I was taken aback when I | finally traced flaws back to the CD itself (Cranberries, | Zombie, 1994). Many of the early CDs really weren't that | great, but that wasn't due to being "digital", just a sloppy | production. | iforgotpassword wrote: | That's the main reason I really like vinyl. Physics prevents | the mastering engineers from going overly crazy. Vinyl often | sounds more carefully mastered, even though nothing would | technically prevent you from releasing the same thing in | digital form. | | The other thing I like is that it really takes more effort to | put on a record than start a track on Spotify. I really only | do it when I can take the time to do so. Pick a record from | the shelf, carefully take it out of the sleeve, carefully put | it down on the turntable, and then really listen to a full | record while sitting or lying on the couch doing _nothing | else_. Again nothing you couldn 't do with Spotify or YouTube | music, but somehow you (well, at least I) never do. | defterGoose wrote: | It's still true that it takes a skillful ear/hand to do | that mastering. I've heard terribly mastered older (not | abused) records and modern releases that are excellent. A | good original copy of Rumours is about as good as it gets | IME. | | Vinyl _does_ also provide a nice soft upper limit to the | loudness wars. | FullyFunctional wrote: | Couldn't we characterize vinyl limitations and capture | that as a digital filter? And if so would you be able to | tell the difference between the vinyl and filtered | digital? | conradfr wrote: | That's why I like to download vinyl rips. | | But some vinyls actually come from a digital master anyway. | aeyes wrote: | Even if the master wasn't digital, how many vinyl | mastering engineers used a digital reverse RIAA? | | I have a ton of vinyl records myself, never understood | why anyone would say they sound better. Vinyl is a | compressed format, even if the compression is analog. | There is significant loss of signal in the whole signal | chain. You need to do reverse RIAA (compression), then | you fabricate a master, then you press vinyl from this | master which is only good for a few thousand presses, | then you have the pickup and at last the RIAA preamp | (decompression)... | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Don't forget that playback progressively damages the | medium. A true audiophool keeps a stockpile of virgin | vinyl so they can playback once and throw it away. | kstrauser wrote: | I listened to "Disintegration" last week exactly like that, | but with Apple Music. It was the first time I'd listened to | an album start-to-finish in years, and I highly recommend | it. | | I like not having to flip the record halfway through, or | being able to listen to "The Wall" without 3 flips. | wk_end wrote: | The structure that side/disc limitations impose is part | of the listening experience, to me - I like having to | take a moment to consider the sub-narrative of the side | as a whole before moving on. Even when streaming I'll | often look up the vinyl track listings to get a sense of | the artist's intended schema. | hbn wrote: | > I like having to take a moment to consider the sub- | narrative of the side as a whole before moving on. | | That's a great way of putting it! And something I hadn't | considered before I bought a record player and started | listening to it. There's that point in time where you | realize the A-side is done, you get up to go and flip it, | and you have a half-minute or so of reflection on the | first half. Then the B-side starts and it's like the | second act of a play is starting after intermission. | kstrauser wrote: | I get it. I still like having the option to skip it if | I'm being lazy. | cammikebrown wrote: | What's really funny about this is that although CDs | objectively can present a greater dynamic range, the loudness | wars have created a lot of highly compressed CDs that do | sound worse than a lot of vinyl, where it often seems that | more cars is taken with mastering because of the limitations | of the medium. Additionally, a lot of early 80s albums sound | better on vinyl because digital mastering wasn't as good | then. It is an absolutely night and day difference between my | vinyl copy of Unknown Pleasures and my CD. | Nav_Panel wrote: | Yep. This is why I like buying original 80s CDs where they | just chucked the master tape onto a digital disk, rather | than post-2000 reissues where they slap a limiter on the | master and jack it up +8 dB. | btown wrote: | > it often seems that more cars is taken with mastering | | I know this was a typo, but tools like | https://shop.audified.com/products/mixchecker (with a | literal "sedan" button) and articles like | https://ask.audio/articles/the-final-mix-using-your-car are | sadly indicative of the emphasis in modern mastering on | sounding good on car speakers - which is the entire problem | in a nutshell. | wrycoder wrote: | The thing I miss with the Apple audio chain is a user- | controlled equalizer. With my hearing issues, I really need | to boost treble, and I prefer to boost bass. I haven't yet | discovered a way to do that. Apple thinks that flat is best, | and so should you, apparently. | ben7799 wrote: | There are hearing accommodations in iOS that can even use | your audiogram. | | Settings -> Accessibility -> Audio/Visual -> Headphone | accommodations | bitcurious wrote: | On iOS, settings>music>EQ has some presets you could try. | Not quite the same as custom eq but might be better than | flat. | ultrarunner wrote: | And it's insane that this hasn't changed for at least a | decade! Apple's own PowerBeats Pro sound like garbage | without bumping up the low frequencies, but with an | equalizer they sound great. Or maybe this is just | subjective and you can file it under "accessibility". | | I was jailbroken on iOS 14 for the longest time _solely_ | for a system-wide equalizer for Apple Music. With a new | phone it 's a major step back, and I've switched to | Spotify for their (worse) equalizer and somewhat worse | overall experience (Spotify doesn't even have an | equalizer on desktop!) | | It's really unfortunate that such a straightforward | feature is so limited on Apple platforms, and for no | discernible reason. | egypturnash wrote: | On OSX Music, window>equalizer. You can also grab Rogue | Amoeba's "SoundSource" to have volume controls for every | noise-generating app on the computer, and apply effects | chains to them, including EQ. | kstrauser wrote: | I love SoundSource so much. I bought it so I could use | the volume keys on my keyboard to adjust the system | volume on my HDMI monitor. I was blown away when I found | out I could plug my collection of VSTs into the output | pipeline. | egypturnash wrote: | Yeah, adjusting the volume on my monitor was really the | reason I bought it, too. All the other stuff's a nice | bonus. | amelius wrote: | > On recording, you cut the bass and jack up the treble. On | playback, you boost the bass and reduce the treble. | | Sounds like if you combine the two steps you end up with the | identity operator :) | Jaxan wrote: | That's the point! | amelius wrote: | Parent was trying to show that | | > It's absolutely not possible to accurately record every | digital recording onto vinyl. | | Outlining an idempotent process of recording and playback | does not help there. | kstrauser wrote: | If they were idempotent, yes. But they're not. Analog | processing can't be perfect, and amplification is an | inherently noisy process. The RIAA curve first cuts the | signal on the bass end of the spectrum, throwing away | information in the process (because vinyl doesn't have | infinite resolution). Then it amplifies that degraded | signal. | | You can simulate this pretty well with computer speakers. | Turn down your audio outputs so that it's barely audible, | then turn up the speakers as load as they'll go. Noisy, | isn't it? _In theory_ that should be the same as turning | the outputs to their maximum clean level and turning your | speakers way down, but in practice it 's absolutely not. | Well, every vinyl record made does exactly that to the | bass. | colejohnson66 wrote: | That's the idea, _in theory._ But because analog components | such as the resistors, capacitors, and transistors will not | be identical[0] between the master and player, it's not | perfect. | | [0]: you can get very low tolerance resistors and | capacitors, but they'll cost you | kstrauser wrote: | To a point, but remember that you're dealing with low-bit | floating point math. That boosting stage creates | information that wasn't originally there. That's not so bad | in the treble case where original * boost / filter is | pretty close to the original. But in the bass case, | original / filter * boost might be significantly different | than the original. That's usually not a huge problem | because the low bass frequencies are pretty forgiving, but | it's something to consider. | mturmon wrote: | It is the identity for the signal, but RIAA equalization | cuts the high-frequency noise that's characteristic of | needles in grooves. signal -> [HF boost] -> | [needle adds HF noise] -> [HF cut] -> same signal, less HF | noise | | As for the low end, cutting the bass helps to control the | size/excursions of the grooves, which are rather close | together (https://groverlab.org/hnbfpr/2019-08-06-stereo- | records.html). | | Dolby B for cassette tapes is the same idea (but only for | the highs). | nerfbatplz wrote: | Not only can you not tell the difference between analogue and | digital, you also cannot tell the difference between lossless | and properly transcoded MP3. | | Most