Neil Young: This is a low-res world (and the never ending analog vs. digital debate) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Erik
- Start date
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
Thanks Erik! Very nice link!:)
mjp
Founding member
Oh lord, more hysterical misinformation.
Rips from CDs to lossless file formats have only 10% more "data" than MP3 files (whatever bitrate those are, he never says)? When he says stupid shit like that (and that "in the old days" you got "100%" of the music - wrong!) he strays from his message, which is generally good. I'm all for him as an evangelist for quality. Good for him. Just needs to tone down the hyperbole.
Those fucking guys interviewing him seem to be very stupid.
Rips from CDs to lossless file formats have only 10% more "data" than MP3 files (whatever bitrate those are, he never says)? When he says stupid shit like that (and that "in the old days" you got "100%" of the music - wrong!) he strays from his message, which is generally good. I'm all for him as an evangelist for quality. Good for him. Just needs to tone down the hyperbole.
Those fucking guys interviewing him seem to be very stupid.
mjp
Founding member
I listened to this again, and while he's still in error about a CD to lossless rip (how can he say that there's nothing wrong with digital, but a digital to digital rip is no good?), I think his overall point is that MP3 has numbed the average (young) listener to sound quality, and on that point, I would have to agree.
I haven't bothered listening to this again, but isn't the quality on the CD an issue here, not just the rip from the CD?
And what he said about MP3s being the radio of our time has stuck with me...
Oh, and I also remember N.Y. way back when saying that to test the quality of new take he would listen to it thru the wall of a room next to therecording studio.... yeah. ;-)
And what he said about MP3s being the radio of our time has stuck with me...
Oh, and I also remember N.Y. way back when saying that to test the quality of new take he would listen to it thru the wall of a room next to therecording studio.... yeah. ;-)
mjp
Founding member
Oh jesus christ, I don't know anymore. I don't understand half of what he's saying. Never have. I was just trying to be generous because he's really old and he's accomplished a lot of stuff and I think at its core, his message, that QUALITY MATTERS, and we're voluntarily sacrificing quality at the altar of convenience and portability - is an important one.
Well, what I must have missed is what percentages he puts on .wav files and CDs in comparison to vinyl. I don't feel like watching the whole thing over either. I remember him saying that the 1K was 50% but I don't care much about that.
Didn't he say in the beginning that there was nothing really wrong with digital? I guess I sort of took that to mean that CDs were comparable to vinyl.
cirerita
Founding member
CDs are 48/16, so they're compressed and a lot of audio information is lost. If you rip a CD to lossless FLAC files, for instance, the max quality is that of the source, that is, the 48/16 CD.
DVA-Audio (which I think is no longer used) and Blu-Ray deliver up to 192/24, which is as close to vinyl as you can get. DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray audio files are huge, but quality is -digitally- preserved. Whether most human ears can tell 48/16 from 192/24 files is an altogether different debate.
I think he is saying that there is nothing wrong with digital in terms of convenience. Digital does not mean mp3, though. Digital might mean high definition audio, too. He's suggesting that high-def lovers should be able to download high-def audio files -a process which can take several hours as opposed to downloading an mp3 recording in a few minutes- and enjoy them in compatible portable players instead of listening to crappy mp3 files. That's why he does not seem to care if mp3 files are freely distributed. They're indeed the new radio and you can't stop them, can you?
DVA-Audio (which I think is no longer used) and Blu-Ray deliver up to 192/24, which is as close to vinyl as you can get. DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray audio files are huge, but quality is -digitally- preserved. Whether most human ears can tell 48/16 from 192/24 files is an altogether different debate.
I think he is saying that there is nothing wrong with digital in terms of convenience. Digital does not mean mp3, though. Digital might mean high definition audio, too. He's suggesting that high-def lovers should be able to download high-def audio files -a process which can take several hours as opposed to downloading an mp3 recording in a few minutes- and enjoy them in compatible portable players instead of listening to crappy mp3 files. That's why he does not seem to care if mp3 files are freely distributed. They're indeed the new radio and you can't stop them, can you?
I understand what he's saying. I just didn't know the CD loss exactly. I didn't realize it was that much.
I always knew the mp3 was shite. I could hear it. The compression is just way too much. I can hear the difference in a .wav file and an mp3, but even a .wav file sounds super compressed to me too.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. You just made me feel even worse about getting rid of all my vinyl back in my late 20s when I needed rent. An event I seem to have never, ever forgiven myself for.
I always knew the mp3 was shite. I could hear it. The compression is just way too much. I can hear the difference in a .wav file and an mp3, but even a .wav file sounds super compressed to me too.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. You just made me feel even worse about getting rid of all my vinyl back in my late 20s when I needed rent. An event I seem to have never, ever forgiven myself for.
cirerita
Founding member
Vinyl used to be the ultimate panacea, but that's no longer the case. Blu-Ray audio files can deliver up to 192/24 and the sound quality -although digital- is almost as good as analog vinyl. Some people complain that even Blu-Ray can't reproduce the warmth and depth of vinyl, but I'm not that picky.
New audio digital formats will hopefully be in the market soon, allowing us to enjoy 192/24 files in our portable players. We won't need hi-fi equipments to enjoy fully, glorious uncompressed sound, and that's the really cool part because we will be able to buy either crappy mp3 or losless 192/24 PCM files, for instance. I know for sure where I'll be spending my $$$.
New audio digital formats will hopefully be in the market soon, allowing us to enjoy 192/24 files in our portable players. We won't need hi-fi equipments to enjoy fully, glorious uncompressed sound, and that's the really cool part because we will be able to buy either crappy mp3 or losless 192/24 PCM files, for instance. I know for sure where I'll be spending my $$$.
mjp
Founding member
Ears are ears and everyone's are different. But I'm pretty sure that the "warmth and depth of vinyl" is in your head. A lot of what people perceive as "warmth" in vinyl records are sonic artifacts of the medium - sound created by the vinyl itself.
Numbers regarding sampling or digital conversion are meaningless after they reach a certain point (and CD audio is way beyond that point), because sound is sampled from the minute you put a microphone in front of something to record it. It's sampled by every piece of equipment in the chain - the microphone, the cable connected to the microphone, the mixing board, the components connected to the mixing board, the magnetic tape - if you still roll old school like that - the thousands of wires and solder points inside the board and all those components, everything.
Everything in the recording process converts the sound/signal. Everything breaks what your ears hear down into little electrical or magnetic bits. If you looked at a piece of recording tape under a microscope what you would see is millions of little flakes of rust. And that's what stores the sound. In little bits. Sampled.
In any event, I've been comparing some of that "warm, deep" vinyl to CDs lately (due to the purchase in the sonic boom thread - along with some other new equipment), and the vinyl LPs and 45s are almost comically inferior to the well-mastered CDs. My dogs can hear the difference, and they say I should put the vinyl in the recycling bins. I won't, because, you know, dogs are kind of stupid, but I see their point.
Some of that difference has to do with the mastering stage, since you cannot master for vinyl from a flat master - it has to be EQed for vinyl. By "flat" master I mean a tape of the final mix that has not had any adjustments made to the bass, midrange, treble, etc. A flat master is an exact reproduction of what the people in the studio heard when they mixed the record. But you can master for digital/CD from a flat master, which potentially creates a superior end product. If you want to hear what they heard when they mixed in the studio. Of course all of that also depends on the skill of the person doing the mastering.
Now I'm putting even myself to sleep, so I'll stop.
In the scheme of things, as long as people are listening to music, and think the quality of the sound is important, that's great. If they think their LPs, 8 track tapes or Edison cylinders are sonic nirvana, cool. The purpose of all of this is to put the music into the air around you (not into little plastic things jammed into your earholes), and that's all that matters.
So crank it up, bitches.
