Opus-the-Penguin t1_j1zcjrh wrote
Reply to comment by the_wkv in Wiil CD's make a comeback like Vinyl? by trukises
This is so bizarre. CDs replaced vinyl because the sound quality was off the charts better. People who prefer the sound of vinyl are actually preferring the slight hum and crackle that is added by the needle interacting with the record. Or they're preferring the necessary sound compression that makes the loud parts less loud and the soft parts less soft.
Laethettan t1_j1zguvb wrote
False.. about almost everything. Vinyl has a distortion present that adds warmth.. the 'necessary' compression is not necessary because that is one of the points of hi fi vinyl, it has dynamic range. And the crackle from dust on your record is not desirable hence why you actually brush the dust off and store them in anti-static sleeves ;)
appleburger17 t1_j205o9a wrote
I agree with most of what you're saying but one of the places CDs actually do improve upon vinyl is dynamic range. CDs do, as a fact, have more dynamic range potential than vinyl. A vinyl record's dynamic range is determined by the difference between its shallowest and deepest part of a groove. So its limited by how deeply you can cut the groove into the master lacquer. Since its a physical medium there is a limitation of dynamic range based on how deep you can cut groove before meeting in the middle from the other side or compromising structural integrity. Your statements and illustrations about bit & sample rate are still valid and an argument for why vinyl, despite its limited dynamic range, can still be a high quality alternative to CD.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j1zhwbj wrote
LOL ok. Distortion is desirable. Got it. Look, I could take state of the art sound equipment and make a recording of a vinyl LP. I could then play back the LP itself and the digital recording for you in an audiophile listening room. You would not be able to tell the difference. If distortion is desirable for "warmth", distortion can be added to a digital recording. Most people know better than to desire that.
Laethettan t1_j1zkszr wrote
Well, if someone prefers vinyl because of the warmth it's the natural distortion of the Format. So yes I find it desirable. Keep speaking from ignorance ;)
[deleted] t1_j1zsrww wrote
[removed]
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j1zza1c wrote
lol you are so impassioned about this, but tell me, what is the bitrate of tape or vinyl?
Analog media is not directly comparable to digital formats, and in a sense all digital formats are lossy by comparison. Just as film (read: tape; analog) can be used to produce 4k versions of film (state of the art digital format) where as DVD (old digital; highly compressed; lossy) cannot, tape can be used to produce the highest possible quality transfer to CDs (old digital; lossy but usually acceptable/inaudible) and even higher bitrate formats; or vinyl. Vinyl does have distortion, and particularly it can degrade over time, but any digital transfer was lossy (in a different way; it is subtractive) to begin with.
And yes, any additive modification of the source audio by the media itself is basically a form of distortion, but people have long preferred tube amps due to their distortion properties, which are frequently very pleasing even on settings that sound very "clean". It simply adds character--but if you want to be more of an engineer about it, it adds characteristics to the wave forms it produces or records.
So anyway, I'm not really persuaded by your "audio quality is objective" argument. Resolution is objective, but not always comparable between media... so not a very good way of comparing things, obviously.
In conclusion, there were some very good machines which we now consider old. They are still very good, especially in certain aesthetic ways.
Do I own a record player? No. It's expensive and wasteful and silly in my opinion. But there are differences and I wouldn't begrudge anyone that hobby if they have the time and money for it.
JHDarkLeg t1_j20l4ze wrote
>all digital formats are lossy by comparison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Digital isn't lossy within the Nyquist bandwidth, it's mathematically provable. CDs do not utilize lossy compression algorithms like DVDs do.
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20nu4e wrote
That's really interesting, but is that the same as saying audio "quality" won't benefit from a higher sample rate? I actually can't tell from reading it. It seems like it establishes a minimum sample rate sufficient for reproduction of the wave form, but there is still interpolation occurring in the process, which seems to imply higher rates may impact the result to me.
My point was that analog media are not constructed of data points at all, which remains true, but I'm interested to understand more, as you are correct that CDs are *not* directly comparable to DVDs in terms of using lossy compression.
JHDarkLeg t1_j20q9mb wrote
A higher sampling rate will capture a larger frequency range, but it won't improve the sound quality within that range.
The interpolation you mention is called quantization error, caused by having to use discrete steps rather than an infinitely analog level. Quantization error effects the maximum dynamic range of the recording. A 16-bit CD has a dynamic range of 96dB vs about 70dB for vinyl.
Analog media does have it's own "data points" as well. The size of the magnetic particles on tape or the size of vinyl that is required to still be strong enough to not break when in contact with the stylus. It's harder to measure but it's there.
Regarding compression, CDs do not use lossy compression whereas DVDs use MPEG2 lossy compression.
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20t087 wrote
>Analog media does have it's own "data points" as well. The size of the magnetic particles on tape or the size of vinyl that is required to still be strong enough to not break when in contact with the stylus. It's harder to measure but it's there.
Do you know if it tends to be more or less information than a digital transfer of the same material on CD?
Half-baked thought: I wonder if there is any audible characteristic to regularity/irregularity of information density on a media. Like I assume CDs would be very regular, where as tape may actually be inconsistent in this respect.
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20qxzl wrote
Sorry, intended to agree with you about CDs/DVDs using compression/not using compression. Edited my previous post to fix the typo.
In terms of capture, missing a frequency range sounds like it compromises 'fidelity' in some audible sense if those ranges are indeed audible--all of this as compared with analog media.
Simply asked: Is it possible that someone could hear and prefer/dislike the sound of audio recorded at above the threshold described by the nyquist theorem?
appleburger17 t1_j206gvu wrote
What measures of "higher audio quality" are you choosing to make this determination? Because in some ways vinyl is absolutely higher quality (the fact that digital creates non-perfect approximations of an analog source and is then limited by a bit and sample rate, a lowly 16bit 44.1kHz for CD) and in other ways CD is higher (dynamic range potential). A lossless digital file played through a high quality DAC has the dynamic range advantage with digital coding that is a much closer representation of an analog source than a CD.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20ekjy wrote
Is a JPEG or a PNG ~less~ of a Static Visual Image than something like an old-school Polaroid Picture??? One is digital, the other is traditional / analogue. But both are "images."
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20f41b wrote
Why did Captain Sisko even WANT the stupid old baseball, when he could have just told the Replicator to make him one just as easily as it was making Picard's Earl Gray Tea, or Janeway's coffee????
appleburger17 t1_j20fauh wrote
Assuming you mean to say "less quality" rather than just "less of a static visual image" (since something is either a static image or is not so cannot be less or more without introducing a measure of quality), you haven't provided enough information to answer this question. Which signals to me you don't understand the technology well enough to hold this conversation in an intelligent way.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20g8xi wrote
Is a digital picture not a picture because it's digital????
If you have a fancy digital camera that's rated for a crazy amount of Mega Pixels, you would still prefer an analogue camera from the 70s or 80s????
appleburger17 t1_j20i2sy wrote
You keep coming so close to the point without even realizing it only to set up some other random unrelated thought full of a whole new set of problems.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20k5pi wrote
Yeah. It's called ADHD.
HOLY SHIT, LOOK AT THAT SQUIRREL!!! I'M GUNNA CHASE IT UP THAT TREE!! YUH-HUH, YUH-HUH!!! YUP!!! IMA GUNNA GIT'EM!!!
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20gnvl wrote
Do you prefer your movies to be on old-school 8mm Film?
Is DVD or Blue Ray just too mainstream and plebeian for you??
[deleted] t1_j214d51 wrote
[removed]
appleburger17 t1_j21ckru wrote
I have a degree in audio engineering and have worked in recording studios and live sound reinforcement for decades. Sorry if “do your own Google research” doesn’t cut it for me.
It is a fact, which you can Google if you’d like, that digital audio (CD) is an approximation of an analog source. The quality of that approximation is most often determined and measured in bit rate and sample rate. The higher the bit and sample rate the higher quality and closer it gets to its analog source which has no such limitation. By that measure, vinyl can be higher quality. It is a more exact representation of the source.
It is also a fact, again goggleable, that CD’s dynamic range potential is higher than vinyl. In that measure, CDs can be higher quality.
Which is why I asked what measure you were using to make your case. Unfortunately, you can’t answer with anything but “google it”.
[deleted] t1_j21h8p4 wrote
[removed]
appleburger17 t1_j21wwyj wrote
Never, in the history of recorded music, has it been commonplace to make original recordings on vinyl. Again, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
[deleted] t1_j21bna3 wrote
[deleted]
BoneyDanza t1_j229ep8 wrote
No dude, tiny metal needles are MUCH more sensitive than the lasers /s 😆🤣😂😆😂
BoneyDanza t1_j229293 wrote
Hi! I'm an audiophile that's been breaking/repairing guitars and amps for over 15 years, and studied recording technology for 2 years.
In science terms, what is "warmth" if not distortion? I'm serious. Define warmth as logically as possible.
CDs have not only more dynamic range, they have more frequency range as well.
Optical lasers and microscopic nano dots are more precise than mechanical metal and vinyl. Moisture and airborne particulate can alter the tonal "flavor" of your vinyl as it effects the response of the needle on a journey through a soft vinyl valley. It will not effect a CD.
Play that vinyl 500 times, it will wear the groves and change the tone. That CD can be played non stop for 20 years and nothing will change.
I don't doubt you like it, I just doubt it's better.
THE ONLY thing that vinyl does that CDs do not do is reproduce sine wave forms. Digital mediums are chopped up into tiny square waves. But those square waves are so tiny your brain will not register them. Just like frames in a movie. Literally EVERYTHING else is more precise and more dynamic because....lasers. they do things tiny needles just can't do.
If you don't believe me, buy an oscilloscope or put a frequency spectrum analyzer on your audio signal and compare CD data with vinyl data.
Bonus point: 45s have better sound quality than 33s anyway. Slower record speeds provide less time/space for the needle to travel. That extra 12 revolutions per minute translates to more "information" etched into the vinyl that moves the needle, almost like a bit rate for digital. So I hope you are at least thinking of 45s when you talk about hi fidelity audio.
Cheers!
ElonHuskOfAMan t1_j23x3ea wrote
AHHHHKSHUALLLLY
-You in this thread
[deleted] t1_j20himh wrote
[deleted]
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1zi6mm wrote
"This is so bizarre. CDs replaced vinyl because the sound quality was off the charts better. People who prefer the sound of vinyl are actually preferring the slight hum and crackle that is added by the needle interacting with the record."
Which is easy to add back in with a VST like RC20.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j1zijbc wrote
Exactly! A CD can sound exactly like an LP. An LP lacks the physical capability to give you all the sound that a CD can.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1zjqxy wrote
What people actually like about Vinyl Records (besides the Collectible Aspect and the HUGE album art) is the subtle harmonic distortion, the wobble caused by the non-perfect spinning speed of the turntable, and just the general imperfection that comes with an analogue medium.
Vinyl Dust and the other traits are to Music what Scanlines on a CRT is to Retro Gamers. CD is obviously better -- it's a cleaner sound, and playing your 8bit & 16bit games on a high quality HD TV is better, but the nostalgic feeling is from the Imperfections.
Old Vinyl Records make crackly noises.
Old CRT TVs make everything fuzzy.
But software options are getting better and better at replicating those traits.
appleburger17 t1_j206s3a wrote
Go state this in r/vinyl and see if "what people actually like about vinyl records...is the general imperfection". You're just wrong.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j206zby wrote
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j207o1g wrote
If this was an argument about Religion, I might feel compelled to engage in some battle.
But this is about Music, which is subjective. Preferences are preferences. Some people think you should be crucified if you like Ham & Pineapple on your Pizza. I couldn't give a shxt -- Pizza is Pizza. It all tastes the same anyway. Lol.
Some people think you should be tortured to death if you play a 4:3 Aspect Ratio game in forced 16:9....
I say: let people like what they like. If some guy out there likes Mini-Disc, let him listen to Mini-Disc.
If some guy wants to play Super Mario World in 16:9 Aspect Ratio, let him. I don't care enough to argue with them and tell them they're "enjoying the game wrong."
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j2098l0 wrote
My preference to listen to Music in a digital form is not going to magically make all the Vinyl records in the world disappear.
My preference to play Retro Games emulated is not going to magically make all the physical game carts and cartridges in the world disappear.
You will still have your precious jewel hoard, okay Smaug? Nobody is trying to take your stash. (Even though I can just copy it... Lol.)
appleburger17 t1_j209az0 wrote
You made a statement about what other people prefer. I'm telling you that statement is wrong and giving you a way to get the correct information. If you don't care to be corrected or find the correct information then I have nothing more to offer you. You are remaining willfully ignorant.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20dqm0 wrote
The only aspect I like about Vinyl is sometimes finding cool and unique stuff to sample. (YouTube is a frigging gold mine of potential samples). And samples don't need to be 100% perfect --- even the old-school Akai MPC 2000 did not have a "perfect" sound quality. But people still used it and made some amazing beats with it.
DJ Premier made the "Nas Is Like" beat on it and that's one of the nicest Boom Bap beats I've ever heard.
Music is subjective. You may ~hate~ the stuff that I like. But I don't care. I'm still gunna like it, whether you approve or not.
Is a Playboi Carti fan going to care that I ~hate~ Trap / Mumble Rap and stop listening to what they like because I personally dislike it??? Probably not.
They're just gunna say "Fug-Off, you grouchy Old Head!"
appleburger17 t1_j1zmzxk wrote
How does it lack the physical capability? It’s analog (physical) vs. digital. Digital mimics analog and is dependent on its ability to convert and write data as a close approximation of the analog (vinyl). A CD is limited to 16bit 44.1kHz which is lower than most streaming services that offer 24bit playback. A vinyl record is not limited by bit or sample rate at all. That’s not to say that modern digital conversion is poor but even taking a high quality digital recording of a vinyl record and burning it to a standard CD inherently decreases quality because of the 16/44.1 limitation. You’re making it pretty obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about below a surface level.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1zr5sp wrote
The real question is --- Do I care???
Do I ~care~ enough to spend $300 on a fancy Vacuum Tube amp???
Do I ~care~ enough to buy a subscription to Tidal so I can stream FLAC files???
Music isn't about ~perfection~
It's about having fun and enjoying the art.
Playing Retro Games isn't about ~perfection~
It's about having fun playing the game and just enjoying it for what it is.
What difference does it make whether I play Secret of Mana on a Real SNES with an old CRT for the "Authentic Experience™" or whether I play it on a hacked Nintendo Wii, or whether I play it on a PC using Retro Arch or ZSNES???? It's still Secret of Mana. That's the only part of it that matters ~TO ME~
I can listen to D12 & Eminem in FLAC or MP3 @ 320 KBPS, or even ATRAC on my Sony D-NE320 CD Player, and it's still gunna be the same songs with the same lyrics.
I don't care about "purity"
I only care about my own personal pleasure. And for me, some cheap Skull Candy Ink Plus earbuds or One Odio A71 Over Ear Cup Headphones is juuuuuust fiiiiiine.
I am not an Elitist (except when it comes to lyrics, you won't catch me bumping any of that Psychedelic Mumble Mess).
appleburger17 t1_j1zttvq wrote
That’s great for you. I don’t know how it applies to the conversation at hand though.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1zvkt7 wrote
What you are really after is a reason to feel smug. Oooh, look at me, I'm the big fancy audiophile, I have perfect hearing like a Canine. Ohhhh, look at me -- I'm a Vegan and I don't eat meat. Whoopidy freekin' doo. LAH-DEE-GAWD-DAMN DAHHH!!!
~is trying to do a Chris Farley voice~
appleburger17 t1_j203ioi wrote
I have offered no information about my personal preference. You know, because nobody asked. I know that might seem foreign to you. I’m offering facts that answer a specific question and resulting conversation.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1zt3j5 wrote
"You’re making it pretty obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about below a surface level."
You're right because I absolutely do not give a shit -- if other people wanna judge me for liking "Lower Quality Files" let them. I don't care. If you can tell the difference between a FLAC and a 320kbps MP3 - great! Good for you. But I can't. I failed ~most~ of these.
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
Is analogue better because it can have more "organic subtlety in the waveform" or whatever??? I guess??? Probably????
I don't really care. I personally cannot hear those "organic subtleties." And I'm not going to go to bed angry about it. I like what ~I~ like. If I wanna play an 8bit or 16bit game with a 2xSAI pixel smoothing filter. I WILL.
If I wanna play it stretched out of its natural 4:3 Aspect Ratio and FORCE it into 16:9 so that it fills out edge to edge. I WILL.
AND NOBODY CAN STOP ME.
BUWAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1zungw wrote
Exactly! A CD can sound exactly like an LP. An LP lacks the physical capability to give you all the sound that a CD can.
It can if I process it with RC20 VST.
I can add crackle-pops. Tape Hiss. "Worn Spots" where the tape audio drops out. I can add Harmonic Distortion like a Tube Amp. I can muck about with the audio any way I want. You want "Warm?" I can ~make~ it Warm. You want "Wide?" I can ~make~ it Wide.
Laethettan t1_j1zopy5 wrote
Holy shit are you really claiming Analogue hi fi is inferior to a limited Bitrate Digital Format? Sadface
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j1zs6l4 wrote
Am I really claiming that high quality analogue is better than low quality digital? No. Am I really claiming that the best digital is capable of more faithful sound reproduction than the best analogue? Of course. That's a measurable fact. At the most, you can claim that very expensive analogue can be as good as relatively affordable digital. But a $1000 record player can't reproduce sound more faithfully than a $30 CD player.
appleburger17 t1_j1zltlx wrote
Nobody that’s serious about vinyl as a high quality playback medium prefers hum, crackle, or compression. How was CD sound quality “off the charts better”? Especially when they first came out and digital recording was relatively new?
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j1zt4cl wrote
No distortion. Wow and flutter listed as "below measurable limits". Look, all of us who were alive and purchasing for the transition IMMEDIATELY recognized how much better the CD sounded. It wasn't even close. The so-called "golden ears" of the industry confirmed it. Why do you think we switched? Why do you think we bought $500 CD players and started buying recordings--even recordings we already owned on LP--for $14.99 when they were $7.99 on LP? This was not a mass delusion causing us to prefer a sonically inferior medium.
appleburger17 t1_j1zu06x wrote
Convenience. That’s all. Same reason people switched to lower quality (at the time) MP3s from CD.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j1zuxk5 wrote
Dude, did you read what I wrote? CDs were not "convenient". They were expensive. And the equipment was expensive. We didn't go to all that trouble for convenience. I'm telling you, as a witness from that time, we did it because the sound was NOTICEABLY superior. I remember one classical DJ calling CDs "the silver drug". A friend called them "audio crack". It was hard to keep from buying more BECAUSE THEY SOUNDED SO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WE'D BEEN ABLE TO GET BEFORE.
This was nothing like the later switch to low-quality MP3s. That was a different generation of listeners who did prioritize convenience over audio quality.
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j1zzy6r wrote
What are you going on about? CDs were an order of magnitude more convenient, and using them in your car is a prime reason to make the switch.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20ptwj wrote
No. Almost nobody had a car CD player. Too expensive. If we wanted to listen to a CD in the car, we usually recorded it onto a cassette. There was also this thing that plugged into the cassette deck and to your portable CD player's headphone jack. Those worked but they were a little bit fussy and your CD player had to be portable. Not at all convenient. Convenience was 100% NOT the reason we switched. We switched because CDs sounded better. Ask anyone who remembers the transition.
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20r6v1 wrote
I... am... someone who remembers. And CDs in cars were rad.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20uirg wrote
When was this? I didn't get a CD player in the car until the 2000s. In 1987 almost no one had one. This was NOT what drove the switch. If you remember the transition during the 80s, you remember that.
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20v44s wrote
I mean the late 80s I guess is what I'm talking about. *Shrug*
Let's be reasonable though--CD players were always small (compact disk) and portability was very much the point as much as anything. They really were alternatives to tapes more in my mind I think in that regard. There were also those weird tapes with aux cables.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20wa9o wrote
Portables were fine as competition to the Walkman, but they weren't more convenient on that front. You couldn't go jogging with them. Even your car hitting a bump in the road could derail your listening experience in a situation where the cassette would just keep chugging along. Nevertheless, the sound was so much better that many people made the switch.
However, I don't think it was portables that drove the sales. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that most people were buying full sized players for their home audio systems. Home audio was a much bigger deal back then and everybody wanted a good stereo system.
PossibilitySuperb465 t1_j20wvr1 wrote
>You couldn't go jogging with them
Loolllll man, takes me back. They were really fine in cars though in the 80s (unless you hit a bumpy patch, it would for sure skip lol). Honestly and truly, the few people who I knew back then who were obsessed with audio were still clutching vinyls and eyeing CDs with suspicion. I honestly do remember there being multiple camps on this topic back then though, so the discrepancy in our recollection is frankly unsurprising.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20y8x8 wrote
Yeah, I remember the holdouts who claimed that vinyl sounded "warmer". I also remember the articles in magazines like Stereo Review where the audio engineers were proving objectively that the CD was delivering more and more accurate sound information to your earballs. They said the "warmth" you were hearing in the LP was an artifact of deficiencies in the recording and playback process and meant that you were hearing sound that was somewhat different from the sounds that had been recorded.
Meanwhile, the so-called "golden ears" of the industry were confirming subjectively that what they were hearing from the CD was closer to hearing a live performance than anything they'd heard out of an LP.
So I figured, yeah, go with the experts and go with what my ears were telling me.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j229wzn wrote
Warmth really just means "Extra Midrange Presence" and "Less Sharp Treble."
Very easy to simulate "Warmth" and even "Extra Stereo Separation" by using the RC20 VST.
That thing has MANY options.
Wow, Flutter, Wobble, Crackle, Distortion.
If you wanna make a digital recording ripped from a CD sound like it was recorded from a Vinyl, you totally can.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j229arb wrote
Home Stereos. Even the goofy Wal-Mart systems with the big gaudy speakers that looked like something out of a sci-fi fever dream -- were a BIG business market back in the late 90s and early 2000s.
The ones with the 6 tray Automatic CD Changers. And later they compacted that into a Cartridge form.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1zxwfz wrote
The technology has also gotten much much much better.
When I was 12 years old and I had a Koss PP125 little Auto Reverse cassette player, I had cheap drugstore headphones! Those things probably sounded like shxt, but did I even care at the time??? Nope! All I cared about was jamming to my Duran Duran tapes I found at the Junk Yard when I was scrounging with my Dad! (mutual benefit, I helped him take off parts, he let me dig for tapes). Those tapes were probably moisture damaged all to hell from sitting in wrecked cars, but I didn't care.
All of my school friends were into 2pac & Biggie and my wierd goofy ass was gushing over 80s Synth Rock. (I didn't get into Rap til way way way later).
Then CD came around and I remember getting a ton of those through BMG or Columbia House Records or whatever. The "Get 10 CDs for a Penny" deal, remember that one??? I got Prince Greatest Hits for my mom and Duran Duran -- Decade for myself. And it sounded way better than any tape I had (but like I said, my tapes were dug out of junked cars at my dad's work!).
Technology improved. Things got cheaper. And my hearing -- admittedly -- probably got crappier! I don't have the same ears as 12 year old me. But even back then I don't think I cared. I don't care now either!
MP3 320 KBPS, FLAC, ATRAC. It all sounds pretty much the same to my ears.
The purity isn't all that important to me -- the important part is to just enjoy the music. If I play an old Nintendo game --- it doesn't matter to me if it's a real cartridge on real hardware, or if it's playing off a hacked Wii with an SD card, or a hacked SNES Classic Edition, or an Emulator on Windows PC.
To me, it's still the same game.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20t9ch wrote
> MP3 320 KBPS, FLAC, ATRAC. It all sounds pretty much the same to my ears.
FLAC and ATRAC should be sonically identical to what the original CD puts out. Those formats are lossless. They compress the CD info but they don't lose any of it. They're like audio ZIP files. All the info is there and it all gets played back. Anyone who claims to hear a difference is high on something and wouldn't be able to pass a blind test to identify which is which.
The MP3 is "lossy". Some information does get discarded in order to save space. The goal is to discard information that you wouldn't really hear anyway. And at 320 kpbs, that goal is easily met. You shouldn't hear any difference between an MP3 at that bitrate and the CD it was ripped from. MAYBE on a state of the art sound system some people could hear a tiny difference if they knew what to listen for. I doubt I'm one of those people.
The difference between CDs and LPs, on the other hand, ANYONE can hear. We all heard it in the 80s and made the switch as soon as we could afford to. The only problem in the early days was the recording engineers didn't always know how to use the new technology. They'd put the mics too close or something. I've got a recording of Vaughan-Williams' oboe concerto that is both breathtaking and maddening. The sound is crystal clear... and I can hear every single click and clack of the oboe's keys. It's like I'm sitting on stage instead of a few rows back in the audience.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20w2v8 wrote
Mixing & Engineering definitely plays a factor. There is an ELO's greatest hits CD (that I also had on tape as a kid -- it's the one with the Military Medal on the cover) that sounds ~nearly~ monophonic, whoever mixed that compilation did it very weirdly.
But the "Light Years" 2 Disc compilation has MUCH better mixing, it doesn't sound anywhere near as "narrow" as the old War Medal version.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j20cfdu wrote
The first MP3s were usually all 128 KBPS (at least, that was commonly what Napster and other P2P clients had).... Which is honestly not great. Then as the format grew it got better over time. Also the individual person's hearing plays a lot into it. And then there's the Device playing the files, what kind of Headphones or Speakers etc.
Just out of curiosity, I ripped a CD to FLAC & 320kbps MP3, and even though it goes against what most of the internet believes --- I can't even perceive a difference or benefit.
What I ~CAN~ do is run quieter mixed albums like say: Pretty Hate Machine or License to Ill through RC20 to help bring them up a little and add more "richness" (better Midrange Presence).
That is something I ~CAN~ perceive. I can A-B it (turn the effect On & Off). I can't really do that with a format or Bit-Rate. I don't have a magic green button in Adobe Audition that will let me flip between FLAC & MP3, all I got for that is good ole Winamp.... (it really whips the Lamma's ass!) And even with playing two copies of the same song -- one in FLAC & one in MP3 320kbps, ~I~ personally can't perceive a difference.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20r0mb wrote
Sounds right to me. I've always read that 320kpbs was plenty good enough for most systems and most ears. Maybe on a state of the art sound system in perfect conditions you'd hear the difference. But not on a home theater and definitely not on a pair of earbuds.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j21ebq5 wrote
"Or they're preferring the necessary sound compression that makes the loud parts less loud and the soft parts less soft."
Brick-Wall / Pancake-ing didn't really take hold as a trend until maybe like, the early 90s?
(Would have to Google it)
But everything before then had that "Dynamic Range" but it also meant that Peak Volumes across different albums were varied.
Like, if you were to listen to NIN - The Fragile, then go all the way back to Pretty Hate Machine, PHM is going to sound RIDICULOUSLY QUIET.
Same issue if you were to listen to Beastie Boys -- Hello Nasty, then go all the way back to License to Ill. It's not gunna sound as loud as Hello Nasty, because when License to Ill was recorded and engineered, Brick Wall was not trendy yet.
scavengercat t1_j20bog9 wrote
As a pro audio engineer, this is very, very wrong. CDs fundamentally contain less information than a record does - it's a matter of convenience over sound quality, like streaming is following CDs.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20q8t9 wrote
Welp, you know more than all the pro audio engineers who contributed to extensive articles on the subject then. You know more than the so-called "golden ears" of the recording industry who listened and compared in carefully engineered rooms to get the full effect. And of course you know more than all of us who listened to a CD after having only heard LPs and instantly heard the difference.
scavengercat t1_j20rh1o wrote
Yes I do. You don't know what you're talking about. I've worked with top, top recording, mixing and mastering engineers across the country since the late '90s. I know what the fuck I'm talking about here. You do not.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20u4xf wrote
I'm just telling you why everyone switched to CDs in the 80s. It was the sound quality. All the audio engineers at the time agreed. Every article said so. But most importantly, we HEARD it. Once you heard a CD, there was no going back to LP. Convenience had NOTHING to do with it. Zero. Zip. We switched because we couldn't imagine going back to the LP's inferior sound. A lot of us bought albums on CD that we already owned on LP. It was worth it.
scavengercat t1_j211263 wrote
You are incorrect, again. That's NOT why people switched to CDs - length of storage was a much bigger driver. You just don't know what you're talking about here. LPs in no way have an inferior sound, the technology of CDs requires audio data to be removed for 44.1 audio. Please understand that as an audio professional, this is just wildly wrong info you keep providing.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j21216r wrote
I don't know if you're an audio professional or not, but you're wrong. People did not switch to CDs so they could have both sides of an album on one CD. That is not why CDs were called "audio crack" and "the silver drug". That is not what the announcers on the classical stations talked about with awe in their voices. That was not what Charlie who ran the classical department at Tower Records talked about. That was not what the articles in Stereo Review and High Fidelity talked about. They all talked about the SOUND. The superior SOUND. And we heard it. So we paid almost twice as much for CDs as we would for an LP. Not so we wouldn't have to flip Abbey Road over in order to hear "Here Comes the Sun". I'm not making this up. I'm telling you what actually happened in the 80s and what we all said and heard.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j219d5x wrote
I wonder if Elton John or Jeff Lynne or Geddy Lee ever thought that there would be people in the future arguing on the internet and making this big of a deal. Lol.
Back in the 70s, everyone was listening to AM Radio and everyone was happy and didn't give a shxt.
When we focus ~too much~ on this idea of "perfect" we miss the point -- the point is to just enjoy the music.
Rush & Queen & ELO & Elton John all sound the same on CD as it does on Vinyl, and they would probably be ashamed of us for arguing so aggressively over this shxt.
Who the bloody hell cares that CD is 16bit & 44khz. I don't hear whatever alleged difference the Canine-Eared audiophile snobs are hearing.
And if I want that "Warmth" that CD sound supposedly lacks (it's really just extra Midrange Presence & Harmonic Distortion), I can ~add~ it myself, using RC20 VST.
Radio Stations used to use Harmonic Exciters, like the Aphex Aural Exciter -- to make the music they broadcast sound more lively....
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j21a976 wrote
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j21btiz wrote
Ya know what I wish???? I wish that Sony wouldn't have kept ATRAC & the Mini-Disc Technology all to themselves.
It was a brilliant concept -- take a tiny version of a CD and stuff it inside a plastic casing with a little sliding window just like a Floppy Disk. That way the surface of the Disc doesn't have to be handled by human hands (unless you move the window aside and do it on purpose). Such a change could have worked out great for the entire Record Industry.
And the ATRAC Format itself was very interesting. But like anything Sony ever does, they wanted to keep it just for themselves.
They doomed this neat idea to failure by being too selfish with it. Mini-Disc could have revolutionized the entire market.
scavengercat t1_j217mu3 wrote
Nope. Nope. I'm not wrong in any way on this. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about here. I don't give a shit if you believe me, this is for anyone reading the thread, so they can see there's pushback to your fundamental misunderstanding of what you're talking about here. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j219dl4 wrote
You can say that all you want. I lived through it. I remember it. Ask anyone who was at least 18 in 1987.
scavengercat t1_j21b9uk wrote
I lived through it, too. That's meaningless. Living through it doesn't automatically make you an expert. I grew up on 8 tracks and LPs.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j21r30u wrote
I didn't say I'm an expert. I said I remember the time well and the articles I read and the comments of the classical announcers and Charlie at Tower Records and everyone else. You can't hand wave that away by claiming to be an expert. If you have an article from a technical magazine from the time period claiming that CDs are inferior audio quality but people buy them because they're convenient, bring it on. You don't. That wasn't what happened.
JHDarkLeg t1_j20htn6 wrote
scavengercat t1_j20ix7t wrote
Okay. Let me reiterate that I've dealt with this for a living and know so much more about this than someone who wrote a story for Vox. I've worked with top engineers around the country. I've watched frequency responses on scopes. Vinyl is objectively better than cds, regardless as to what one story on the internet says for confirmation bias.
JHDarkLeg t1_j20jvi0 wrote
Have you taken a vinyl and a CD pressed from the same master recording and then mathematically compared the output waveforms with the waveform of the master?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments