|
Converting vinyl to MP3 and importing to iTunes is one of my hobbies. I agree, sampling the media at 160Kbps or better and using good sound washing software (Sony Sound Forge) to do peak normalization and clean up the pop/wow from the source produces excellent results. I haven't heard a full-sized stereo that can match the sound of a good pair of Bose noise-canceling headphones playing the content, either.
|
|
|
|
|
Last year I purchased a SoundBlaster ZXR audio card, Sound Forge S/W, and a computer to run this on. I have something like 600 or so Vinyl records, everything from Peter, Paul, and Mary, Beatles, & Bob Dylan, to Thelonious Monk and even classical.
Plan is to use the Yamaha turntable with Ortofon cartridge connected to the Adcom 500 preamp and make some of those 192 KHz, 24-bit depth recordings. I am waiting to see how this all works out. If I live long enough, I may actually be able to get the majority digitized.
I will say there's one advantage to CD's; you don't have to flip it over every 15 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
One major difference from "then", meaning the 60's and 70's to "now" is that an old-time audio systems typically a small fraction of the THD (total harmonic distortion) that not only acceptable, but even common place in the "now". I've seen modern equipment rated at 5% - even 10% THD (such as boom boxes), and earbuds? Give me a break. My system was 0.5%. An audiophilic friends' system clocked in at 0.2%.
Even now, suddenly there's rediscovery of over-the-ear phones - like they always used to be. Only then, the sound quality between those big cushiony phones was extraordinary.
Vinyl Better? An absolute absurdity on its own. However, the current digital is geared towards the vast armies of the hearing-impaired identified by the constant wires protruding from their ears. Converted vinyl should sound exactly like the original - or more correctly, should sound like it. that, however, assumes a true conversion.
HiFi had a meaning: High Fidelity. Fidelity implies trustworthy accuracy. That once was a goal. Now, it's a four-letter acronym, the fidelity of it's meeting now gone. Among my first few CD's, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker. The triangle played in one movement was so real it was astonishing. That, of course, was when CD's were trying to outperform the current popular media. Cassette and eight-track tapes were designed for cars - but became the central audio medium for many. That was an early nail in the coffin.
You're living in an age where jerks will actually pay big bucks for tickets to a live concert - where the (alleged) artists lip-synch! If anything's wrong with digital, it's that the consumers accept crap.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: If anything's wrong with digital, it's that the consumers accept crap.
too right 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: inyl Better? An absolute absurdity on its own.
Not so. Digitised music is clipped and doesnt have the attack you get in an anlog reproduction. It is also less subtle, and lacks depth.
|
|
|
|
|
Digital music does not have to be clipped. The general public think loud is better so we have the loudness wars, this pushes down the dynamic range and makes the music sound crap.
Early CD's sound much better than the newly mastered stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Presence on a well recorded CD is astonishing.
In interesting analogy between movies and recorded music.
Lots of remakes - but not as good as the original. Concentrating on special effects instead of quality. OH BRAVE NEW WORLD!
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I remember being quite interested in the Barry Diament Audio website, which talked about recording techniques vs. result. Some of his samples absolutely blew me away. (The albums can be clicked on on that page, for samples.)
Sudden Sun Death Syndrome (SSDS) is a very real concern which we should be raising awareness of. 156 billion suns die every year before they're just 1 billion years old.
While the military are doing their part, it simply isn't enough to make the amount of nukes needed to save those poor stars. - TWI2T3D (Reddit)
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Digitised music is clipped and doesnt have the attack you get in an anlog reproduction. It is also less subtle, and lacks depth.
That has nothing to do with it coming to you in digital format. It has everything to do with songs being over-compressed in the The Loudness Wars[^]
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Could well be, but I remain to be convinced.
For example. Take a live band that uses a drum machine for the backing. Now compare that to a live drummer in a group. You are walking down the road, and you hear the music, the first sounds like a recording, the latter like a like band. It has punch, power, that is the attack I am talking about, and it stand outs a mile.
Same with valve vs digitised guitar amps (with effects). The digital version is soft, lacks the impact.
It is just how I feel it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Digitised music is clipped and doesnt have the attack you get in an anlog reproduction. It is also less subtle, and lacks depth.
With 96 dB dynamic range there is certainly no need to clip the signal. I have seen the waveforms from thousands of ripped CD tracks, but never seen any clipping.