Without high quality digital to analog conversion, you will not ever enjoy high quality sound. Regardless of the source. Good stereo equipment uses expensive electronic components and giant, cumbersome power supplies to do really high quality digital to analog conversion. It isn't possible to get the same sound from a computer sound card or some little pocket device, even if you hook them up to a pair of thousand dollar speakers.
Will it be better than what people hear now? Hell yeah. But most people won't buy it anyway. If they have a choice between a large, expensive file and an MP3 (which they will, at least initially when higher quality formats are introduced), they'll still buy the 99 cent MP3.
It's so hard to believe... a digital sound that needs absolutely no analog conversion and/or good audio equipment. I would just have to sit and listen to the difference to let you know if that would actually be sufficient and/or superior to the set-up we currently have right now for both our vinyl and CD listening pleasures. It would be truly hard to beat it, and with crappy earplugs or whatever - yes, very hard to believe!
cirerita
Founding member
I don't listen to vinyl, so I don't know if there's any warmth and depth to them. But I've been comparing digital files for a long while, and while it's true that some properly mastered CDs sound great, I can hear a significant difference between those CDs and their equivalent Blu-Rays (using the same audio equipment, of course). I suspect that new high def formats will sound way better than CDs in most audio equipments, even in portable players.
It's obvious most people will keep buying mp3 files -basically because they're cheaper- but it will be nice to be able to buy high def portable audio files. It's all about quality and convenience.
It's obvious most people will keep buying mp3 files -basically because they're cheaper- but it will be nice to be able to buy high def portable audio files. It's all about quality and convenience.
That's the perfect test, I think. Play a nicely mastered CD in your home equipment and then play the raw, uncompressed linear PCM files (in a Blu-Ray, for instance) using the same equipment, but play both discs as loud as you can. You'll hear and feel the differences immediately.
mjp
Founding member
Well, we can talk about Blu-Ray like it's a competing format for red book (standard) CD, but it's not. It's an optical disc progression. It's meant to replace CD, which it eventually will. Unless they come up with something "better" in the next few years, which is feasible the way things go in technology.
Blu-Ray is not a common format for music right now, it doesn't have traction so it could easily be superseded by The Next Great Thing. On the other hand, there are billions of music CDs out there, and they will continue to make them for the foreseeable future. If you are betting on a format for the long haul, Blu-Ray is a sucker's bet. Make room in your betamax tape closet for those Blu-Ray music discs. That's where they're going to end up.
Another thing that bugs the information should be free part of me (free as in freedom, not free as in no cost) is that Blu-Ray is just another tool the big companies can use to fuck you. You cannot region encode a CD, but you can region encode Blu-Ray discs. So just like DVDs, you'll eventually find that your Canadian Bon Hiver disc will not play in your friend's Mexican Blu-Ray player. Another wall Sony and BMG can throw up in your way. And throw it up they will.
As for sound, I couldn't tell you, because I don't (and likely won't ever) have a Blu-Ray player. The anti-digital-anti-CD comparison is always made between vinyl and CD, with people gushing about how alive and organic their LPs sound compared to the cold and sterile evil CDs.
But as someone who has spent way too much time (hundreds of hours) in recording studios all over the world, and sat through many long mastering sessions at Bernie Grundman in Hollywood, I can say that the sound you hear in the studio, the sound that musicians sit in there for weeks and months making, never, ever comes across on vinyl. But when I listen to (again, well-mastered) CDs on this fancy new rig here, I'm hearing the closest thing I've ever heard to that sound in the studio. And that's the sound I've been chasing ever since I started putting music down on tape, back in the 1890s.
Is a Blu-Ray disc going to sound better? I don't know. I don't know if it can. Like any high-end thing, there is a law of diminishing return after a certain point. Something that is "better than excellent" is rarely worth the extra cost that comes with it, because the improvement in the end experience is extremely negligible. You're usually talking about things that can be measured but not heard.
But like I said, I doubt I'll ever know because I doubt that the back catalogs of the big record companies are ever going to exist on Blu-Ray, and I'm not interested in hearing the shit that will end up on them. Now if Tuff Gong wants to release Bob Marley's catalog on Blu-Ray, I'll buy them all and I'll buy the world's best Blu-Ray player and hook it up over here and then I'll let you know.
Until then, there is not a better way to listen to those records than the raggedy old CDs that Tuff Gong released in the early 90s (the ones mastered by Barry Diament). Powah!
Blu-Ray is not a common format for music right now, it doesn't have traction so it could easily be superseded by The Next Great Thing. On the other hand, there are billions of music CDs out there, and they will continue to make them for the foreseeable future. If you are betting on a format for the long haul, Blu-Ray is a sucker's bet. Make room in your betamax tape closet for those Blu-Ray music discs. That's where they're going to end up.
Another thing that bugs the information should be free part of me (free as in freedom, not free as in no cost) is that Blu-Ray is just another tool the big companies can use to fuck you. You cannot region encode a CD, but you can region encode Blu-Ray discs. So just like DVDs, you'll eventually find that your Canadian Bon Hiver disc will not play in your friend's Mexican Blu-Ray player. Another wall Sony and BMG can throw up in your way. And throw it up they will.
As for sound, I couldn't tell you, because I don't (and likely won't ever) have a Blu-Ray player. The anti-digital-anti-CD comparison is always made between vinyl and CD, with people gushing about how alive and organic their LPs sound compared to the cold and sterile evil CDs.
But as someone who has spent way too much time (hundreds of hours) in recording studios all over the world, and sat through many long mastering sessions at Bernie Grundman in Hollywood, I can say that the sound you hear in the studio, the sound that musicians sit in there for weeks and months making, never, ever comes across on vinyl. But when I listen to (again, well-mastered) CDs on this fancy new rig here, I'm hearing the closest thing I've ever heard to that sound in the studio. And that's the sound I've been chasing ever since I started putting music down on tape, back in the 1890s.
Is a Blu-Ray disc going to sound better? I don't know. I don't know if it can. Like any high-end thing, there is a law of diminishing return after a certain point. Something that is "better than excellent" is rarely worth the extra cost that comes with it, because the improvement in the end experience is extremely negligible. You're usually talking about things that can be measured but not heard.
But like I said, I doubt I'll ever know because I doubt that the back catalogs of the big record companies are ever going to exist on Blu-Ray, and I'm not interested in hearing the shit that will end up on them. Now if Tuff Gong wants to release Bob Marley's catalog on Blu-Ray, I'll buy them all and I'll buy the world's best Blu-Ray player and hook it up over here and then I'll let you know.
Until then, there is not a better way to listen to those records than the raggedy old CDs that Tuff Gong released in the early 90s (the ones mastered by Barry Diament). Powah!
I will cut you.
cirerita
Founding member
I couldn't care less about Blu-Ray. It's just a platform. I do care about music and right now Blu-Ray and the already forgotten DVD-A are the only platforms able to deliver uncompressed 192/24 audio files (stereo and/or surround). I'm sure Blu-Ray will be long forgotten in a few years time. Same with CDs. I don't think people use CDs that much nowadays anyway.
Most likely, the New Format -whatever that is- will be disc-less, and it will be delivered in memory sticks, compact hard-drives or, quite possibly, SSD.
Most likely, the New Format -whatever that is- will be disc-less, and it will be delivered in memory sticks, compact hard-drives or, quite possibly, SSD.
mjp
Founding member
Where do you get these, by the way? Which labels have 192/24 catalog releases? Where can I get the Stooges Funhouse or maybe The Beatles Revolver in that format?
mjp
Founding member
I've been doing a lot of research on this, because I'm crazy like that, and charmingly obsessive.
As you might suspect, there is very little consensus on something as subjective as "good sound." But a lot of people who care about quality sound seem to agree on a few things.
Regarding #3, I have always suspected as much, but now I have seen the light, and I know this to be the good lord's truth. Some of the aforementioned audio freaks turned me on to a man named Barry Diament. He does mastering. He did the entire Marley catalog for Tuff Gong/Island in 1990, and those discs sound incredible. Compared to vinyl, the 1980s Island CDs, the two disc Island "Deluxe editions," and the current Tuff Gong CDs (which were all remastered again and include "bonus tracks" now).
If you have a favorite artist, find out if Diament ever mastered or remastered any of their work and hunt those discs down. You will not be disappointed. The Wailers discs he worked on have been out of print for some time, but they are pretty easy to identify and find on the used market as they all have Barry's name displayed prominently on the back cover. I don't know if that's the case with everything he works on though.
---
It's important to remember that this is all hair splitting regarding a subjective issue. People who are obsessed with measuring sound waves and calculating numbers debate these things. People who are obsessed with music - not so much. They just want to be moved and feel something. And the truth is you don't need a stereo system that cost more than your car to find that.
But anyway, hooray for Neil Young. I still think advocates for quality (in everything) are important. And Neil Young is punk rock, so I have to admire and respect him. But he may as well be standing on top of a mountain shouting at the sky.
As you might suspect, there is very little consensus on something as subjective as "good sound." But a lot of people who care about quality sound seem to agree on a few things.
- Your stereo system is not of sufficient quality to reproduce the measurable difference between "high res" (192 kHz) and CD (44.1 kHz) sound. That applies to everyone reading this (unless you happen to own a $100,000 mastering studio monitoring system).
- In every double blind test conducted so far, no one has been able to tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio. Not one human being. Ever. Anywhere.
- The mastering step of the process is much more important than format or resolution.
- The market has always dictated format and the market has absolutely no interest in high res audio.
Regarding #3, I have always suspected as much, but now I have seen the light, and I know this to be the good lord's truth. Some of the aforementioned audio freaks turned me on to a man named Barry Diament. He does mastering. He did the entire Marley catalog for Tuff Gong/Island in 1990, and those discs sound incredible. Compared to vinyl, the 1980s Island CDs, the two disc Island "Deluxe editions," and the current Tuff Gong CDs (which were all remastered again and include "bonus tracks" now).
If you have a favorite artist, find out if Diament ever mastered or remastered any of their work and hunt those discs down. You will not be disappointed. The Wailers discs he worked on have been out of print for some time, but they are pretty easy to identify and find on the used market as they all have Barry's name displayed prominently on the back cover. I don't know if that's the case with everything he works on though.
---
It's important to remember that this is all hair splitting regarding a subjective issue. People who are obsessed with measuring sound waves and calculating numbers debate these things. People who are obsessed with music - not so much. They just want to be moved and feel something. And the truth is you don't need a stereo system that cost more than your car to find that.
But anyway, hooray for Neil Young. I still think advocates for quality (in everything) are important. And Neil Young is punk rock, so I have to admire and respect him. But he may as well be standing on top of a mountain shouting at the sky.
cirerita
Founding member
Format does not matter, that's just the business end of the whole thing. What matters here is trying to preserve quality and make it available for those who want it.
I don't know about blind tests, but I can tell you I can hear and feel difference between the old The Dark Side of the Moon CDs I have and the brand new Blu-Ray, which "only" delivers 96/24. And I don't think you can argue that the mastering of the CDs was poor as it was done by sound freaks. That record was engineered by Alan Parsons, who was (is) yet another sound freak. The original quadraphonic master as recorded by Parsons is simply glorious, and now it's available on the Blu-Ray on 96/24 as well.
I think the differences become more obvious when you really crank up your system. At a high volume, CDs seem to struggle while the 96/24 PCM linear files in the Blu-Ray simply pound away effortlessly.
I don't know about blind tests, but I can tell you I can hear and feel difference between the old The Dark Side of the Moon CDs I have and the brand new Blu-Ray, which "only" delivers 96/24. And I don't think you can argue that the mastering of the CDs was poor as it was done by sound freaks. That record was engineered by Alan Parsons, who was (is) yet another sound freak. The original quadraphonic master as recorded by Parsons is simply glorious, and now it's available on the Blu-Ray on 96/24 as well.