audiophile mania is poorly informed at best and astrology | at worst. | | http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ | MivLives wrote: | Badly transcoded mp3s are the worst. For most artists I | couldn't tell the difference between a v2 and a flac. There | were a few who you could but they're mostly not what people | are listening to (intentionally very noisy artists). | Realistically if I just heard them blind I don't think I | would have cared. | havblue wrote: | As an anecdote I've noticed that while driving, the bass line | in YouTube music jazz can be incredibly hard to hear despite | my shelling out for the premium Bose sound system that can | shake the vehicle. So I wonder whether this is the encoding | or whether it's really supposed to be that quiet. | Maursault wrote: | > you also cannot tell the difference between lossless and | properly transcoded MP3 | | I'm not sure what you mean by "properly transcoded," as | though there's a scourge of bad encoders out there and | everyone has nutty encoding practices, but I really, really | bet you can. Listen to an mp3 of a rock/pop track. Try to | focus on the cymbals. See if you can isolate them aurally | from the rest of the music. Can you hear how mp3 encoding | completely munges high frequencies to sound like digital | glass breaking? Then you shall finally understand why mp3 | encoding has always sucked, and Napster really, really should | have won. | kimixa wrote: | Many mp3 encoders cut off really high frequency stuff - | somewhere between 16khz and 20khz depending on the encoder. | Often this isn't changed by any of the quality settings, | e.g. on lame it's still enabled on the "insane" preset | without manually disabling it. | | While that's on the very top-end of human hearing - most by | middle age can't detect anything above 14-16khz, but it's | certainly possible (especially for those younger) to have | frequencies all the way up to 20khz as audible. | | So it is possible for _some_ people to hear a difference | with some mp3 encoders, no matter the bitrate or quality | settings. | | And the psychoacoustic model is going to focus on the | "average" listener, so it's perfectly possible that an | lower bitrate encoding is transparent (IE: Completely | indistinguishable) to one person, while another may be able | to notice higher frequencies that have been cut off to | provide more quality in the more noticeable parts of the | spectrum. Or even the same person at different ages. This | is completely physical difference, and no amount of | training or harder listening would be able to bridge the | gap. | | And I find many of the higher frequencies that are hit by | such things are often not particularly noticeable unless | you're actively looking for them, being able to tell | there's a difference and knowing what to specifically look | far isn't the same as saying the recording is somehow less | enjoyable due to quality differences. | Nav_Panel wrote: | ^ yeah exactly. Also, you really do need a pretty good | sound system to hear it. I was with the poster above you | for a long time, but then I did blind A/B testing on my | buddy's $10k monitors, and the difference was clear. | | I wouldn't call it "night and day", but I had no trouble | distinguishing even 320 MP3 from FLAC on his system by | focusing on the very high frequencies (3/3, small N I know | I know, but I felt like I could've gone on indefinitely). | The MP3s lost some clarity in the highs which led to less | dimensionality/sense of space ("soundstage"), because our | spatial hearing is very attuned to minute transient | differences in high frequencies in particular. But you need | to be listening on a system that is adequately equipped to | reproduce very high frequency transients accurately, which | most people don't have access to. | conradfr wrote: | The encoders of today create really good mp3 even at | 192kbps (at 128kbps not so much which is a shame as a lot | of internet radios use that). | | Do you have a favorite rock track we can do an ABX test | with? | user_7832 wrote: | Not the person you replied to, but Hotel California's | Hell Freezes Over version is generally very well regarded | in mastering. | | If I'm not mistaken one of those A/B/X test websites also | tested that, and while I was using a very simple pair of | headphones, the difference was noticeable. | conradfr wrote: | Why not. | | https://abx.funkybits.fr/test/the-eagles-hell-freezes- | over-h... | | (obviously there's a bug on the tracks display after | round 1) | bayindirh wrote: | As a former orchestra player I can say that, with a good hi- | fi system, the difference is audible, in terms of soundstage | size/depth, not in details. | | I have a couple systems, one is a proper hi-fi system. If the | album is mastered without brick-wall normalization, the | difference is easier to hear. | | When I listen the same album via my DAC, from MP4, I enjoy | it. When I listen the same album, from a CD, I sit in front | of the system like a rabbit blinded by lights. | | The DAC is the same. It's a Yamaha CD-S300 with a proper iPod | interface, which carries the signal digitally till DAC. | | This ABX test is the same. You need a high fidelity chain to | enjoy it. I have a nice sound card, but the speakers | connected to it can't handle the resolution put out by it. | user_7832 wrote: | (Meta) I was hoping HN would stay civil and while it mostly is, | I'd like to remind that what people do in their homes for | themselves isn't really something worth circle jerking over. If | you like expensive gear and find a difference, great. If you | don't find a difference, that's also fine. Please don't bother | attacking either group for their (relatively) harmless views. | peanut_worm wrote: | Audiophiles are funny. I remember seeing some guy on the internet | was selling expensive "sound crystals" that you would put near | your stereo that would make the sound "warmer" or "clearer". | radicaldreamer wrote: | It's likely these records are still better than anything else out | there because DSD is an extraordinary format for audio and they | were still pulling directly from the masters (if anyone trusts | that clarification of the story at this point). | jef_leppard wrote: | This whole thing reminds me of the time some renowned wine | connoisseurs blind taste tested vintage wines and they slipped 2 | buck chuck in there. A few of them picked the 2 buck chuck as | their favorite. None of them called it out as inferior wine. They | all said stuff like "hints of smoke. Berry finish." | iasay wrote: | I've heard a "wine expert" spew a load of rubbish like that and | when offered it was obviously corked. Tasted like vinegar. | libraryatnight wrote: | I recall reading a similar piece where they gave expert wine | judges flights of wines to judge but some glasses would be the | same wine from the same bottle and they'd judge it differently. | Nav_Panel wrote: | Afaict the cool thing about MoFi pressings (at least, ones from | back in the day) is they were done at half speed. So, when the | lacquer is cut from the master tape, they'd do it at half | playback speed rather than full playback speed, which allowed the | physical cutting head to track the high frequencies more | accurately. I can say that this absolutely does make a difference | during playback; my MoFi copy of Aja sounds very good (almost as | good as the digital version!). | | That said, vinyl is effectively an obsolete medium. I say this as | someone who owns upwards of 1k vinyl records. I buy them because | many recordings remain inaccessible or very challenging to find | digitally. But I would never buy a newly released album on vinyl | over digital if I had the choice and if both were using the same | master. | Beltalowda wrote: | In 2006 a "Controversies" section was removed from their | Wikipedia page[1] after "a letter of complaint". You can still | read it of course[2], part of which is: | | _" Additionally, some both inside and outside the audiophile | community have criticized MFSL's [aka MoFi] willingness to | stretch its "Original Master Recording" logo. For example, | critics note that several MFSL Mk I releases are not from the | original masters; one notorious example is the Beatles "Magical | Mystery Tour". More troublesome to some, though, is MFSL's recent | habit of releasing gold CDs that are sourced from digital master | tapes instead of the original analog masters."_ | | So it seems these allegations go back quite some time. | | For what it's worth, I don't really buy in to the whole | "audiophile" stuff and am skeptical you can hear the difference, | but delivering "B" while it says "A" on the label is essentially | defrauding your customers, and possibly illegal (or at least, it | ought to be). | | [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mobile_Fidelity_Sound_Lab... | | [2]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile_Fidelity_S... | eventhorizonpl wrote: | post_break wrote: | This is so funny. Company touts no digital, then goes on record | saying yeah we used digital, completely ruining their reputation. | Meanwhile I'm over here still mourning OiNK. | Nav_Panel wrote: | Don't worry, its legacy lives on. Other sites have taken up the | mantle (hmu). OiNK is gone, but not forgotten. | post_break wrote: | How do I get in touch? | Nav_Panel wrote: | check my profile, twitter is a good easy way, or email me | via substack | [deleted] | deltree7 wrote: | Audiophiles:vinyl::HNers:Privacy | | This is no different than a section HNers fooled by companies | like DuckDuckGo and VPNs ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-05 23:00 UTC)