Jump to content

fathomer

  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United Kingdom

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. What I think about it is irrelevant. Respected Audio engineers have said using a 24bit recording is ideal for vinyl replay. CD is a relic, it can only reproduce sound at 16/44, and this rate was chosen only because it was what the Audio (or more accurately the video) world knew at the time. The early DAC's were 16/44 -48 and were used for Video playback. Rather than draw up a new standard, which they should have done, they adopted the 16/44. The dynamic range was irrelevant. CD has, and this is easy to find out, real problems converting from the staircase digital point waveform back to analogue. The brickwall filtering to remove Digital artefacts creates a harsh unpleasant sound (believe me the early CD players were practically unlistenable to - God knows why people bought them) and it's only when passed through filters that the sound, along with oversampling, was brought back into the listenable domain. However, the filtering for CD with it's 16 bit system means than the final wave has gone through harsh processing to get there - and yet artefacts remain. These are move out of the audio spectrum by oversampling. What you get left with is NOT what went in to start with. With 24 bit audio, the waveform does not have to be so heavily filtered, and with some DAC's now, oversampling is no longer used as those artefacts are no longer such an issue. The waveform is still not perfect, but it's a lot closer than a 16 bit wave. Vinyl requires none of this. It's a reproduction of an analogue wave. Whether that be from the Production Master or from a Digital remaster further down the line. The format clearly is the limiting factor. Really? You think? Then I would suggest that you check with the expert rippers who will show you how the DR value drops once clicks are removed. Mastering is done in three stages:- First the recording. Second comes the Original Master. We, as consumers will never ever hear the Original Master. It's the raw takes from the sessions put together from the mulitracks and is signed off by the artist and engineer. If a CD or whatever says 'taken from the Original Master' it's BS. Technically yes it has (see below), but in reality, no it hasn't. From the OM, production masters are made. These are what we hear. Originally there was just one of these for vinyl pressings. The Production Masters, and any onward are 'Re-Masters' as the Original Master has been tweaked by the production team. The lacquers were taken from this tape and the vinyl cut. If the lacquers or metal parts were damaged then the batch would be scrapped as these would produce distortion. Contrary to popular belief tapes were not sent out from the original Master, any copies would come from the Production master. In the vinyl era metal parts would also be sent out, hence many pressings in other countries were still USA or UK pressings (as shown in the dead wax). Original Masters are never, ever sent out. Only Production masters or copies of them. When CD arrived the producers were in a hurry to cash in, and any old tape was used or CD's pressed then sent out to other countries. As some production plants didn't have master tapes (they had metal parts) they used anything to hand inc vinyl rips, cassette tape copies etc. It was a scramble to cash in. The only country that didn't just run off CD's from any old tape was Japan. Hence audiophiles treasure Japanese first CD pressings. Original CD's from elsewhere in the World, well, 'meh' tbh. In the Digital age, the same process takes place, but the Production masters became two. One for vinyl, one for CD. All were originally recorded at 16/44. Now, the Production masters are split into three. Downsampled for CD, one for vinyl (if there is a vinyl pressing) and the last for Hires. The latter in the Digital domain is the least messed with. There is of course a fly in the ointment... The production master is just that. It no longer belongs to the artist or sound engineer. It's record company property. As such they can take it and brickwall it into submission and there's nothing the artist or engineer can do. Hence even Hi-res discs can be brickwalled or run off from shoddy masters. Which is an utter disgrace... Re-masters are (according to the engineers who supplied the above) everything from the OM onwards. To them it doesn't mean 're-mastered' by so and so', it means literally 'the Original Master re-mastered for Production'. Hence 're-mastered' in the sense we understand it means very little. What is claimed to be a 're-master' could simply be the Production master run through a DSD machine.
  2. Not a hope in hell. Unless you think a device that emits EMI to the point where it interferes with surrounding equipment can produce better sound than a hifi. A simple test with a mobile phone reveals why PC is such a poor device for transferring and paying back Audio. That said, a PC with a quality (suitably isolated) DAC can produce great sound. I doubt it. I used to be a HiFi salesman and I've heard (and demonstrated) gear that is unlikely to be exceeded in terms of price. Hence I have such a low opinion of CD. Working with something on a day to day basis, that no matter how expensive always sounded crap, and talking to reps who couldn't believe how the public fell for an (already) antiquated Digital replay system was sobering to say the least. I know how to set up a system as well as it can be, and yet somehow that perfect sound for life eluded me. What you are talking about is a personal preference, which I respect totally. A lot of people prefer Digital music, it sounds inherently 'shinier' as a an Audio engineer put it, and it attracts people for that reason. Digital recording has an emphasis on the High frequencies, which added to it's line level output means it's 'in you face' from the off. If that's what you like, groovy. CD though is held back by it's inability to reproduce the analogue waveform without producing distortion, which is reproduced as artefacts. This results in filtering which completely wrecks any chance of a 'true' reproduction. If you think that's what you are getting your ears are fibbing. This is not my view, but that of Audio engineers who's expertise far outstrips mine. Vinyl sounds better because it's reproducing an analogue waveform as is. A decent TT and Phono stage can give you reproduction without anything needing to be converted and sounds excellent. However, that isn't to say Vinyl is perfection. It isn't. It's riddled with problems of it's own. For me (and that's the bottom line for everyone) it's currently the best on offer. In my view though that should end once Blu Ray Audio is perfected. That offers (once they realise it's full potential) greater bandwidth than anything else. Although they have already crippled it by adopting Hires standard rather than the 32bit that they were talking about prior to launch. It's shocking to me that it's taken the best part of twenty years to get Blu Ray to the market. They were talking about in the trade as CD's potential replacement as early as 1990!
  3. I have yet to hear a mainstream CD that sound better than the vinyl equivalent. CD is held back by a poor replay system that has so many wrinkles it's a miracle we get good sound at all. My current CD player is a £2,000 Primare. It's the only one I've found that doesn't make me want to kick it on a regular basis due to making me totally on edge. However, it's not worth arguing over as everyone hears things differently. I've compared vinyl rips side by side with the vinyl replay (blind) and there is a marked difference. Again though, it's down to the individual. Remember, according to various influential sources there is no difference in Audio quality between CD and Hires and even more of a hoot, you cannot tell the difference between Blu Ray and DVD. The latter was the result of a survey and accompanying piece by the powerful consumer magazine in the UK, 'Which'. At the same time, the majority of people choose MP3 over CD, and a very, very large number of those can't tell the difference between them either. Once more, it's down to the individual. Yet plenty of people (I would hope) can see and hear a difference.
  4. Have you! Well bully for you. I suggest you check out the DR database before making sweeping statements like 'things aren't as bad as you make them out to be'. No, they're worse. I have CD's with a DR higher than 12 (16 on some Jazz discs) that doesn't mean I believe on that evidence that there isn't a problem. Really? 16 bit does all that? Funny then that James Guthrie used 24 bit masters to cut the PF immersion vinyl issues... ... and other engineers have said 24/192 can be used to the full for vinyl masters. No, I mean the use of what passes for science according to the author, but in fact has no basis in scientific fact at all. You see it on the internet all the time, in particular with regards Audio. The example you used shows that the cutting lathe was used incorrectly. It's not rocket science. This doesn't happen that often, but when it does the batch should be, and usually is scrapped. At least according to several engineers I've spoken to who actually know how vinyl is produced. What causes inaccurate measurements is cracks and pops on the vinyl. These cause artificial high frequency peaks. When you filter the wave from a vinyl rip and remove these, 'hey presto' an accurate DR value. Again, it isn't rocket science. I'm afraid the 'bad pressing' theory is a bust.
  5. Yeah, that's pretty much nailed it. The problem with the first four albums has always been the fact that as they were recorded on four track, and as such how to stop them becoming bass heavy and 'muddy' sounding. The SHM-SACD's have gone for a middle course, the vinyl boxset and the Hdtracks releases have gone for cleaning up the mids and the high frequencies. The weird thing is, that some of the early albums seem to have lost a bit of detail (between them and the vinyl box) in the process. When I say a little, I do mean a little. I actually enjoy Tech Ech a tad more now with the boxset and these releases. Only a tad mind. Never say Die is still rubbish though.
  6. I have, and they aren't. These HDtracks masters are 'probably' either the ones used for the Rhino releases, or if copyright allows, the same ones used for the vinyl box from 2012. These are a huge jump up from the CD's. If you don't want to go with the SHM-SACD's these are the Digital release to go for. I've heard them all now through Black Sabs to Tech Ech and they are very good.
  7. Well that was disappointing. The first reply I get and it's a troll. I would suggest you follow your won advice sonny. I have some of my kids old nappies in the loft if you need any?
  8. Personally, I would always take a Vinyl rip over a CD version. Simple as. CD has been handicapped by poor mastering initially (any old master was used, inc vinyl rips funnily enough) then the DR wars kicked in. Unless you buy top quality CD's usually from the Jazz stables, or early Japanese pressings you are never going to get a top quality CD, apart from the 'Golden period' of new releases 1985 - 92. Not to mention CD is handicapped by 16/44 mastering and replay. BUT we won't go there as it's a row not worth having. As for Hires releases, these are the ideal for the Digital fan, and 'should' be the way forward. However, lame mastering handicaps these releases too. I find the SHM-SACD's to be seriously poor on average, (only two really grab me) while many other SACD's and DVD-A's have been rushed out to capitalise and as such have poor surround mixes and stereo masters you can do better elsewhere, inc vinyl rips. The likes of Steve Wilson are doing their best to reverse this trend, but even then Wilsons re-mixes are controversial in that many don't like them. His flat transfers though, imo of course, are by and large excellent. This has made the KC 40th aniv series a bit hit and miss. I really enjoy some of them, but others are lame. Back on vinyl ripping, it really depends on who makes the rip and what on? My own rips are awesomely awful. Despite having a quality TT, my PC lacks a sound card that is up to the job. You really need an EMU, junk like Creatives X-fi doesn't cut it. When you hear a rip from someone who a) has a decent TT and B) knows how to post rip process properly, they sound excellent. As for DR, yes you can use it on vinyl. Ignore the idiots who say otherwise, they use voodoo science (made up by themselves) to argue why it doesn't work. The one thing they could successfully argue is that spurious noise can cause anomalies when measuring peaks. So, what you do is, click removal. Then compare the DR from the raw rip and the cleaned rip. Use manual or minimal removal and no music is harmed in the process. Interestingly, neither is the DR value...
  9. There is no Evil Woman because these are Rhino/Warner issues and as such Black Sabbath has the USA release track listing, in which Wicked World replaced Evil Woman. I'm hoping someone will actually feedback properly on these rather than the usual 'wow these sound shiny and clear and sound great compared to the (rubbish) CD issue and my vinyl I last played on a Garrard deck in 1978'. I'd agree SHM-SACD's are probably the best Digital versions I've heard. The Sanctuary vinyl box is probably the best available, unless you can afford pristine vinyl copies from the first stampers. Frankly, I can't. I am wary of HDtracks, because what sounds 'impressive' on first listen, due to the use of increased HF filters used on a lot of their release, doesn't always sound so great five listens and a few comparisons later. Yes this is my first post, and I'm looking forward to using this forum as a lot of good stuff seems to get discussed here.
×
×
  • Create New...