Bolded section: to you perhaps.
As for mastering, the compression you are describing is typially done in final mix-down PRIOR to format delivery. While CD's do have a higher ceiling before clipping than does Vinyl, most new Vinyl releases have the same compression applied, with the only difference being apparent loudness at the same volume level. The dynamics have been crushed in both formats.
Some CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, and Vinyl releases do have different and/or not-so-compressed mixes, but they are rare and not the norm.
Lanyap
Elite Member
- Dec 23, 2000
- 8,287
- 2,385
- 136
Originally posted by: Lanyap
He was close. Maybe he was a beta tester?
The CD, available on the market since late 1982...
You're right, I forgot it was test unit.
That's why it had the bulky negative and positive power supply.
It came with a case of all kinds of CD's in various formats of music.
I had to keep spraying the track that the CD lens would track back and forth because it would get stuck.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
They don't really print the information on newer CDs, but on older discs they have ADD, AAD, etc. That was for the progression that the music took in either the digital or analog realm. The first letter was for recording, second was for mixing, and third was for mastering. The mastering step has always been its own step, very crucial to the sound of the music. With vinyl the last step is analog, so you could see AAA, DDA or ADA. Analog mastering does not allow for brickwall compression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_wars
http://www.discmakers.com/soun...tismastering/index.asp
http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cd_mastering
It is rare to find music that uses a brickwall algorithm to compress the music while it is in the mixing stage. I don't doubt that it has never happened, but I would only guess it happens in very rare cases where the band is extremely small. I can point you to hundreds of new vinyl to compare the waveform to the identical CD, and you will see the compression does not match. In my opinion, this is what makes the largest audible difference between clean vinyl and a CD. Proper mastering.
There was a little bit of a backlash (little because few people have SACD) over Norah Jones' Come Away With Me SACD. It was supposed to have a 24 bit stereo version and a 24 bit 5 channel surround version, in addition to the 16 bit CD layer. The "24 bit" stereo version was just the 16 bit version upsampled. They admitted to it being a pressing mistake though I don't believe they ever reissued it. With that exception, every SACD or vinyl that I have come across has different dynamic range compression than the CD. Sometimes the difference is minimal (depending on how much compression is or isn't on the CD), but it is often substantial enough.
My vinyl always gets transferred straight to my computer in 24 bit waveform, then downmixed to 16 bit for CD or Ipod listening. I wouldn't say the difference is HUGE, certainly not if you are just listening to the music as background noise (while working out, etc). However, if you are just sitting down and listening with a good pair of headphones with no distractions, you can certainly tell the difference.
In order to get that superior vinyl quality with your CDs you can just put on a CD, and then switch on the radio and turn it to static. That way you'll have CD audio quality, but with the added crappy noise an LP will give you after a while!
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,865
- 8,451
- 136
A habit i acquired in the 60's from my older brother: Buy two identical albums if judgement says it will be collectible.
One album stays sealed and put away for permanent archive. The other gets played one time and one time only to dub over to X-field reel-to-reel, after which it will not see the light of day again unless the tape gets destroyed or corrupted.
As a result, my brother and I are sitting on a large cache of unopened and once played albums from the 50's- 80's and neither he nor I is willing to let go of them. I guess for all practical intent and purposes they are now considered family heirlooms.
One album stays sealed and put away for permanent archive. The other gets played one time and one time only to dub over to X-field reel-to-reel, after which it will not see the light of day again unless the tape gets destroyed or corrupted.
As a result, my brother and I are sitting on a large cache of unopened and once played albums from the 50's- 80's and neither he nor I is willing to let go of them. I guess for all practical intent and purposes they are now considered family heirlooms.
mrSHEiK124
Lifer
- Mar 6, 2004
- 11,488
- 2
- 0
QFT. I have some MFSL U2 stuff and it sounds excellent. CD will sound better, longer, as long as it isn't compressed to hell and back...
I really wish people would embrace DVD-A or SACD. I don't know if it's just the fact that they don't compress the dynamic range when they're mixing it down or if it's because of the higher bitrate, but DVD-As sound a ton better to me on my Shures. I imagine if I had a nice speaker setup they'd sound awesome.
This thread reminds me of that survey they did where they played CD's for a bunch of vinyl fans and just threw in some background noise, and the record fans swore they were listening to vinyl and that it was superior to the CD version they listened to. :laugh:
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
AgaBoogaBoo
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2003
- 26,108
- 5
- 81
That's basically what it all boils down to...
I used to browse a bunch of the audiophile forums and people would swear by vinyls, they would talk about their expensive players and I figured that there had to be something there. I ended up spending $300-$400 on one, used it a few times, and it's been collecting dust ever since. I've been planning on selling it, and probably will here in the next week or two.
Here are the reasons why I don't like it:
1. I don't notice any increase in quality
2. You have to manually change from one album to the next, and can't go to the next track by simply pressing a button
3. It's much larger in size than playing from MP3's
4. Record player costs a good bit
5. Vinyl's cost a decent amount too
6. Requires maintenance every now and then, not very often, but at some point, the cartridge will have to be changed
7. Just adds to the clutter of things
8. You either have to buy your vinyls online or somewhere locally. Local stores don't have a lot of selection compared to online stores, and the used ones are well... used. For quality, you would prefer something new.
9. Just more cabling, plus my turntable requires a preamp, just adds to the mess
The biggest reason is the first one, I don't notice any increase in quality AT ALL. I was under the wrong impression that the quality would be better, and so much better that it's worth putting aside the rest of the reasons. I should have known better, but I'll take it as a lesson in life.
Overall, I don't like it, and it was a complete and utter waste of my time. On paper, yes, I know you can prove that the sound is theoretically better for about 50 reasons, but I'll end this discussion by saying that I don't care, I just want to hear something enjoyable and I'm happy. I don't care that my music doesn't have pipe organs that hit low frequencies, I just want to listen to my music in my own way. If you find that a record player is how you enjoy it, more power to you, but in my experience, it's people just being blinded by reality. Take a step back from the theory and look at what is actually happening, it makes no sense at all.
Here is my system:
HK AVR335
Paradigm Studio 60's
SVS PC+
If someone wants to debate this, I'll be clear, I don't care, just assume that I'm ignorant and easily satisfied by the top 40 songs on the radio playing through a $100 5.1 setup, I find that there's more to life than oogling over what I perceive to be snake oil.
Vinyl has become a niche market, it will probably stay that way, CD Sales are falling in the face of digital theft / digital sales. Also a lot of artists know they can do their own digital sales via myspace and itunes, so in their minds why even bother with a label. The majors aren't getting the revenue in they used to, and they are starting to realize that they need to change.
One of the trends I have noticed is the digital download code that you get when you buy most vinyl, this is awesome imo, you can have the digital quality of Mp3 with the analoginess of vinyl.
One of the trends I have noticed is the digital download code that you get when you buy most vinyl, this is awesome imo, you can have the digital quality of Mp3 with the analoginess of vinyl.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
There was an article in some magazine about how vinyl is not objectively better. The vinyl actually adds artifacts to the sound by causing the needle to bounce slightly, and other things. Some people perceive this as being "fuller" sound or whatever.
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
BTW, it seems like a pretty big negative to me that records wear out. The minute you play a record, the sound is permanently altered.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter