Interesting. I'd be curious to hear more peoples' experience with A-B comparisons.
When you say you down converted these files, what did you use to do the converting? You said you had your own digitization of Fireballet -- what was the source? Last, what year were the ELP CD and LP -- were they released at the same time from the same master?
^I used Sonar X3e and Pow-r 1 Dithering for the conversion. The Fireballet source was the original quad vinyl. The Emerson, Lake & Powell CD appears to be the original 1986 Polydor release without the bonus tracks. As far as I know, it had the same master source as the vinyl.
Last edited by AZProgger; 08-31-2014 at 04:42 PM.
The thing that got me interested in vinyl in the first place was an A-B comparison my father did for me. He set up a CD and an LP of the same album (a Joe Byrd album, if memory serves) playing at the same time. He had me sit down and switched back and forth between the two of them without telling me which was which. The vinyl destroyed the CD, which really surprised me at the time (I was a bratty high school kid). I've had enough experience with LPs in the future to know that they are absolutely not without their flaws and limitations, but I've really come to love them.
I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts about high-resolution audio vs. CD. Not so much the technical arguments for or against, but people's experiences with the same type of comparisons we've been talking about. I don't have any personal experience with digital audio above 16/44.1, but part of me is interested in buying something with SACD capability. Thoughts?
The same A-B comparison with Steely Dan's Aja was put upon me years ago.Originally Posted by Wounded Land
The vinyl annihilated the CD, but the CD sounded better in the car.
no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone
Sorry, this is still unfathomable to me. It what way? Frequency response? Noise level? Dynamic response? Imaging? Realism?
Yup, everything.
no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone
I'm not sure how else to describe it but it just had an undeniable sense of reality and tactility. I can use words like "three-dimensional" but that doesn't quite cut it. The CD felt like it was masking the performers' intentions in some way. With the LP I had a greater sense of the musicians and their instruments. I don't what exactly accounted for it on a technical level, but it just felt more "real" and involving.
I am loathe to speak in generalizations when it comes to stuff like this, but I've noticed that LPs seem to do a better job in general with microdynamics, small little variations of touch and timbre within a musical event. I think that this may be what I perceive as "realism."
But whenever I feel the need to make some kind of absolute pronouncement about the ultimate superiority of the medium, I come across a crappy pressing or I find a CD that sounds amazing (like basically everything I've heard on the Harmonia Mundi label, for example).
NP: Fat Mattress s/t (original 1969 pressing, no pops, ticks, or surface noise)
Tape compression is a wonderful thing!
no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone
Heavy sigh. I guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy and I'll never get it.
The kids these days are inserting distortion and surface noise and clicks and pops and stuff into their digital music on purpose. Some kind of invented nostalgia (since they're too young) for imperfect audio. I don't get it.
And I guess I never will.
Last edited by rcarlberg; 09-01-2014 at 09:17 PM.
Heavy sigh. I guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy and I'll never get it.
Time for an ear de-waxing.
no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone
Just the opposite. I need to wax them up so that shit doesn't bother me! Apparently I'm the only person left on the planet who can hear pops and clicks, groove rumble, and surface noise.
Or maybe the only person who prefers music without them?
Last edited by rcarlberg; 09-06-2014 at 10:51 AM.
In double blind tests listeners can't hear any difference.
Here is a nice summary of why hi-res audio is still valuable:SourceI'm not surprised by that, as 16/44.1 done properly exceeds the resolution of human hearing and is, for all practical purposes, transparent (assuming good low-level linearity in the A-D and D-A conversion stages.) However, it doesn't address the other advantages of the high-resolution formats, namely the multichannel functionality (CD is limited to stereo) nor the extra care often put into hi-res mastering (versus the deplorable lows to which CD mastering has sunk thanks to the labels and their accursed loudness war.)
So yes, 16-bit/44.1KHz can sound absolutely superb when done properly. The problem is that it seldom is these days, at least from the standpoint of major-label releases. Thus we have the ridiculous circumstance that even a vinyl copy of a new release is often much more listenable and dynamic than its CD counterpart.
I've often wondered how hi-res would fare in a double-blind trial with real-world program material...this seems to go a good way toward answering that.
Another good article here.
Last edited by rcarlberg; 09-06-2014 at 10:57 AM.
That first link isn't working for me...
Maybe it's a country thing? It works for me.
Okay, it's working for me fine now. Reading down through that thread it seems like there are a lot of different opinions, but the prevailing opinion seems to be that it is worth it, given the right material, the right master, and the right playback equipment.
Do you have any personal experience with SACD or DVD-A you can share?
NP: Berg Wozzeck
Not really -- I have only a few of each and frankly found them unremarkable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks