Vinyl trend causes discord

[Werner]

It surprised me that 44.1k and 48k efforts to reproduce a square wave in Audacity sounded so different, and could only be described as a dramatic fail.

Once more:

1) there are issues with synthetically generating such waveforms in a frequency-limited sampled space.

2) there are known issues with Audacity.

3) it remains to be seen how your PC's OS and sound card handle the resultant files with differing sample rates. Uninteded SRC is likely to happen on at least one file.


Resolve all of these, and then come back if they still sound different.

 

[F1eng]

Well, the pre-echo on "Led Zeppelin II" is still present on the CD, so I guess it's on the master as well, and has been since 1969.

Wow, is that print through? I always thought (for over 40 years!) it was a deliberate part of the mix!

 

[ultrawomble]

Wow, is that print through? I always thought (for over 40 years!) it was a deliberate part of the mix!

Apparently it was deliberate:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=8720

 

[Mescalito]

Actually Chris his evidence is that of his ears, or should we say, his senses. Something about CD doesn't sound quite right over an extended period of listening (short tests aren't of interest to me). There must be factors at play here and I suspect ultrasonics might have something to do with it.

To you it does not sound right, Nic. Sounds bloody marvelous to me! But of course, we are all different,

But at least I can point to hard data which explains why it sounds better.

Chris

 

[Mescalito]

find me an instrument that puts out 100khz and a system of recording it at a mean level relevant to what we are basically talking about....these ultra high frequencies are nearly irrelevant to the music and it's message.

it's apples and oranges and tony L was correct....

the format is irrelevant.

Actually, Darryl, you can probably answer a very relevant question.

What is the frequency response of modern studio microphones? Anything significant above 20 Khz?

Chris

 

[johnfromnorwich]

No argument. IF the tranducer is coupled to the skull.

Doesn't apply to most music listening, though.

No. It's a basic physiological process. The source is irrelevant and the transducer doesn't have to be attached to the skull, that's just how the hearing aid is implemented. And why doesn't it apply to most (and why most?) music listening. It either happens or it doesn't. Of course, if there is no signal up there then there's no conduction which is probably more relevant in most cases.

 

[GTM]

Again.. nothing but assumptions and reading things in to what isn't being said.

Find me a single post where I state "I believe vinyl is superior to CD because of it's hi frequency extension"... oh you can't because I've never stated it.

My only statement is that the reason I believe recorded music, (irrespective of format), can always be distinguished as such over live music is because something is not being captured by the recording process. My belief is that the lack of ultrasonics is at least a contributory factor in this difference.

Oh and anyone who states there are none should do some actual research on the frequency spectra of various musical instruments, it's all out there. The point that it may even just be "noise" and totally unrelated to the actual note being played is also irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that it exists when listening to live instruments (every cymbal produces them) and it doesn't in recorded music.

Comparisons of prerecorded music of different formats with differing frequency bandwidths don't prove anything with respect to perception of ultrasonics as obviously the recording system doesn't capture them in the first place.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to accept that lack of ultrasonics isn't the issue, but before that can be proven you'd have to have a recording/replay system in place that does capture them to do the comparison with live instruments.

 

[Werner]

NThe source is irrelevant and the transducer doesn't have to be attached to the skull, that's just how the hearing aid is implemented.

You must be joking. Audibility with bone conduction up to 100kHz or so has been confirmed as early as the 70s, yes. But the key is: bone conduction. And the only way to inject sound there is to drive the bone directly, or at least through a solid medium. Do you have any idea of the transmission loss you would get to go from airborne sound into the skull bones, at these frequencies?

So again, ultrasonic audibility by means of bone conduction is not remotely relevant to our little hobby.

Not if you want to survive a listening session.

 

[Teddy Ray]

Actually, Darryl, you can probably answer a very relevant question.

What is the frequency response of modern studio microphones? Anything significant above 20 Khz?

Chris

no.

A few go up there(my Sanken CO100 goes to 100 kHz and my josephson c617/mk202 is ruler flat from 10 hz to 100 kHz, the sennheiser mkh800 , the schoeps "XT" series and the upper echelon earthworks)


but most...20 to 20/


the two that are ubiquitous..

Shure SM7 and SM57,..

 

[Werner]

Comparisons of prerecorded music of different formats with differing frequency bandwidths don't prove anything with respect to perception of ultrasonics as obviously the recording system doesn't capture them in the first place.

Please explain. I have quite a few recordings with the ultrasonics nicely in place, so obviously the recording system must have captured them.



