Vinyl Records - Could it happen with film?

[Mark Antony]

I have some Tri-x with B.B King; like eyesight to the blind ;-)

 

[Mark Antony]

SACD's were recently proven to not have a real-world (ie. us humans can't tell them apart) edge over CD's in a double-blind study. (Basically, they took SACD's and downsampled them to a Redbook level

Eh? do the same people when testing lenses put a scratched to hell filter over the front then test the $50 kit lens against the Zeiss?
Why would you take one systems high resolution advantage take it away and then say all is equal?
I've done the blind system tests loads of times and never guessed wrong, I guess your problem is you listen to 'ripped' music and the info lost during transcription (your turntable better be capable of getting that info off the record) is what you are missing.
The most important thing in the audio chain is not the speakers; you can put the best amp/speaker combo on an AM radio and it'll sound like poor AM radio.
What you need to do is send the best signal to your amp from your source that amp should just amplify without adding any of it's sonic character, in turn the speakers should do likewise.
Kind of garbage in garbage out, once you compress or lose info you can't put it back however expensive your speakers are.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Like I said, it may not apply to you. I just know what I hear. So, whatever buddy. You win.

- Thomas

The SACD blind test was done across a multitude of systems (I think the priciest one they tested on was over $20k).

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57406

Basically, SACD has less noise if you listen at unhealthy levels.

I've talked with many, many sound engineers and producers about this, too. A father of a friend of mine is an engineer and producer, and has also talked of it. I also know someone in Hollywood who rips and sells old records and is involved in sound engineering.

The most important part is the engineering and mastering of the album. If it is crappily mastered, it is going to sound like ass whether it is on CD, SACD, DVD-A, or vinyl. If it is done properly, it will be impossible to hear a real difference.

Again, expectation bias is EXTREMELY powerful. Our brains are easily fooled. And that noise problem sounds weird, I think there is a problem with the CD player in your case. Have you tried different ones?

I hear no noise from CD or vinyl sources (ripped to my PC) through my HiFi setup.

Anyway, no one can say anything concrete about audio without doing a double-blind test first.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Ya know?

No.

Screw the 'ripped to PC'. I suspect you have never heard a truly decent audio system. It has to do with those frequencies down in the 10 HZ range. The ones you can't hear but damn, you can feel. I remember going into high range audio places in the late 70's, places that served up B&O and the like. CD's of any ilk don't come close. If you think they do, go see a good audiologist. Your hearing is probably impaired.

Sorry to insult you but this conversation is absurd.

tim in san jose

You're right, humans can't hear 10Hz. We can only hear 10Hz - 20,000Hz. And that is only in the best case senario. Depending on genetics, age, the amount of noise pollution you've been exposed to, other damage, etc. that range is probably much smaller. If you're over 50 years of age, you can probably only hear up to 12kHz. This is my DAC, Dead Link Removedis my AMP, my headphones are AKG K240 Sextets. I rip CDs using EAC to FLAC which makes sure there is absolutely no difference between the info on my HDD, and the info on the CD. A friend of mine who rips vinyl for a living also rips mine, again to FLAC.

B&O are like Bose. They aren't bad, but they are so insanely overpriced you're an idiot to buy them. If anything, they're low-end.

Also, I'd appriciate it if you dropped the hostile and insulting tone. I've actually been to an audiologist recently, when I was getting ear impressions for in-ear monitors. On a whim, I had my hearing tested. Perfect 20Hz to 20,000kHz.

I used to hang out on a lot of "audiophile" forums, filled with your kind. They go beyond rhyme, reason, and science going so far as to think that one cable sounds better than another. There are actually people who have spent $20,000USD on cables, alone. They've also spent insane amounts of money on really crappy amps and DACs, because they fell for fancy cases and marketing gimmicks. If you want to see some of these crazies, check out head-fi.org and go to the "Cables" forum. Some people go as far as to think a $300 jar of pebbles makes their equipment sound better.

@Mark look at who did the double-blind test. Highly respected sound engineers...

@Tom Sorry to be so hostile towards you, it is just sites like Head-Fi REALLY made me hate audiophiles. You probably just have a better vinyl setup than you do digital.