I believe that lots of people really don't know what clipping is like, but (ab)use the term to refer to high dynamic compression. If you display the waveform image to fit inside your screen window, it looks like a brick. But it does not bang its head into the ceiling, and if you expand it to see the curve peaks one by one, they are smooth and round. Of course the sound quality may be crap due to the compression. But clipping sounds quite different.
|
|
|
|
|
I dont mean distortion (the clipping you get when a signal exceeds the capacity of the amplifier) but the reduction in peak volume of sounds.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: eight-track tapes were designed for cars - but became the central audio medium for many
In my youth, I volunteered as a local Hospital DJ running the "graveyard shift" (this name was not to be mentioned on air to the patients).
The system used eight-tracks to broadcast to the bedside headphones and into the nurses' break-rooms. I had a bank of six eight-track players and shelves of eight-track cartridges to choose from. Not a computer in sight! Being the night shift, I was basically playing stuff for the nurses - often/usually by request. It was a great way to get dates!
I remember how good the quality of those eight-tracks were. Way better than compact cassettes. It's a pity that CC took over at that time.
These days I play music from MP3s but never use in-the-ear headphones, only regular speakers or good quality over-the-ear headphones and am quite happy with the quality.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, vinyl sounding better is an audio illusion. In fact, it is impossible in most cases for vinyl to reproduce the original sound as performed. This is because the dynamic range of a groove is physically limited, and in order to get the full sound to fit into the recorded track, the "louds" must be made quieter, and the "quiets" must be made louder. This enables the brain to have an easier job to hear all of the content, and as far as the brain is concerned, easier is better.
There were devices available that attempted to re-expand the dynamics of a recording, called a "DBX". However, this expansion was artificial, making quiet pieces quieter and loud pieces louder, regardless of their original amplitude.
So, if you want better reproduction of the original performances - digital is the way to go. If you want easier to listen to, the the old way is better.
Cheers,
Mick
------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter how often or hard you fall on your arse, eventually you'll roll over and land on your feet.
|
|
|
|
|
Midi_Mick wrote: he dynamic range of a groove is physically limited
The limitation was imposed by engineers to squeeze more music time onto the record. There are specialist recordings that deliberately don't use this compression in order to increase dynamic range. I still have one I've Got the Music in Me (album) - Wikipedia[^] which sounds pretty impressive. Wasn't dbx simply a method of tape noise reduction?
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: Wasn't dbx simply a method of tape noise reduction?
No. A DBX expanded the dynamics of a recording, although it was often used as a noise reduction system (making the noise to quiet to hear). Google "DBX Expansion" and you'll see what I mean.
And yes, you are right. Additional limitations were imposed to allow more music to fit onto the record. There is still a physical limitation imposed by the flexibility of the head of the record player and the groove - as such you would need a very high quality head and needle to properly play records with the expanded dynamics. Otherwise, the needle would just jump over the large grooves, and actually produce noise.
I used to work for a record company in the early '80s, and to hear the difference between the original tapes and the vinyl did turn me off a bit. When CDs became available, I was impressed with the improved quality.
However, accounting for all of that, the piece of Hifi equipment that made the most difference to the end sound was always the speakers. If everything else is top quality except the speakers, everything still sounds crap. Even with mediocre equipment, if you have good speakers, the final quality is generally still quite reasonable.
Cheers,
Mick
------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter how often or hard you fall on your arse, eventually you'll roll over and land on your feet.
|
|
|
|
|
Midi_Mick wrote: e-expand the dynamics of a recording, called a "DBX".
And turning DBX on when playing non-DBX-recorded sources was always fun. 
|
|
|
|
|
Play vinyl again, I've considered it with all the hype etc.
But these days I get my "snap"-"crackle" and "pop" from my breakfast cereal.
|
|
|
|
|
Bert Kaempfert is very hard-working musican: 556 songs recorded 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: Lots of things have come a long way in 50 years but in my opinion an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi.
And guitar played through a transistor amp just isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp.
Some technologies do peak.
As for records, yes, analog. The depth and richness, and subtelty is entirely missing from even CDs (and an mp3 is heavilly compressed CD even, so its even worse).
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp.
You mean a tube amp?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, 600 volts of pure chewey sound. 
|
|
|
|
|
Why on Earth would I listen to Wookie music? 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
