|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.181.133.141
In Reply to: RE: Vinyl Sales Surpass CD Sales For The First Time Since 1986 posted by andy_c on September 11, 2020 at 09:37:53
I don't play CDs and I don't play vinyl, but I listen to music every day. I play hi-rez digital formats such as 24/96, 24/192, 24/352.8, DSD128 and DSD256. Hi-Rez digital is where it's at! Yeah!
Happy listening!
John Elison
Follow Ups:
Later Gator,
Dave
nt
Later Gator,
Dave
in a smaller size 16 2/3rpm record. I have never seen either the 7 inch LP or the car player, but there has to be a collector somewhere that has one.
About 2 or 3 nights a week if I am not in the mood to do any flipping of LPs. Just picked up 2 new Zappa sets "Hot Rats sessions" (6CD) and "The Roxy Performances" (7CD). Lots of great listening there...
I still purchase CDs if they aren't available as high resolution (24-bit) downloads and even play them on a CD player. I rip all my CDs to a NAS drive but I find that by having three different sources to choose from (vinyl, CD, hi-res) it keeps me wanting to engage in "serious" listening rather than streaming background music.I still buy LPs as well but my vinyl purchases are limited to used records that haven't been reissued as other formats or current releases only available on vinyl.
Happily listening,
TomPS: I've been recording LPs more often these days. What I found interesting (but not surprising) is that some of my 24-192 vinyl recordings sound much better than the same album I have on CD. Not all, sometimes the differences are very subtle. Conversely, I have a couple of hi-res reissues (24-96 & 24-192 remasters) that sound better than the LP version. It points out the importance of mixing and mastering and reinforces my enjoyment of having more than one source to listen to.
Edits: 09/13/20 09/13/20
I have a CDP but rarely use it.
these days. Maybe a dozen over a year. But I grab gobs of them being left in the Little Free Library down the street. I add a dozen or so new titles a week to my collection.
I have added about 12 CDs a year to my CD collection since 1990 and 35 vinyl records a year since 1972. Which sounds about what I buy yearly these days.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
a
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
...you are right, what is not to like?
Later Gator,
Dave
. . . so often they seem to be available at giveaway prices, and I can't help myself! (And this is true not only of CD's, but also SACD's.) I don't how many times I've culled my collection, but I can never seem to get below two or three thousand! ;-)
I think the most LPs I ever owned at one time was 3,500.
Now have maybe 1,500 LPs and 1,500 CDs, so about the same piece count.
But in nearly 45 years of changing tastes and circumstances I figure I've owned
about 10,000 LPs and CDs. Doesn't count 45's, 78's, tapes.
Less than 4,000 seems more than manageable, because, I guess it always has been.
I'll buy all the used CDs I'm interested in (and run across in person) but only 1-2 new
ones a week. NO new LPs anymore, used if needed and the price is right.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I don't play them, but I buy them to rip them to FLAC format for computer-based playback. Having the discs is a sort of last resort in the very unlikely event that my file server and two backups of it all go south at once. Plus I'm picky about getting a bit-perfect copy of the CD. I don't know how careful the record companies are about doing that. But I'm an oddball special case. I don't know anyone who plays them in their home or car.
Totally agree, I don't do flac or any lossless formats as now a days you can purchase a 2TB drive for $70 on sale, $80, full retail (that is for the mechanical HDD), $100-$150 for the SSD versions of the same capacity drives.Even with MP3 Vs WAV files at 16/44.1, the difference is subtle at best when you use 320 kbps rips and that is the slight dynamic range compression with the file, but otherwise, they both sound close sonically speaking, even in the car, I can if I listen intently enough, can tell when I'm listening to one or the other, and once I knew what to listen for, I can still tell while driving sometimes.
Again, it's subtle but there once you are cognizant of it. I began doing MP3 but in a folder where I just dumped without rhyme or reason some music files, I didn't even bother with converting to MP3, just 16/44.1 WAV and from that point on, pretty much stopped using MP3's. My head unit is only good for WAV 16/44 and MP3 formats as it's an older unit but can do BT and USB drives.
Edits: 09/15/20
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Ripping Redbook CDs doesn't require FLAC format. Might as well use high bit rate MP3s.
Opus 33 1/3
The highest bit rate MP3 I know of is 320 Kbps. Redbook CDs are typically 1411 Kbps, which can be ripped bit-perfect in FLAC/ALAC or WAV/AIFF.
Why do you think that would not make a difference in SQ?
. . . in theory, practice and theory are the same; in practice, they are different . . .
and take up half the space. When i want to do serious listening, I have about 100 GB of 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC files.
Opus 33 1/3
... is what matters.
In my room, on my system, through my ears, MP3s are not "perfectly satisfactory", they give me a headache.
Like you, I prefer vinyl and hi-res digital. But I consider Redbook CD quality adequate for "serious listening", as you put it. Not so for MP3, and I think you agree.
I don't understand why anyone would go to the effort to rip a CD to a resolution that is lower than the source.
. . . in theory, practice and theory are the same; in practice, they are different . . .
unless you are listening to a very complex piece of classical music with full orchestra, really nicely engineered, very few people can hear the difference, regardless of the system.
Lossless is all very well, but the limitations of 16 BiT and its brick wall filtering make FLAC quite unnecessary in most cases.
I have heard some 320 kbps files not sound great. The software used for making them wasn't listed, but I have never had any issues myself. No background noise, no loss of fidelity.
Naim amps, Tannoy Prestige speakers.
Cambridge CXN, Fiio M11 sources.
Room acoustic treatment. WASP speaker dialing-in.
That hasn't been my experience listening to music on my stereo. In the car or through a portable music player, where there is a fair amount of ambient noise, the 320 kpbs is quite good. But if I want to sit and hear the full measure and subtle nuances of music playback I think lossless files are necessary, even with the limitations of 16bit - 44.1kHz sampling.
Tom
"...very few people can hear the difference, regardless of the system..."
Then I suppose I must be one of the very few.
. . . in theory, practice and theory are the same; in practice, they are different . . .
. . . or higher than the source for that natter.
Opus 33 1/3
> I don't understand why anyone would go to the effort to rip a CD to a resolution that is lower than the source.
I did that once several years ago for my 2012 Toyota Camry, which was limited to MP3 through its USB audio system input. I now own a 2018 Camry and it converts up through 24/192 so I agree with you wholeheartedly. I no longer rip anything to a digital format below 16/44.
Best regards,
John Elison
as the price of digital storage comes down while capacity goes up who could disagree? however, if you're using 'on the go' gear [outside, car, boat] there's nothing wrong with lower rez stuff when quantity of tunes wins over quality as the playback system and milieu will render good as good enough
for myself anyway
be well,
Well FLAC is lossless but it's still a compression scheme.
The file size is only a bit smaller than just leaving it a wav.
A wav file is not compressed.
I don't see the point of FLAC but I might be missing something.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
. . . seem to have standardized around FLAC. Also, I think there are various degrees of FLAC file compression (all of which play back losslessly) - IIRC, you can actually create uncompressed FLAC files, although you hardly ever see this. (Somebody jump in here if I'm misstating things.)But, to your point, storage and bandwidth are cheap these days, so there's no reason not to deal in WAV or AIFF files directly that I can see - except that things have become somewhat standardized on FLAC. Not really a big deal IMHO.
Edits: 09/13/20
I've created zillions of FLAC files from PCM dubs: the % depends on the modulation levels ~55% + reduction may be an average (16bit)...using Audacity level 8 ('best').
If you put WAV files into a ZIP folder there is a ~15% + reduction in total size.
Jim Lesurf carried-out some FLAC testing in 2015:-
see...
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I may not know you well Tre`, but well enough to know that you had your answer before asking the question
regards,
Can you give us the bottom line regarding FLAC? Is it lossless relative to WAV or is there some loss occurring with FLAC?
Thanks!
John
Years back I'd offer files (CD-RW derived: Pioneer/TEAC) as WAV+FLAC as was 'convinced' I could hear a slight difference (albeit on Sony desktop active sqeekers (SRS-58) from Dell Inspiron 6400 Headphone-out: hi-definition as it bypassed the usual circuitry): but did comment that, mathematically, one could, apparently, reconstruct the original data from FLAC.
So I sort of put it down to possible real-time FLAC-to-WAV conversion audio anomalies and didn't really pursue it as people can appear quite happy with what I'd find unacceptable - and also, apparently, couldn't discern a difference between 16 and 24bit - which, from LP, I consider preserves more dynamic freedom as a 24bit FLAC - 16bit sounds 'truncated'..
Irrespective of the above 'mathematically perfect' conversion, Jim's data does shown some slight variation.
I'd personally be happier if WAV was the default - but file sizes get pretty big for (ie) stereo 24/96 - and I save as a 32bit float.
