Comments

sonics

Entertainment & Gaming

Are Records Really Better?

By Posted on 7.3.2008 18 Comments
Sorry, vinyl aficionados, but CDs most accurately capture the clarity of musical performances. If you look at the grooves of a standard long-play record, or LP, through a microscope, you’ll see that each is filled with what look like rolling hills. These are, in fact, an extremely close replication of the shape of the sound waves from the musician’s instrument. But because the needle that carves the groove is shaped slightly different than the needle that reads it, the LP will never sound exactly like the original performance.

7.4.2008 at 10:07am - Comment by sonics

T Bone Burnette has purported that a new compression system, named XO∆E, will allow MP3s to be better than CDs. I haven't yet heard the system, but I don't have much hope. No shortage of "miracle cures" in the digital domain - witness the old Burwen Bobcat for evidence. 48kHz, as one writer suggested as being good enough, is not. Do the math again. At just 10kHz (1/2 of human hearing bandwidth), the PCM system samples the waveform just 4.8 times per cycle. That is not enough if you're going to be serious about fidelity, about quality. Listen ... I have an iPod. I can take my music on the road with me. It's enjoyable, but it's not high fidelity. It's medium fidelity, maybe. But these digital devices are designed and built to satisfy measurements, not to satisfy perception. They are built to standards provable by machines, not by human hearing. When the difference between a real high fidelity LP and a CD or an iPod track are A/B'd side to side, it never fails to miserably embarrass the CD or MP3. Never ever fails. It's a sledgehammer to the noggin. Comparing low fi LP to CD is less of a contest - and that's what naysayers tend to use as their defense of CD. But there is no contest between high quality LP and CD, it's easily provable, easily demonstrable, and unquestionable when the two are played side by side. Sonics
Entertainment & Gaming

Are Records Really Better?

By Posted on 7.3.2008 18 Comments
Sorry, vinyl aficionados, but CDs most accurately capture the clarity of musical performances. If you look at the grooves of a standard long-play record, or LP, through a microscope, you’ll see that each is filled with what look like rolling hills. These are, in fact, an extremely close replication of the shape of the sound waves from the musician’s instrument. But because the needle that carves the groove is shaped slightly different than the needle that reads it, the LP will never sound exactly like the original performance.

7.3.2008 at 04:16pm - Comment by sonics

OK guys, do the math. Digital audio is a gestalt, right? Number of samples per waveform. The higher the frequency, the fewer samples per waveform. So - 1 Hz, theoretically, would be sampled 44,100 times over the course of it's waveform. Well, that's a lot of samples, I'd say. Lots of room to connect the dots and make something that looks like a fairly decent "analog" of the original. 10 Hz then gets sampled 4,410 times per second. Not bad, still plenty of dots with not much space in between. 100 Hz gets sampled 441 times per second. Being a bass frequency, the ear isn't necessarily sensitive to any 100 Hz oriented transient, so we can forgive the fewer samples that make the waveform. 1,000 Hz ... where the ear is really sensitive - only 44.1 samples per waveform cycle. Not looking so good. 10,000 Hz - where transients get their attack, where "air" exists and harmonics glow around the notes, where guitars and harps and pianos and cymbals and triangles and xlyophones develop myriad rainbows of harmonic bloom ... only 4.41 samples per cycle. So when you speak of "accurate" you don't seem to betaking into account the very mathematics built into limiting Red Book CD. An analog recording "samples" a 10Hz waveform as many times per second as it "samples" a 100Hz waveform, a 1,000 Hz waveform, a 10,000 Hz waveform, etc. It is a more accurate system simply because it is able to capture entire waveforms through ultrasonics, whereas digital becomes less accurate as frequency rises. Mathematically speaking, CD offers something considerably less accurate than analog recording. 16 bit, 44.1k samples per second is miserable. Now - I've heard SACDs made from direct to DSD recordings that are mind blowing. All those missing harmonics come right back in full color. So I'm not dissing digital altogether - but CD is really a garbage standard that is, thankfully, getting tossed. Why is it getting tossed? Because it never was a high fidelity medium ... it's strengths were convenience and portability. iPod upped the ante in both of those categories, so CD is going by way of the dodo. It has lost its reason for being. And my point about Jim Anderson is simply this - if he's going to bat for an iPod's sound, he's lost his hearing. An iPod is convenient, portable, but it's not high fidelity. By normal hifi standards it's a piece of shite. No Grammy award winning producer should wear his iPod on his sleeve and expect to be respected for it. It's like saying that 3-Michelin-Star winner Eric Ripert feels just fine about using previously frozen fish on his menu at Le Bernardin. Would never happen in a million years. Why? Because he'd lose the respect of his peers, he'd lose the Michelin stars, and he'd lose his career. My point about compression was, as the other writer rightly described, a point about dynamic compression, not digital compression. The reason I brought that up is simply this - using a person's Grammy-winning credit as a reason to believe they are an expert is misleading. These are the people that are compressing the dynamic life out of the music, and then getting awards for the effort. Sonics
Entertainment & Gaming

Are Records Really Better?

By Posted on 7.3.2008 18 Comments
Sorry, vinyl aficionados, but CDs most accurately capture the clarity of musical performances. If you look at the grooves of a standard long-play record, or LP, through a microscope, you’ll see that each is filled with what look like rolling hills. These are, in fact, an extremely close replication of the shape of the sound waves from the musician’s instrument. But because the needle that carves the groove is shaped slightly different than the needle that reads it, the LP will never sound exactly like the original performance.

7.3.2008 at 01:53pm - Comment by sonics

Did Jim Anderson mention to you that Keith Jarrett listens to vinyl? ... didn't think so. I think Jim Anderson needs to pull his head out of his AIFF, get a real stereo system, and listen to a few records. The Grammys are littered with idiots that compress the living heck out of the music, giving us 2dB of dynamic range, while all the gladhanders say "yay for you!" - and schmucks like Anderson are the reason our standards (and our expectations) are declining faster than technology has a chance to screw it up more.
Entertainment & Gaming

Are Records Really Better?

By Posted on 7.3.2008 18 Comments
Sorry, vinyl aficionados, but CDs most accurately capture the clarity of musical performances. If you look at the grooves of a standard long-play record, or LP, through a microscope, you’ll see that each is filled with what look like rolling hills. These are, in fact, an extremely close replication of the shape of the sound waves from the musician’s instrument. But because the needle that carves the groove is shaped slightly different than the needle that reads it, the LP will never sound exactly like the original performance.

7.3.2008 at 01:36pm - Comment by sonics

Idiots. Commercial issue CDs are plagued with all kinds of problems. Your idiotic abuse of "science" to prove your point is laughable because it doesn't address the practical and present weaknesses of CD ... it only plays with thought experiments based on theory. Useless bullsh*t.