As for your comparison of live versus canned:
1) there are more significant differences between the two than just ultrasonics
2) the difference is easily heard even through a band-limited PA, so there goes the ultrasonic theory.

 

[Teddy Ray]

Please read this, guys.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html

 

[Greg]

Please read this, guys.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html

Teddy, is there anything new in there? I would expect most people on pfm (certainly on this thread) are aware of expectation bias.

When I spent a few extra English pounds on my CDP my expectation bias was that CD would sound like the last word; my front-end quest at an end. In some cases it sounded really great, but in far too many cases it still sounded "CD-like", which was disappointing... I digress, what was your point?

 

[hammeredklavier]

The ambient noise level in my house when it's nice and quiet is on average 38db.

... which is why - digressing TOTALLY! - I've never understood the popularity of open-back headphones!

 

[Still]

To you it does not sound right, Nic. Sounds bloody marvelous to me! But of course, we are all different,

But at least I can point to hard data which explains why it sounds better.

Chris

Talking of sounding better, what's your take on finding good versions re: sq for your music listening?

 

[Mescalito]

Talking of sounding better, what's your take on finding good versions re: sq for your music listening?

Whenever I buy CDs, I always try to buy the original release, not the "digitally remastered" versions. On some of the very early releases, this can backfire, as very often, they just took the original version mastered for vinyl, with all the mucking about that entailed (mono-ing the bass, compressing it, etc, etc) & bunged it on the CD.

As CD began to be the dominant media, things improved until around the time Oasis made an appearnce, & the loudness wars began. Often, then, you did not have a choice.

When I used to by vinyl, I was a sucker for half speed masters, MFSL, Nautilus, and, if the music warranted it, direct cuts (eg. Taj Mahal "Live & Direct")

Recently, I have replaced all the Doors studio albums with 24/96 DVD A rips, Similarly quite a few of the Dead's stuff.

Chris

 

[GTM]

Please explain. I have quite a few recordings with the ultrasonics nicely in place, so obviously the recording system must have captured them.

Fair enough. But I'm betting your speakers don't cover much above 20-25khz so again any comparison using those recordings would be moot.

As for your comparison of live versus canned:
1) there are more significant differences between the two than just ultrasonics
2) the difference is easily heard even through a band-limited PA, so there goes the ultrasonic theory.

1) I would agree. But it would appear that theoretically at least red book has them covered, or would you disagree? Leaves us with two possible situations, (ignoring ultrasonics for now):

a) Red Book isn't up to the task
b) Red book is, but something else in the replay system doesn't reproduce the differences.

2) No that only proves there are other differences which are readily apparent. I never stated that ultrasonics were the sole reason for the difference.

 

[kendo]

You must be joking. Audibility with bone conduction up to 100kHz or so has been confirmed as early as the 70s, yes. But the key is: bone conduction. And the only way to inject sound there is to drive the bone directly, or at least through a solid medium. Do you have any idea of the transmission loss you would get to go from airborne sound into the skull bones, at these frequencies?

So again, ultrasonic audibility by means of bone conduction is not remotely relevant to our little hobby.

Not if you want to survive a listening session.

So when do Linn bring out their high end sKull?

 

[GTM]

... which is why - digressing TOTALLY! - I've never understood the popularity of open-back headphones!

Lack of bass reinforcement and resonance in the main.

 

[GTM]

So when do Linn bring out their high end sKull?

Going the other way.. anyone recall those stools you could buy to sit on that had "hammers" built in to reproduce subsonic frequencies?

 

[GTM]

Whenever I buy CDs, I always try to buy the original release, not the "digitally remastered" versions. On some of the very early releases, this can backfire, as very often, they just took the original version mastered for vinyl, with all the mucking about that entailed (mono-ing the bass, compressing it, etc, etc) & bunged it on the CD.

As CD began to be the dominant media, things improved until around the time Oasis made an appearnce, & the loudness wars began. Often, then, you did not have a choice.

When I used to by vinyl, I was a sucker for half speed masters, MFSL, Nautilus, and, if the music warranted it, direct cuts (eg. Taj Mahal "Live & Direct")

Recently, I have replaced all the Doors studio albums with 24/96 DVD A rips, Similarly quite a few of the Dead's stuff.

Chris

My TT is currently under the bed.. still trying to slowly replace the LPs I had with CDs.. only I'm running in to the dreaded "remastered" issue. Iron Maiden is a case in point. Impossible to find the originally released and mastered CDs any more. All the new remastered versions are victims of massive "loudness war" treatment by all accounts.