Many people say LPs sound better than CDs because they sound more natural and has that 'warmer' sound. Does the higher sampling rate of dvd audio make it sound better than LPs. Also consider that the equipment are the same (receiver, amplifer, speakers..ect).
DVD Audio vs LPD records
- Thread starter jtvang125
- Start date
MrChad
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2001
- 13,507
- 3
- 81
It's an apples to oranges comparison. Vinyl is an analog medium; DVD Audio is digital, and despite its high resolution, is only an approximation of the original analog waveform. Because the sampling rate and resolution of DVD-A is so high, it is a much better approximation than CD audio, but with the proper equipment an LP can sound really, really good. That said, LPs are much more susceptible to media damage that can ruin the sound.
The short answer is that it's going to depend on the recording, the quality of the equipment and the quality of the media.
No one can hear up to 48 KHz anyway...its already beyond excessive.
Anyone that argues that sampling rate is one reason why LP is better doesn't understand it in my opinion. Not saying that you don't understand it, but I have heard this argument before.
However, you are definitely correct that the amplitude resolution is always going to be better on analog. However, I feel at this point that the benefits of a digital storage medium such as DVD-A outweigh the MINOR reduction in resolution.
It's a shame the market is moving towards a reduction in sound quality. After all 128kbps MP3 IS CD quality :roll:
Overtones. This is the biggest difference between CD and analog as well as DVD-A and CD.
Must have higher frequency response. This is why cymbals and horns don't sound right with a CD.
CD never had could never produce music correctly because of it's frequency response and sampling rate.
That argument still doesn't make sense to me as the only overtones that would be eliminated would be ones over 20KHz(approx) on CD and 48KHz on DVD-A(depending on sampling rate). I can see the CD case possibly being heard if the filter used in the D-A conversion sucked and the listener had near perfect hearing. But I see no way that the overtones eliminated due to the sampling rate of DVD-A could be discerned from LP.
LPs could pick up all of the sound, giving it the warmth and fun, especially when used with a tube amp and good tubes. CD's are limited to what the computer tells it to pick up, so if the recording studio says 20-20 only, those CD's only have 20-20. And the new recording studios don't have a tube pre-amp, buffer or amp, leaving out that fun warm distinction and only cold, hard analytical sound. DVD-A and HDCD/ SDCD were a real solution to the CD, as they have the space for all of the music. There's a huge debate about this on AVS, Head-Fi and basically any audiophile forum.
Just listen to vinyl vs. CD and even DVD-A. That's all it takes to hear how drastic the difference is.
Also look at the waveform of many instruments, then compare that to what their digital counterparts produce. That should be sufficient proof for you. A music instrument isn't a simple sinewave.
I never said it was. However, a sampling rate of 96 KHz allow perfect recontruction of the fundamental frequency and harmonics up to 48 KHz in the ideal case. The actual max depends on the quality of implementation of the filter. This is the science behind digital audio sampling and can't be disputed. CDs can reproduce up to 22050 Hz perfectly in the ideal case. Again, this is likely a bit less in real life but again it depends on the quality of the D->A converter.
In each case the limit is above any humans level of hearing. Nevermind the fact that few speakers go beyond reproducing 20KHz at any significant level.
I will grant you that the added resolution of DVD-A makes it better than CD and closer to its LP counterpart. However, saying that CD audio is severely limited by sampling rate due to it being an approximation of the original waveform is rediculous.
Now, another argument that I can agree with is that the LP recording are simply BETTER. The music industry(and other industries such as speakers, TV, etc.) have been moving to a louder is better policy and have thus reduced the dynamic range of tracks greatly. This in turn removes all the minute details that make music so interesting.
Rubycon
Madame President
- Aug 10, 2005
- 17,768
- 485
- 126
It *CAN* be. Depending on the program material at lower levels it is VERY noticeable with 16 bit recordings. There is simply not enough resolution in 16/44.1 to capture delicate nuances near the noise floor. Going to 24bit improves resolution dramatically (remember 16 bit = 65,536 discrete voltage levels per sample; 24 bit = 16,777,216 discrete voltage levels per signal!).
96,000 samples/second does lift upper range to 48kHz (theoretical) so that is standard as magnetic analog recording in the studio can go to 40k. What good is it if people can hear to 20k (with outstanding hearing I have to say)? Well plenty as it ensures much more accurate reproduction of the highs in the upper limits of what one can hear.
Some CD's just sound plain bad - even in the past which were great analog recordings. This was due to limited converters of the time. ADC's have improved substantially in the past 20 years. This is why if one has access to original mastertapes a very good transfer (even if cut to 16/44.1) is possible!
Keep in mind that modern compressed releases will never show the limits of 16/44.1 as their dynamic range is so compressed. :| At that point, 128kbps MP3 might as well be considered CD quality with such program material. :Q Some of the electronic popjunk has samples of similar quality and their artifacts can be readily heard. (that is if you can stand some of the atypical pop singer voices shrilling alongside of them.
)Originally posted by: Rubycon
It *CAN* be. Depending on the program material at lower levels it is VERY noticeable with 16 bit recordings. There is simply not enough resolution in 16/44.1 to capture delicate nuances near the noise floor. Going to 24bit improves resolution dramatically (remember 16 bit = 65,536 discrete voltage levels per sample; 24 bit = 16,777,216 discrete voltage levels per signal!).
96,000 samples/second does lift upper range to 48kHz (theoretical) so that is standard as magnetic analog recording in the studio can go to 40k. What good is it if people can hear to 20k (with outstanding hearing I have to say)? Well plenty as it ensures much more accurate reproduction of the highs in the upper limits of what one can hear.
Some CD's just sound plain bad - even in the past which were great analog recordings. This was due to limited converters of the time. ADC's have improved substantially in the past 20 years. This is why if one has access to original mastertapes a very good transfer (even if cut to 16/44.1) is possible!
Keep in mind that modern compressed releases will never show the limits of 16/44.1 as their dynamic range is so compressed. :| At that point, 128kbps MP3 might as well be considered CD quality with such program material. :Q Some of the electronic popjunk has samples of similar quality and their artifacts can be readily heard. (that is if you can stand some of the atypical pop singer voices shrilling alongside of them.
That is mainly an issue with the resolution. Yes, as I stated, jumping up the resolution can make a noticeable difference. However, what I was specifying is that the sampling frequency will not be a major limiting factor due to the max frequency it can already perfectly reconstruct.
Very quiet sections near the noise floor are limited by not having enough levels of levels of resolution.
WTF knowledge hax.Originally posted by: Rubycon
It *CAN* be. Depending on the program material at lower levels it is VERY noticeable with 16 bit recordings. There is simply not enough resolution in 16/44.1 to capture delicate nuances near the noise floor. Going to 24bit improves resolution dramatically (remember 16 bit = 65,536 discrete voltage levels per sample; 24 bit = 16,777,216 discrete voltage levels per signal!).
96,000 samples/second does lift upper range to 48kHz (theoretical) so that is standard as magnetic analog recording in the studio can go to 40k. What good is it if people can hear to 20k (with outstanding hearing I have to say)? Well plenty as it ensures much more accurate reproduction of the highs in the upper limits of what one can hear.
Some CD's just sound plain bad - even in the past which were great analog recordings. This was due to limited converters of the time. ADC's have improved substantially in the past 20 years. This is why if one has access to original mastertapes a very good transfer (even if cut to 16/44.1) is possible!
Keep in mind that modern compressed releases will never show the limits of 16/44.1 as their dynamic range is so compressed. :| At that point, 128kbps MP3 might as well be considered CD quality with such program material. :Q Some of the electronic popjunk has samples of similar quality and their artifacts can be readily heard. (that is if you can stand some of the atypical pop singer voices shrilling alongside of them.
The biggest problem I see is that we're left with no clear winner for hassle-free quality audio playback. Digital distribution (online) would (in my opinion) in theory offer the best, as you have the ability to offer a variety of playback options, however its too tied to portables and low end PCs, and since the music industry has shown they don't trust their customers at all, we're stuck with DRM infested low bitrate crap that is probably not even taken from the original digital source.
We have the technology right now to be able to easily transfer music around the home (and to our cars with no reason to worry about skipping CDs). It would allow people who don't care about quality to get their 128k fix, but then also offer the people who want great quality the option to get that quality. I admit that I do prefer a physical medium myself, but I could give that up for higher quality music. Not only that, but they could always make that an extra that you could buy if you want (artwork), and if nothing else, fans would likely step up and fill the void.
I know that wouldn't offer the analog warmth of vinyl, but, now I know this is just personal opinion, but wouldn't that be better left to some of the later stages of equipment, say the amp or speakers themelves?
Granted, none of that matters if the music industry fools with things along the way, compressing dynamic range and whatever else they do that gives us a crappy source to start with. Let's remember, that while we can debate the merits/need of the higher resolution/bitrate/etc that in the end, what we're really just wanting is consistent, quality recordings. I think this would actually help to remedy the problem of the no talent artists that are so prevalent today (actually being able to tell that pop singer x can't sing their way out of a paper bag would I think go a long way towards getting people to stop listening to their music).
We have the technology right now to be able to easily transfer music around the home (and to our cars with no reason to worry about skipping CDs). It would allow people who don't care about quality to get their 128k fix, but then also offer the people who want great quality the option to get that quality. I admit that I do prefer a physical medium myself, but I could give that up for higher quality music. Not only that, but they could always make that an extra that you could buy if you want (artwork), and if nothing else, fans would likely step up and fill the void.
I know that wouldn't offer the analog warmth of vinyl, but, now I know this is just personal opinion, but wouldn't that be better left to some of the later stages of equipment, say the amp or speakers themelves?
Granted, none of that matters if the music industry fools with things along the way, compressing dynamic range and whatever else they do that gives us a crappy source to start with. Let's remember, that while we can debate the merits/need of the higher resolution/bitrate/etc that in the end, what we're really just wanting is consistent, quality recordings. I think this would actually help to remedy the problem of the no talent artists that are so prevalent today (actually being able to tell that pop singer x can't sing their way out of a paper bag would I think go a long way towards getting people to stop listening to their music).
Just to be Quick the Old records sound is better than anything else as far as sound goes, and amps that use the old Tubes are used by many Bands that need and request the best and clear sound. I have a friend that dose nothing but build and repair old Tube Amps for that reason, and makes good money dong so.
I myself don't listen to much music, but after talking to him and seeing what he dose I would have to agree to what he has to say.
I myself don't listen to much music, but after talking to him and seeing what he dose I would have to agree to what he has to say.
Yup, nothing comes close to the sound of the vinyl. The worst part is that a whole generation of teen-agers now grew up with .mp3s and basically lack the capacity to recognize good sound. Their ears are so used to listen to low-bitrate compressed music played through computer speakers that they more or less don't know how a real violin or saxophone sounds like.
Quite scary.
True. But they ALL should know what live music sounds like.
As far as violins/sax? Few speakers, let alone the recording can do it well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter