• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vinyls > CDs??? Placebo effects.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Your Universal Singular Perception Theory needs a little more work.

For it to be true, you would first need to explain the difference between perception of Flourescent Lighting and Filament based lighting devices.
All those headace and Eye strain sufferers must be wrong, then.
After all, Light is Light, right? 😉

Flourescent light has a completely different frequency composition, but the major issue is the 60 Hz flicker it has that incandescents do not. Incandescents produce light by heating a filament, so I suppose they should pulsate slightly as current through the element varies. Both the frequency distribution and flicker are readily measurable and very well known.

So I guess that hurdle is cleared.

According to the math, we still have another doubling of Bit Rate and Sampling Frequency to go before we really achieve parity with the best analog recording.

According to what math?

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
You can probably take better pictures with really good film vs digital, as digital you're limited by pixels. If you take a regular film picture and place it on a scanner at high res or even under a microscope you can "zoom" pretty far and see detail.

Film is limited by the grain of the film, which is a similar (but different!) limitation to having pixels.
 
Originally posted by: Aluvus
Flourescent light has a completely different frequency composition, but the major issue is the 60 Hz flicker it has that incandescents do not. Incandescents produce light by heating a filament, so I suppose they should pulsate slightly as current through the element varies.
Flicker from incandescent lamps is virtually non-existent, since the cooling of the filament between swings of the 60 Hz excitation current is minimal.

Film is limited by the grain of the film, which is a similar (but different!) limitation to having pixels.
Pixel density on professional grade digital cameras is now approaching film grain density, giving both media similar resolution limits.
 
CD PCM has a dynamic range of 96dB. This far exceeds that of an LP. Tape will also have a higher noise floor.(than digital) With CD PCM dithering is necessary although the noise floors of the analog masters is often sufficient. Dithering can also mask the opening and closing of noise gates in quiet passages.

In any case modern LOUD mastering is making any comparison to media (even MP3!) irrelevant as it's destroying the musical character of a live performance. Even live performances (chiefly rock concerts) are artificially compressed so they can be louder. The reason why live sound equipment has such high power ratings is not to play loud but to handle the demands of live music. This effectively reduces the loudness overall so compression is used. It's necessary to use compression particularly with heavy hitting drummers HOWEVER to use it to trim crest factor to get volume up is a crime IMO.

 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: SSSnail
That is all, thank you and good night.

If you doubt me, go get some high bit-rate CDs and listen to them.

Most audiophiles consider Vinyl to be better because of the warmth that vinyl has. CD's now adays are way over produced and normalized. There's no real good dynamic range.

It's sort of like how people love tube amps (myself included) over solid state.

That "warmth" is artificial, it's NOISE or POLLUTION. I do have a tube amp and it's a PITA. To be honest I could NEVER tell the difference between its output and that of a quality class A/AB digital amp.

Why is your tube amp a PITA? I've had my 5150 head since they first came out (early 90's) and I've never done anything to it other than change tubes. It runs great.

I can def tell the difference between a tube and solid state amp. I guess it's just based on how your ears hear things. Solid State amps have a more metal type sound to me and just seem sort of lifeless or artificial. It's like I always know when I'm listening to Pantera because his sound is just so solid state. Same with White Zombie back in the day. Their tones are similar because of those solid state amps.

I have no experience with vinyl though, so I can't tell you. But, reading Sound and Vision it seems like a lot of reputable musicians and studio people love vinyl. I mean they can't all be wrong cant they?

Well, I could say the same thing about every religion on earth. Invalid objection.
 
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Baked
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Someone told me once that vinyls actually reproduce sounds that are above the range of human hearing, where cds are limited to 20000khz. I asked them "What's the difference if it's above human hearing anyway"? They said that the extra range "does things" to the sounds that you can hear and overall improves the listening experience. I dunno if this is true or not though. *shrug*

More like snob effect. Yeah, I'm sure those $20K a feet ICs make everything sound a hundred times better too.

No, it's true. The top and bottom ends of the signal are chopped off in compression on CD's. Vinyl makes live recordings actual sound "live". I'm a musician, so I notice this more than the average person, but it is true.

Then your not listening to good CDs, your saying CDs get too compressed, but there is hardly a standard for this, so you can't say CDs themselves sound worse than vinyl, but the amount of compression some studios use on them create a lesser quality. Also, analog degrades, a lossless digital copy doesn't.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Minjin
But it doesn't matter if the eye cannot see it. Same thing with audio. It doesn't matter if the ear cannot hear it. The Red Book format wasn't just created randomly by idiots. It was made to have all the accuracy that a human ear is capable of hearing. You don't need to go to a higher frequency because people can't hear it. You don't need to sample more often because the sampling rate is accurate enough for the frequency range.

Yes you absolutely do have to sample outside of 20-20khz. Music is not a sine wave, there are other waveforms (overtones) above your hearing that change the sound of the instrument. This is why high resolution digital goes up to 100 Khz, if not more (I forget what SACD goes to). It's also why nicer speakers go beyond 20 Khz. Nyquest was flat out wrong.

Sure the note may only be at 1000 hz, but all on that waveform are variations above 20 Khz. Redbook has proven to be not enough, it was great on paper/theory but it wasn't enough.

Just listen to a good vinyl vs. a CD, the difference is glaringly obvious.

Nyquist wasn't wrong.

You are saying that there are freq. present that are higher than we can hear that somehow impact the sound so we should sample higher to pick those up. That is in no way contradictory to Nyquist, it actually agrees with it.

But really this overtone thing sounds like utter crap. Honestly it is like saying you like a light bulb better because it emits frequency of light you can't even perceive, it makes no sense.
 
Originally posted by: CountZero

Nyquist wasn't wrong.

You are saying that there are freq. present that are higher than we can hear that somehow impact the sound so we should sample higher to pick those up. That is in no way contradictory to Nyquist, it actually agrees with it.

But really this overtone thing sounds like utter crap. Honestly it is like saying you like a light bulb better because it emits frequency of light you can't even perceive, it makes no sense.

Well it makes some sense, at least to me. Envision a person playing a chord on a guitar. The primary portion that stands out to you is the one that falls squarely in your range of hearing, but that's not all that's going on there. The sound that the guitar is making actually extends somewhat above and below what you can distinguish and those parts are harmonizing and/or creating dissonance with the parts that you CAN hear. This Harmony/dissonance could change the character of the sound in a noticeable way in the same way that playing additional complementary notes changes the character of the sound in the chord. One wavelength must be able to alter the way another sounds or else we wouldn't hear chords at all, just individual notes played at the same time.
 
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: CountZero
Nyquist wasn't wrong.
You are saying that there are freq. present that are higher than we can hear that somehow impact the sound so we should sample higher to pick those up. That is in no way contradictory to Nyquist, it actually agrees with it.
But really this overtone thing sounds like utter crap. Honestly it is like saying you like a light bulb better because it emits frequency of light you can't even perceive, it makes no sense.
Well it makes some sense, at least to me. Envision a person playing a chord on a guitar. The primary portion that stands out to you is the one that falls squarely in your range of hearing, but that's not all that's going on there. The sound that the guitar is making actually extends somewhat above and below what you can distinguish and those parts are harmonizing and/or creating dissonance with the parts that you CAN hear. This Harmony/dissonance could change the character of the sound in a noticeable way in the same way that playing additional complementary notes changes the character of the sound in the chord. One wavelength must be able to alter the way another sounds or else we wouldn't hear chords at all, just individual notes played at the same time.
The harmonics you hear that shape the sound of the instruments fall within the normal audible range (~20 Hz to 20KHz). There are indeed harmonics extending above that range, but unless you're part canine you don't hear them. FWIW, the speakers you likely listen to those magnificent vinyl records through likely roll off rather sharply above 20 KHz, as does the phono cartridge tracking the groove.
 
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Originally posted by: SSSnail
That is all, thank you and good night.

If you doubt me, go get some high bit-rate CDs and listen to them.
Your Universal Singular Perception Theory needs a little more work.

For it to be true, you would first need to explain the difference between perception of Flourescent Lighting and Filament based lighting devices.
All those headace and Eye strain sufferers must be wrong, then.
After all, Light is Light, right? 😉


According to the math, we still have another doubling of Bit Rate and Sampling Frequency to go before we really achieve parity with the best analog recording.

No. That is a terrible analogy.

Light is not equal to all light. This should be easy to know.
Different chemicals produce different patterns - different frequencies, different colors, and some are more susceptible to electrical circuit flaws.

Sound, however, is sound, to human ears.
It is a vibration frequency through a gaseous medium.

The only sound that a human will ever know exists, that is outside of the human ear's range, is the "sound" produced by low frequencies.
Basically, put it this way: the human ear, on average, hears between 20Hz and 20KHz (aka 20000Hz). Now, some humans will have better hearing above 20KHz, some a little better at the low end. And then there is differences through aging - hearing ability worsens, so you will lose some at the high end. The high end is more susceptible simply because it is so much more noticeable. They are harder to detect, so a less perfect ear will not notice.
The low end, however, requires less effort in the ear, thus the average, and even after accounting for age, tends to stick pretty roughly to 20Hz. Genetic differences might make this different for individuals but age won't do so much, unless actual damage was done through the years.

But as far as actual hearing/perception of sound... anything above what the human ear can perceive (through physics, meaning what no human can hear, so basically 23000Hz and above I believe.... some humans can only go to 19000Hz and I think some can go as high as 22000Hz or a little higher, might be wrong but let's go with that for the example)... the human body will NOT know there is any sound being emitted if it is at [let's say] 25000Hz. HOWEVER, a human will perceive 10Hz, even though it is below what the ear can hear. Low frequencies will be perceived due to the vibrations. They are so low that our bones and flesh will actually feel them due to the way the pressure of air vibrations move through our body. That is why low frequencies can be difficult to locate the source, and is why the placement of a subwoofer in a room has little consequence (there is consequence, but that's a whole different matter, mostly related to room design and not our ears).

In short, actual harmonic frequencies above our range of hearing have no impact on the way we hear any certain sound. We cannot feel them, hear them, or detect them in any way using our body. Any claim that their presence in music has an effect on the perception of the quality of the harmonics is complete bullshit. Any source claiming this needs to be completely disregarded.
 
Originally posted by: videogames101
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Baked
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Someone told me once that vinyls actually reproduce sounds that are above the range of human hearing, where cds are limited to 20000khz. I asked them "What's the difference if it's above human hearing anyway"? They said that the extra range "does things" to the sounds that you can hear and overall improves the listening experience. I dunno if this is true or not though. *shrug*

More like snob effect. Yeah, I'm sure those $20K a feet ICs make everything sound a hundred times better too.

No, it's true. The top and bottom ends of the signal are chopped off in compression on CD's. Vinyl makes live recordings actual sound "live". I'm a musician, so I notice this more than the average person, but it is true.

Then your not listening to good CDs, your saying CDs get too compressed, but there is hardly a standard for this, so you can't say CDs themselves sound worse than vinyl, but the amount of compression some studios use on them create a lesser quality. Also, analog degrades, a lossless digital copy doesn't.

And what pray tell are the correct CD's I should be listening to?
 
Back
Top