I think the differences become more obvious when you really crank up your system. At a high volume, CDs seem to struggle while the 96/24 PCM linear files in the Blu-Ray simply pound away effortlessly.
mjp
Founding member
Sorry, I edited this becasue I misread part of your original post.
Sometimes they didn't even make a new master for CD, they used the masters that were EQed for vinyl! That's why so many early CDs sound bad, because you don't EQ the master the same way for vinyl and CD. You need two very different masters.
They undoubtedly took more time with later remasters, but who did it makes a significant difference. The engineer of the multi-track studio master tapes makes no difference in mastering, they are not involved (or I should say they are very, very rarely involved). Two different skills.
Audio-only Blu-Ray is still a rarity, and they spend inordinate amounts of time on each one because they are supposed to be showcases. I would expect them to be very well done.
The main point that I've taken away from every discussion and article I've read on the subject is that mastering is the most important aspect of the sound regardless of sampling rates, bitrate or format.
So if the mastering was done meticulously on the Blu-Ray and was just an assembly line job on the CD, the Blu-Ray is going to sound better. And vice versa.
But that's an interesting subject too, and one that is often brought up in these discussions; the fact that mastering for CD and for Blu-Ray are different (as is mastering for vinyl), so comparing the discs is ultimately going to be difficult.
Some of these people even claimed to hear differences when the same recording was played for them twice.
Placebo.
But who did the mastering? On older CDs (early/mid 1980s) it was likely an assembly-line job done by whichever engineer was in the record company's mastering studio when they got to "P" in the alphabet.
Sometimes they didn't even make a new master for CD, they used the masters that were EQed for vinyl! That's why so many early CDs sound bad, because you don't EQ the master the same way for vinyl and CD. You need two very different masters.
They undoubtedly took more time with later remasters, but who did it makes a significant difference. The engineer of the multi-track studio master tapes makes no difference in mastering, they are not involved (or I should say they are very, very rarely involved). Two different skills.
Audio-only Blu-Ray is still a rarity, and they spend inordinate amounts of time on each one because they are supposed to be showcases. I would expect them to be very well done.
The main point that I've taken away from every discussion and article I've read on the subject is that mastering is the most important aspect of the sound regardless of sampling rates, bitrate or format.
So if the mastering was done meticulously on the Blu-Ray and was just an assembly line job on the CD, the Blu-Ray is going to sound better. And vice versa.
But that's an interesting subject too, and one that is often brought up in these discussions; the fact that mastering for CD and for Blu-Ray are different (as is mastering for vinyl), so comparing the discs is ultimately going to be difficult.
That's what everyone who claims to be able to hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit says. Because the blind tests prove that they are not hearing what they think they are hearing.
Some of these people even claimed to hear differences when the same recording was played for them twice.
Placebo.
If you're talking about the Pink Floyd 'Immersion Editions', they're a completely different animal compared to the earlier CD editions, regardless of the format.
When someone takes the time to really work on a (re)master, it does make a difference. Older CDs were often just sloppily done. Not always - but often.
When someone takes the time to really work on a (re)master, it does make a difference. Older CDs were often just sloppily done. Not always - but often.
cirerita
Founding member
Yes and no. They do include demos, alternate takes, 5.1 surround and quadraphonic mixes done in 2011, the original quadraphonic mix by Parsons in the case of The Dark Side, a couple of never-heard-before songs, etc. But the core music is esentially the same. I have not compared the 2011 CD edition against the 2011 Blu-Ray edition, but I have compared the old CDs against the 2011 Blu-Ray edition, and I can hear and feel the difference. I can't remember who mastered the old CDs, but I would be surprised if they were poorly mastered.
Too bad there's no Immersion edition for Meddle, though. That's the one I really wanted to listen to in HD.
I've heard the 2011 CD version (they called it the 'Experience Version' but I'm sure its the same CD they put in the boxset) and it does sound better than the 1990s CD copy so it makes sense that the Blu-ray will sound better than the older CD too. The Blu-ray must be technically better due to the improved sample rate but the debate about human hearing abilities seems endless.
I think the best bet is to build a studio/concert room in my home, a time machine, a shrink ray and a cryogenic freezing unit - then travel through time and kidnap the various bands I like to listen to, shrink them and their gear etc, bring them to the present and keep them frozen until I want them to knock out some tunes for me. Easy.
I'm going to weigh in here and not add anything really useful (what else is new!), but all I ask from my audio setup is for it to not be too "tinny." I want the sound to be warm. mp3s are tinny to me, but I tolerate it because of the convenience. it's not my preferred listening format, but on long road trips it's tolerable.
that being said, I've never had a high-end audio setup. I've had a half decent amp, but the speakers were crap. etc. I just bought a Polk Audio speaker setup (came Thursday) and I must say the subwoofer makes a world of difference. especially on jazz from the '40s and '50s where the bass was frequently lost in the mix.
but I I do have a dvd audio version of Kind of Blue and the sound is impressive. good or not, I don't know, but I was impressed.
anyway.
that being said, I've never had a high-end audio setup. I've had a half decent amp, but the speakers were crap. etc. I just bought a Polk Audio speaker setup (came Thursday) and I must say the subwoofer makes a world of difference. especially on jazz from the '40s and '50s where the bass was frequently lost in the mix.
but I I do have a dvd audio version of Kind of Blue and the sound is impressive. good or not, I don't know, but I was impressed.
anyway.
cirerita
Founding member
Comparing CDs vs Blu-Rays is very tedious and time-consuming. The Dark Side is one of those cases where I did not compare the new CD against the Blu-Ray, but I have done that comparison with other recordings and I can tell you there's usually a huge difference in terms of sound (quality) between most -if not all- new CDs and their equivalent Blu-Ray. Maybe I'm blind or deaf, or both, but I say there's an abyss between CDs and Blu-Rays in most cases.
As to long road trips, FLACs are lossless and they do sound better than MP3s.
As to long road trips, FLACs are lossless and they do sound better than MP3s.
mjp
Founding member
If the remaster was done by someone who is well known and respected (and expensive) the studio will generally make sure their name is available somewhere on the disc, because certain people look for things like that. But if "Joe," the guy who does assembly-line masters on the second shift Thursday through Monday did it, you wouldn't necessarily want to draw attention to that.
The recording engineer is (should) not be a factor in the sound of the finished product. The engineer runs cable and twists knobs and starts and stops the tape machine. But they do not pull cables, twist knobs or start or stop the tape machine unless the producer tells them to. The engineer is tech support.
Some engineers are well known and have reputations, and that is due to their skill in getting a certain genre of music down onto tape effectively (Eddie Kramer comes to mind for rock). 40, 50 years ago most recording engineers were old men, and they had no idea how to mic loud instruments. The next generation of guys like Kramer were better at getting modern music down onto tape. But ideally and typically, you will not 'hear' the engineer at all.
Engineers are not producers, and very few producers are engineers.
You shouldn't be. Almost everything was poorly mastered in the early days of CD mastering. Sometimes they didn't even do a separate CD master, they used the vinyl master (which is is EQed for vinyl, obviously, not digital).
I don't want to bore everyone with a description of the processes that go into recording, mastering and duplicating music, because no one really cares. But there's a lot of confusion out there (and in here) about it, and I think that contributes to a lot of the hyperoble and misinformation.
mjp
Founding member
Doesn't it? When you remove the burden of those low frequencies from your main speakers it frees them up to give you more of that mid/top stuff, and the smaller speakers are made for that. I now divide my life into pre and post-subwoofer eras. ;)
Put one in, take one out, put the other one in...that's tedious? If you're talking about using some analyzation equipment to compare and plot sound waves on a graph, then I can see where that would be tedious and time-consuming. Not to mention that shit is meaningless, so it is really wasted time too.
Abyss! You must be listening on some very, very expensive equipment. I am jealous.
Not according to the audiophiles. If you care what they think, which I generally do not. But most of them will tell you there is loss in the conversion. But, you know, again, most of them are completely insane.
cirerita
Founding member
To me it's rather tedious because I'm not really enjoying music when I'm comparing different formats.
Expensive equipments not always sound better than reasonably-priced equipments. They ideally should, but it all depends on quite a few factors, including human clumsiness. A cheap 720p proyector might deliver a better image quality than an expensive 1080p one or even a good old tri-tube. It depends on how well they are all set up.
FLACs are called lossless, but since there's a conversion I kind of agree there's some sort of loss along the way. Whether human ears can perceive that loss or not, that's another story. But FLACs beat the shit out of MP3s.
Expensive equipments not always sound better than reasonably-priced equipments. They ideally should, but it all depends on quite a few factors, including human clumsiness. A cheap 720p proyector might deliver a better image quality than an expensive 1080p one or even a good old tri-tube. It depends on how well they are all set up.
FLACs are called lossless, but since there's a conversion I kind of agree there's some sort of loss along the way. Whether human ears can perceive that loss or not, that's another story. But FLACs beat the shit out of MP3s.
mjp
Founding member
Well, you are certainly passionate in your abyss-like differences, which makes me curious to compare myself.
Tho only problem is, none of the nearly 600 CDs I have laying around here have been pressed on Blu-Ray (since it isn't really an audio format yet). So I guess that comparison will have to wait.
I'm not interested enough to buy copy #212,348,405 of Dark Side of the Sleepy Fucking Moon in both versions to compare. Or whatever space age shit Neil Young is selling to bored baby boomers for $300. I'd have to buy a Blu-Ray player too, and I wouldn't want to invest in a good one, so I dunno. I'm convinced the playback hardware makes a difference, but you seem to be suggesting that any old $49 player is better than a top of the line CD transport, so there's that variable...
A 5:1 or quad mix is irrelevant by the way, since no one experiences music that way, unless you are standing on the stage performing it. Quad was a cheap gimmick that died a well-deserved death almost 40 years ago, at the same time 8-track tapes were relegated to the scrapheap. I suppose the ultimate marriage of idiot technologies would be quad 8-tracks...they must sound awesome. Especially when the song fades in the middle to switch tracks. Klunk!
Tho only problem is, none of the nearly 600 CDs I have laying around here have been pressed on Blu-Ray (since it isn't really an audio format yet). So I guess that comparison will have to wait.
I'm not interested enough to buy copy #212,348,405 of Dark Side of the Sleepy Fucking Moon in both versions to compare. Or whatever space age shit Neil Young is selling to bored baby boomers for $300. I'd have to buy a Blu-Ray player too, and I wouldn't want to invest in a good one, so I dunno. I'm convinced the playback hardware makes a difference, but you seem to be suggesting that any old $49 player is better than a top of the line CD transport, so there's that variable...
A 5:1 or quad mix is irrelevant by the way, since no one experiences music that way, unless you are standing on the stage performing it. Quad was a cheap gimmick that died a well-deserved death almost 40 years ago, at the same time 8-track tapes were relegated to the scrapheap. I suppose the ultimate marriage of idiot technologies would be quad 8-tracks...they must sound awesome. Especially when the song fades in the middle to switch tracks. Klunk!
Well, some audiophiles. Other audiophiles know that FLAC's are indeed 100% lossless. A file can be converted from wav format to FLAC format and back to wav and the 2 wav files will be identical in size and even more importantly, identical on a bit by bit basis. The FLAC contains ALL of the information that the original wav file had, but stores it in about 66% of the space, on average.
Oh. You mean people that night consider buying these duplex outlet covers. http://machinadynamica.com/index.html (See the last item under the Products link). Personally, I have eschewed the Tru-Tone Duplex Covers in favor of the Brilliant Pebbles taped to the input jacks of my preamplifier.