 

[Mark Antony]

@Mark look at who did the double-blind test. Highly respected sound engineers...

Yes but look at their retarded methodology they downgraded the SACD to redbook and said 'no difference' respected? not by me that's for sure!!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

@Tom Sorry to be so hostile towards you, it is just sites like Head-Fi REALLY made me hate audiophiles. You probably just have a better vinyl setup than you do digital.

No problem, Jazz. I quite enjoy the discussion. But what I can't seem to get through is that I can listen to an SACD and a CD and instantly tell the difference. I can hear this. I can hear this. How many times do I have to say it? It's not subtle either. I don't care who says I can't hear it. I can hear it.

Vinyl, to me, does a much better job of giving a poised performance. I have had what to me is one of the best sounding CD player around, price is not a factor here. I can listen to one or two CDs, then I have to stop. I can listen to vinyl for a whole day. And I am not one to care too much about the audio part. I care about the music. Same as with photography. I care about the print. My ears get tired from listening to CDs. They do not get tired from listening to vinyl. Go figure. I will bow out of this conversation now. It is not getting anywhere that's useful to anyone.

- Thomas

 

[AutumnJazz]

Were you comparing the SACD to a different CD, or the Redbook layer on the SACD? One reason to actually get SACDs is because they are usually much, much better engineered and mastered than their CD counterparts. Which is also why I have many SACDs .

Tom, that is extremely strange...Honestly, it sounds to me like your CD player or amp is messed up.

@Mark You are the textbook definition of someone not wanting a reality check. Please, get over your mid-life chrisis and stop harrasing me. And they downsampled them.

 

[Mark Antony]

@Mark You are the textbook definition of someone not wanting a reality check. Please, get over your mid-life chrisis and stop harrasing me. And they downsampled them.

And they downsampled them.
Says it all take a high res carrier and downsample to a low res what do you get?
take your 20 mp camera downsample to a 3mp camera tell the difference?
no because you just REMOVED the advantage-downgraded!

Sorry but those who insult people because they lose arguments are sad!

Fact: I can hear the difference between CD and vinyl, no matter how many 'respected' experts you call upon can't change that.
You sound like one of those really annoying people who confuse their experience as 'reality for everyone'.
Your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you're just going to insult me over my personal experience on the ignore list you go..

 

[k_jupiter]

Fact: I can hear the difference between CD and vinyl, no matter how many 'respected' experts you call upon can't change that.
You sound like one of those really annoying people who confuse their experience as 'reality for everyone'.
Your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you're just going to insult me over my personal experience on the ignore list you go..

Mark,

There are some experiences that... have left this world for good. One is walking into a high end Audio store to go into the back room, the one they never usually let us G.I.s into because we didn't have the bucks to buy anything anyway, and sit down in a deep leatherchair, settle back with one of those Maxell Jazz virgin records on the turntable and they let us know what we were missing with out Techniques, Pioneer, and Kenwood systems... We were happy with our little JBL bookshelf speakers till we heard... that.

Kind of like knowing you will never again walk into a nice photography gallery and see a show with 20x24 Ilford Gallerie in #2 Gloss, with someones technically perfect LF work that would inspire you to go back into the darkroom and do it all over again.

Those were my thoughts exactly. The guy has lost the argument and has no idea he has.

Best of luck,

tim in san jose

 

[Steve Smith]

I am not an audiophile type and do not own any 'high end' audio equipment other than a pair of huge Kenwood speakers which my brother found in a cupboard in a house he was renovating.

I like listening to vinyl but I don't see the point in having equipment which is specified many factors greater than the equipment the music was recorded on in the first place. Obviously most recording equipment is of a high technical standard but it seems to me that some hi fi equipment is trying to be of a far higher standard than it needs to be. If you have such equipment then the weak link in the system is the original recording and no amount of reproduction quality can improve it.

It is the people who spend huge amounts on in car systems who make me laugh. I have not seen it for a while but one of the UK electronics hobby suppliers used to sell a gold plated car battery terminal which is used to connect to the lead terminals of the battery. How many people can claim to hear a difference with that in place?


Steve.

 

[naturephoto1]

Steve,

Much of the recorded tapes used for making vinyl and the later tapes and digital recordings used for CDs, SACDs, DVD audio are far beyond the playback capabilities of most equipment owned by the vast majority of people. However, they are also in many/or even most cases beyond even what most high end users have even today in terms of both analog and digital reproduction.

As has been pointed out, the weakest link in any playback system limits what can be reproduced. That includes the analog or digital front end (which may well be the single most important component), any DACs, Pre-amps, phono-preamps, amps, speakers, subwoofers, interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, digital cables, etc. The goal of most audiophiles is to get as close as possible to what is recorded and for the sound and timbre to be that of the instruments and voices that are recorded. That is why so many audiophiles try to optimize their system also relying upon platforms, racks, and tweaks (including feet) to lessen any vibration, micro-sonics, static charge, magnetic effects, etc. that further hide the sound and veil the music.

Rich

 

[Steve Smith]

The goal of most audiophiles is to get as close as possible to what is recorded and for the sound and timbre to be that of the instruments and voices that are recorded. That is why so many audiophiles try to optimize their system also relying upon platforms, racks, and tweaks (including feet) to lessen any vibration, micro-sonics, static charge, magnetic effects, etc. that further hide the sound and veil the music.

I sometimes work as a live sound engineer. The first thing we do when a system is set up is equalise the system to the room. This is done with 31 band graphic equalisers on the left and right outputs and then repeated for each channel of foldback.

This equalisation is to reduce the resonances in the room and therefore create a flat response. When this is done the system is matched to the room and a greater level is possible without feedback or colouration of the sound.

I have never seen a high end hi-fi system treated this way. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I have never seen it. In my opinion, the effect of the room on the system would be far greater than some of the overpriced interconnects, etc. which are available.

To my mind, the term 'optimise the system' should include matching it to the resonances of the room it is being used in.




Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have never seen a high end hi-fi system treated this way. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I have never seen it.

I have now!

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Room_Correction_scr.pdf




Steve.

 

[Lee L]

I saw a friend's mid-price JVC 5.1 channel receiver put out tones from multiple speakers and EQ itself with a dedicated mic at the listening position several years ago. So that sort of thing is done.

There are also those who mic carefully, choose the recording venue carefully, and may acoustically treat the recording room a bit, but don't EQ in the same way Steve describes; a sort of minimalist approach to audiophile sound.

Lee

 

[Steve Smith]

I saw a friend's mid-price JVC 5.1 channel receiver put out tones from multiple speakers and EQ itself with a dedicated mic at the listening position several years ago.

In the 1980's I was at a demonstration given by Peavey (musical instrument and audio equipment manufacturer).
We were shown a system of automatic equalisation which put out pink noise. Most people know that white noise is an equal mix of all frequencies. It is the sound of an FM radio not tuned into a station. Pink noise is the same thing but equalised so that each frequency is at the same power level (rather than voltage level).

A dedicated microphone picked up this sound and set the system's equalisation. This was done through a 10KW PA system in a fairly small hotel ballroom and sounded like world war three and the end of the world combined!

At the same demonstration I was shown the method of equalising using feedback. You start with the graphic equaliser flat (all at 0dB) and a microphone set up centre stage. You increase the level of the system until you start to hear feedback. The trick is to find the frequency and reduce by a few dB to stop the feedback. You then turn it up a bit more to find the next frequency. You do this four or five times after which you have a system which has 'adapted' itself to the acoustic deficiencies of the room.

After a while you get a feel for which frequencies are feeding back and you can get the right one after one or two goes.


Steve.

 

[BetterSense]

It's a simple fact that you listen to the room as much as you do the speakers. The anechoic volume of a speaker system is always many decibels less than the volume in a listening room. Thus when you listen to a set of speakers you are listening as much to the room as to the speakers.

 

[Aurum]

I sometimes work as a live sound engineer. The first thing we do when a system is set up is equalise the system to the room. This is done with 31 band graphic equalisers on the left and right outputs and then repeated for each channel of foldback.

This equalisation is to reduce the resonances in the room and therefore create a flat response. When this is done the system is matched to the room and a greater level is possible without feedback or colouration of the sound.

I have never seen a high end hi-fi system treated this way. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I have never seen it. In my opinion, the effect of the room on the system would be far greater than some of the overpriced interconnects, etc. which are available.

To my mind, the term 'optimise the system' should include matching it to the resonances of the room it is being used in.




Steve.

One question purely for interest really.

I'm presuming that you are doing this while the room is pretty much empty, apart from a few crew wandering around, doing what they need to do.
Do you find that you have to adjust and tweak, once you have a full sized audience of sound absorbing human beings in there, or are you just tuning for the worst case scenario where the lead singers' mother and a couple of his mates turn up for support, instead of the crowds that the promoter promised?

 

[Steve Smith]

Do you find that you have to adjust and tweak, once you have a full sized audience of sound absorbing human beings in there, or are you just tuning for the worst case scenario where the lead singers' mother and a couple of his mates turn up for support, instead of the crowds that the promoter promised?

Sometimes a bit of tweaking is needed when people are present but the thing which makes the most difference is not the people themselves but the change in humidity caused by sweaty bodies on a hot day in a poorly ventilated room.

The initial equalisation works by making the system less efficient at the frequencies where the room is over-efficient (or resonanant). Adding people to the room will not add any resonaces but may dampen a frequency band which was previously flat. In general the differences are fairly negligeable but sometimes some adjustment is needed.

Equalisation is a subtractive process. You start with all equaliser controls at the mid (0dB) point and only reduce levels where needed.

If you were to listen to a CD through the system and I reduced one frequency (say 1KHz) to its minimum, I doubt that you would notice as it is a narrow 1/3 octave band with some overlap provided by adjacent controls. However, if I increased the 1KHz control by 6-10dB you would notice straight away.

Look here - It's in the section 'Ringing Out The Room'
http://harada-sound.com/sound/handbook/soundrein2.html


Steve.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I have not seen it for a while but one of the UK electronics hobby suppliers used to sell a gold plated car battery terminal which is used to connect to the lead terminals of the battery.Steve.

Ah! But I bet buyers of those found their engines always started on cold winter mornings!

 

[Steve Roberts]

I always reckon that sharpening the needle at least every other record is well worthwhile and a few half crowns around the label will certainly stop the record slipping. In my experience, a mahogany cabinet gives the best tone. Look out for those inside start records and watch that Nipper doesn't get his nose too far into the horn, which can cause severe audio output attenuation.
It has been suggested that it's time I upgraded my system.

Steve

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I once bought a 1970s Rotel integrated amplifier from a thrift shop, $7.
Wooden case, beautiful large fm/am readout with a large solid metal tuning knob that was weighed (literally! with twine and a weight inside!).. All the connections inside were point to point soldered by hand. It sounds beautiful..

Always wanted some Lowthers too. Ah well.

 

[Steve Smith]

It has been suggested that it's time I upgraded my system.

I have one of those systems too. No need to upgrade yet.

In my town I can easily buy gramophone needles but I don't think I would be able to find a stylus.


Steve.

 

[Iwagoshi]

I always reckon that sharpening the needle at least every other record is well worthwhile and a few half crowns around the label will certainly stop the record slipping. In my experience, a mahogany cabinet gives the best tone. Look out for those inside start records and watch that Nipper doesn't get his nose too far into the horn, which can cause severe audio output attenuation.
It has been suggested that it's time I upgraded my system.

Steve

For those that do not have a clue as to what you are talking about:

I assume this is the "Nipper" you mentioned.

Terry

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

LOL. That's a great post, Terry!

 

[Iwagoshi]

I am not an audiophile type

Steve.

For not being an "audiophile type," your

all valve (tube) circuit pre-amplifier with balanced line microphone inputs. Featuring phantom power at 48 volts and phase reversal switches. Each section comprises of an ECC82/12AU7 dual triode valve which amplifies the microphone signal via an input transformer.

certainly looks audiophile-ish.

Terry

obtw I'm an audiophile, I've got a Direct Metal Mastered LP and moving coil cartridge and can urinate further than anyone here. And I'm also a member of Head-fi.org.

Oh and Thomas, I have a bunch of stuff from Minn., Magnepan and Audio Research Corp.