What about 5.1 DSD256 or 5.1 DXD? ;-)
FLAC is lossless but compressed in terms of how much space it takes up on the hard drive.
Wav is to audio files what Raw is to image files. Wav is the whole stream without trying to make it take up less space on the hard drive.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I just looked at a few files that I got from someone else and the compression was 27% to 37% for FLAC. A 4TB drive is only about $100 these days.
-Rod
I play hi-rez digital in my home and in my car. My car has a USB DAC that's compatible with 24/192 PCM. However, I use the 3.5-mm analog plug-in to connect my hi-rez portable DSD player to my car stereo.
Best regards,
John Elison
nt
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
I used to own two Nakamichi Dragon Cassette decks. They're the best. I knew them inside and out. I kept the heads aligned and all the internal adjustments optimized. They almost sounded as good as my Revox A77 reel-to-reels. The cassette tapes were cheaper than reel-to-reel tape and most other audio enthusiasts had cassette decks so I could trade music with all my audio buddies. Moreover, the Dragon would adjust head azimuth to each individual tape automatically. If you're serious about cassette tape, you definitely need a Dragon. You'll love that tape deck.
Best regards,
John Elison
Still have a working BX-300.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
The Dragon is somewhat different than any other Nakamichi because it automatically optimizes playback head azimuth for each tape you play. This means you get the best possible playback resolution with every tape you play. If you're serious about cassette tape, you should try to find a Dragon and then have it restored to perfect health. It will make an improvement that you can easily hear.
Good luck,
John Elison
Hi John ,
I also had a nice Nakamichi 700 ZXE back in the day . When making tape recordings the heads Azimuth is adjusted automatically at first prior to tape recording . It's sounds great and true it rivals the reel tapes . The 700ZXE was as big as the top of the line 1000ZXL . Problem was when you playback recordings made from other cassette tape decks or commercially available prerecorded tapes it does not sound good . But one thing I noted w/ this Cassette decks even the top of the line Nakamichi was they were not able to handle the wide dynamic range of my moving coil cartridge ( Koetsu Black ) . Either the recording level is set to low or when I set the recording a little higher it would saturate the tape . Maybe I did not try hard enough . I regretted selling it .
Stay safe ,
Mondial
I prefer the Dragon to both of the Nakamichi decks you mention. The reason is that the Dragon is the only Nakamichi that automatically adjusts playback head azimuth to any tape being played. Those two decks you mention adjust record head azimuth to match their fixed playback head. This is not the same thing.
The left channel of the Dragon's playback head is divided in half so that each half cam be monitored individually while head azimuth is adjusted until the phase of the signal on each half is perfectly matched. The record head is fixed. The reason for this arrangement is so the playback head will maintain perfect azimuth when the tape plays in reverse. The additional benefit is that it will play perfectly with tapes recorded on other Cassette recorders with slightly different head azimuth. In my opinion, the Dragon was the best cassette tape record Nakamichi every made.
The Dragon also had Dolby C noise reduction, which allowed it cope with the expanded dynamic range of cartridges like your Koetsu. If you had owned the Dragon, you would have loved it. There really was no other cassette that even came close to providing the recording and playback quality of the Nakamichi Dragon.
Best regards,
John Elison
Thanks for the reply John ,
I could have availed of the Nakamichi NR 100 Dolby C add on made specially for the 700 and 1000 series of that time . But I lost interest in cassette deck , but if I knew during that time the Dolby C is capable of wide dynamic range maybe I would'nt have sold my 700ZXE .
Best regard and stay safe ,
Mondial
Yes, Dolby C had noise reduction in-between Dolby B and DBX. Dolby C had just the right amount of compression and expansion whereby it sounded good and yet provided enough noise reduction to increase dynamic range just the right amount without any audible pumping like DBX. The other advantage of Dolby C over Dolby B is that it didn't obliterate the high-frequencies like Dolby B. I thought the Dragon with Dolby C noise reduction sounded so good that I got rid of my Revox A77 reel-to-reel and bought a second Dragon. I'm not saying the Dragon made cassette tape sound just as good as reel-to-reel, but it came so close that I no longer felt the need for reel-to-reel. Of course, when Digital Audio Tape (DAT) came out, it sounded even better to me than reel-to-reel or my Nakamichi Dragon so I switched to DAT in 1991 and I've been into digital recording ever since.
Best regards,
John Elison
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: