|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.166.121.142
In Reply to: RE: I definitely hear a difference. posted by StephenJK on April 09, 2014 at 10:52:51
For the most part even my 24 bit dac and 44k Sony recorded CDs from vinyl sounded better than the manufactured CDs about as often as vinyl sounds better than the CD.It's pointless to compare a manufactured CD to vinyl.
No doubt your 24/96 recordings are going to sound at least as good as my 24/44 recordings. Not so sure you would do so well in a comparison between CDs.
I was mainly interested in how your CD quality recordings of vinyl sounded in comparison to your higher rez recordings. I thought you mentioned they sound better.
But I think if you want to make both a CD and a high rez recording for comparisons sake you should be using 24/88.
For whatever it's worth.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Edits: 04/09/14Follow Ups:
I am comparing a manufactured CD to vinyl, but not directly.
When the LP is recorded and digitized and then saved as a 24/96 FLAC file, what does it become? A digital approximation of the analog LP or a digital file that can sound no worse than the LP?
I don't make CD's of the recorded LP's, they remain as software files only. What I mentioned was that the recorded LP's at 24/96 sound better than the CD's of the same title from the same label, for what that's worth.
And don't get me wrong, a lot of the CD's I have sound good and even more LP's sound not so good.
No it does not - it's just a comparison of different manufacturing processes. So it's not worth much. Like I said my 44/24 bit recordings sound better than the CDs about as often as the vinyl sounds better than the CD. I don't consider 44 high rez and if accuracy is the key then the best HD can do is the same as 44/24 - in the test you have set up. The listening comparison needs to be done here between the same sourced digital files.
"When the LP is recorded and digitized and then saved as a 24/96 FLAC file, what does it become? A digital approximation of the analog LP or a digital file that can sound no worse than the LP?"No it can sound no better than the lp from which it is recorded.
My point here is the value of HD has to be that it's better than CD quality. Comparisons to vinyl make no sense.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Edits: 04/09/14 04/09/14
Quote: "My point here is the value of HD has to be that it's better than CD quality. Comparisons to vinyl make no sense."Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I was making a comparison between vinyl and CD because with the equipment that I have it's all that I can do. I can't use an HD download file because I can't be sure of it's provenance.
If I had HD digital recordings that I knew had been recorded and mastered at 24/96 or 24/192 then that could have been the basis for comparison.
We do seem to be in agreement that there is definitely a difference between HD and CD, which is what started all of this - too many claims that CD "perfect sound forever" is the pinnacle of achievement that can't be surpassed.
Edits: 04/09/14
"Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I was making a comparison between vinyl and CD because with the equipment that I have it's all that I can do. I can't use an HD download file because I can't be sure of it's provenance."
That hardly makes your comparison reasonable or worthwhile in justifying high definition recording.
"We do seem to be in agreement that there is definitely a difference between HD and CD, which is what started all of this - too many claims that CD "perfect sound forever" is the pinnacle of achievement that can't be surpassed."
What we agree upon is there's definitely a difference between vinyl and CDs. IMO this has more to do with manufacturing than analog v. digital.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
I'm asking if you hear a difference between HD and CD.
I do hear a difference, and believe that an HD recording with suitable provenance will have sonic attributes and qualities that are not apparent on your average CD.
My comparison is with an HD track that just happened to come from a recorded LP. It doesn't negate the logic of the argument.
Where else could that HD track have come from, with provenance that could not be disputed?
I suppose I could do the MFSL thing, and go out with a portable reel to reel to record trains or thunderstorms and then make digital files of that.
But the question was for you to answer, not me.
"I do hear a difference, and believe that an HD recording with suitable provenance will have sonic attributes and qualities that are not apparent on your average CD."
And I'm saying you don't need to do an HD recording for that - a CD quality recording of vinyl will do that.
"My comparison is with an HD track that just happened to come from a recorded LP. It doesn't negate the logic of the argument."
You seem to want to insist that your results have something to do with the fact the recording is HD. I'm saying you can get the same results without HD. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest recording to some of the better lossy formats would give the same results.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
a CD of the same performance taken from the same master (as was used in the LP)?
Adding another entire process of recording IMPROVES the sound?
I apologize if I've misunderstood. If, however, I haven't, your statement is daft.
Edits: 04/11/14
Depends on the condition of the master - some didn't age so well you know.
IME - digital recordings of old vinyl usually sounds better than later CD reissues and later vinyl reissues as well.
With newer music, say after 1995, it's a wash.
There are plenty of exceptions.
But assuming everything is equal which would be preferable? LOL - when is everything really equal?
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: