Vinyl record sales jump 52% in 2014

[Aquinus]

Why sampling rates beyond 44.1 kHz is nonsense: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

If we assume the same master is used a CD provides much higher fidelity than vinyl. The tonality imperfections of vinyl can easily be added via an EQ and a filter if you like the popping sound. FLAC played back from any half decent PC can be somewhat better than even a high-end CD player due to lower jitter.

When people mention dynamic range as an issue please be aware you get 96 dB with normal 16 bit material. High dynamic range in a recording is 30, the only reason I can see for having more is to reduce issues with ill constructed software volume controllers.

I think his video was better at getting that point across without getting too deep into it: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

 

[qubit]

No No No

you get me all wrong. I enjoyed our last discusion.


They probably are shooting the next Bond on film.
It will be because of quality without a doubt. ,in my humble opinion.

OR...before we have another "discussion" the human eyes perception of quality, whether that be colour depth, contrast or the quality of black.




You are saying you think it is cheaper or something.

It isnt cheaper, by a large margin. I will provide links if you like or you could gooooogle it.

Most film makers would rather use film but the comparitive cost is prohibitive.
Even something as simple as transporting the film at the end of the day for processing and storage.

What is this something of which you speak.?

I don't know the real reason why they chose film for the next Bond film other than the claim that it was supposed to be better somehow and surmised that the real reason might be due to cost, so I could well be wrong.

I watched Kingsman tonight in a modern, high spec cinema and the picture was bright, clear and detailed, since it was digitally recorded. On top of that, it of course didn't have any of that annoying wobbling movement that film has. Oh, it was a great film too. Recommended.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Film is like audio i think. It is so subjective.

Its like the Coke and Pepsi blind taste.

I dont understand what you mean by the wobbling movement.

Have a look at this...
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558


it talks about the difference between the conventional 24 FPS that has been used in movies for the last 90 odd years and the difference 48 FPS makes.. It gives a different spin to the gamers angle on FPS.

 

[micropage7]

Film is like audio i think. It is so subjective.

Its like the Coke and Pepsi blind taste.

yea, i think its very subjective i recall one audio expert said that the ear is the most accurate device, you may set the audio right but at some cases it aint sounds right to your ears

 

[qubit]

Film is like audio i think. It is so subjective.

Its like the Coke and Pepsi blind taste.

I dont understand what you mean by the wobbling movement.

Have a look at this...
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558


it talks about the difference between the conventional 24 FPS that has been used in movies for the last 90 odd years and the difference 48 FPS makes.. It gives a different spin to the gamers angle on FPS.

I tried googling for film wobble, but could only find this one rather poor example of it. Zoom the page and you'll see how the movie credit wobbles from side to side. We've all seen it on many films and is often noticeable on scenes which are fairly static. It's one of the annoyances that digital does away with.

http://www.michaeldvd.com/Articles/VideoArtefacts/VideoArtefactsTelecineWobble.html

Yeah, I saw that Hobbit article some time ago. Looks like people don't like the improved picture higher framerate gives you and this is why we've been stuck with crappy 24fps for so long. In fact, apart from that one movie a couple of years ago, I can't think of any others which have been shot at 48fps. Such a shame.

There's another thing to consider. There's no judder (strobing in film circles) since the 48fps film shows each frame once, while the 24fps film shows each frame twice, otherwise 24Hz flicker would be extremely noticeable and intolerably annoying.

You would think that watching 60fps video would eliminate judder, wouldn't you? It doesn't necessarily, however. If I set my monitor refresh to 120Hz and the NVIDIA driver control panel to vsync on with half refresh, then the animation is being rendered at 60fps and will show a constant judder as each frame is shown twice.

 

[revin]

Why sampling rates beyond 44.1 kHz is nonsense: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
If we assume the same master is used a CD provides much higher fidelity than vinyl. The tonality imperfections of vinyl can easily be added via an EQ and a filter if you like the popping sound. FLAC played back from any half decent PC can be somewhat better than even a high-end CD player due to lower jitter.
When people mention dynamic range as an issue please be aware you get 96 dB with normal 16 bit material. High dynamic range in a recording is 30, the only reason I can see for having more is to reduce issues with ill constructed software volume controllers.

Neil has flip flop'd on this little too much. As in trying to do "upconverted" files as high end", his Pono player didn't go over very well.

Dont forget, 16 bit 96db Dynimac range.....That's the theroretical limit, after some noise floor is from the mic, thru the op-amp to the speaker, add minimun 3 bit's, thats 18db, so that 96 in now about 78db.if your lucky the engi/producer didn't go for the Loudness warring crap. Which BTW, ever wonder why a "CD" is not as loud as a record or FM

Bump up to the 24 bit, 144db, ..................now you got room to loose that 18db even say it's a really crappy equipment, 20db of noise.
Same with 44 vs 96,~ 320

Mark is now one of the most involved players for Hi-Res Audio, and JBL is on board with the new M2's
Take either M2 setup, and try out the differant files, and you will know then there is differance.

Ok, again............ here is some of the greatest info about the high bit rate High-Def Audio
Scott Wilkerson talks with Mark Waldrep of AIX Records about physical media vs online distribution, high-def audio.

Boston, ACDC, Tori Amos, Pink Floyd and Metallica with the Philiharmonic Orcestra, Oh Hell yeah just some that can have HUGE Dynamic Range, ............that's what the "other" people that arn't cd"jamm'n"

I have yet to hear Heart DreamBoat Annie that sound as good as the DBX VINYL record did, back in the "Hi-Fi war day's in 1980

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

The only real quality audio is using an oscilloscope with GHz sampling to record the performances. http://hackaday.com/2014/12/26/the-four-thousand-dollar-mp3-player/

Vinyl is "better" because it has noise built into it. After listening to songs on a cd, and on vinyl, I can't see the advantage. It's great if you're in a club, but I can't really see using it anywhere else.

Many CDs are trash, due in no small part to the continuing increase in recording volume. If you can, try comparing a CD from the early 90's to a greatest hits compilation.


Despite all of this, I listen to music. Crank the volume down, and listen to what you enjoy. 90% of the music quality at 70% of the effort and cost is just fine with me. I can't justify spending hundreds of dollars to get that last 10% of music's quality.

 

[revin]

The only real quality audio

Is at home, for some it's a sweet record, or even an awesome 1/4 30ips or a high quaility digital, and then to relax and get immersered with thier faviorte headphone or speakers

 

[Aquinus]

Despite all of this, I listen to music. Crank the volume down, and listen to what you enjoy. 90% of the music quality at 70% of the effort and cost is just fine with me. I can't justify spending hundreds of dollars to get that last 10% of music's quality.

That is how I was feeling but I think everything has to be weighed in its use value. If you're listening to audio all day long, it's going to be worth a lot more to someone who uses it for a hobby in their down time. For me, 100 USD used to be a lot of money for headphones but I got some Sennheiser 280 Pros for that price and quickly changed that view. They sound pretty good, but I'm sure they're not perfect. I got them because it got at least 90% quality (that I think I have, even if in reality it is less) at 70% effort (that I put in at the time) and gave me 100% of what I needed. The problem is that it took time for my idea of "good enough" to evolve when for the longest time I was using garbage, I just didn't know better. Also for those of us with sensitive and wide range hearing, high pitched noises like whine from CRT displays and noisy environments can be bothersome, so noise canceling is sometimes just as important as the audio reproduction itself. Imagine trying to write code with people talking nearby all the time; after a while it drives you insane and you need a solution.

All in all, as far as clarity is concerned lossless audio is a must. Vinyl degrades the more you play it and the older it gets. FLAC lasts as long as the media it is stored on and quality doesn't degrade as it's copied or transcoded to another lossless format. I personally wish audio was delivered as FLAC without any lossy compression in between what I get and when it was recorded.

 

[Lopez0101]

It's not like storage space is at a premium these days either. 2TB+ hard drives are incredibly cheap these days.

high pitched noises like whine from CRT displays

I always feel like I'm the only one that can hear them...

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

We're spinning baby round round baby like a record baby round round round round.

fine with me.

get immersered

everything has to be weighed in its use value.

The proof is in the hearing, shit if you like it, you like it.

Its not just the vinyl / cd thing. Its where you are, who your with, where your head is at, what you are listening to,and what you are listening to it on and what media its produced on.

When my kids find a tasty tune i tell them to turn it up. Even if one of them is on a Stylophone and the other playing Dubstep.

When i was a kid you could still find vinyl that played at 33/45 and 78 rpm, how does that compare to even a slow HDD or cd player now. It doesnt mean that the listener enjoyed it less.

Anologue, digital, acoustic, synthesised, ---------------TURN IT UP ............................. (within safe guidelines as recommended by The Man )


EDIT i just changed my vote to ........not sure......
i reckon a .......... dont care category ........would have scored well.

 

[Frederik S]

Neil has flip flop'd on this little too much. As in trying to do "upconverted" files as high end", his Pono player didn't go over very well.

Dont forget, 16 bit 96db Dynimac range.....That's the theroretical limit, after some noise floor is from the mic, thru the op-amp to the speaker, add minimun 3 bit's, thats 18db, so that 96 in now about 78db.if your lucky the engi/producer didn't go for the Loudness warring crap. Which BTW, ever wonder why a "CD" is not as loud as a record or FM

Bump up to the 24 bit, 144db, ..................now you got room to loose that 18db even say it's a really crappy equipment, 20db of noise.
Same with 44 vs 96,~ 320

Mark is now one of the most involved players for Hi-Res Audio, and JBL is on board with the new M2's
Take either M2 setup, and try out the differant files, and you will know then there is differance.

Even 78 dB is more than twice of what is needed for a classical high dynamic range recording, 16 bit is still more than enough. The reason why FM is louder is because of compression due to "the loudness war".

The most annoying thing is that high-res audio from most online shops is 320 kbps MP3 which adds all sorts of oddities which is noticeable if the recording is close to perfect. It would be great if more shops adopted FLAC as their high-end format.

 

[revin]

Thank you for about the compresion, I'd not taken that part into reasoning. Hadn't thought about that, but my first CD, when compared to the record, was far more quiet, so there again could have been the MM vs MC , in that a MM had a higher output @1v IDK Even today, again the radio is louder, you'd think they'd want thier CD to be as loud lol
78db is only if all the ducks in the row were perferct, alot would be closer to 60-75db, still falling short for good Dynamic range, but as you pointed out the loudness war

There are many songs that far exceed 78db, many over 100db, as from the $1200 player post
Here is a list of Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here, and note from the differant engineers [James Guthrie and Joel Plantethe] ,not sure but Alan Parsons may still been engineering, differance of dynaminc range, some are PCM, 640kbs others are 24/48, 24/96 very interesting the approach Parlophone Records, EMI, Capitol, CBS/Sony, Columbia took, and can be noted they moved to give the best audio possable to the consumer.

Also a Reel to Reel copy at 30 ips is something to be heard

Tori Amos is very dynamic with her music, Silent all these Years is a good example, as there are many many more.

I did have a PCM 320kbs of WYWH [.wav] from years ago, it was the best recording I had ever heard.
Apperantly Red Hot Chili Peppers did a release on vinyl and digital, more often the vinyl was picked as sounding better, so we know it can be done, it's just most folks didn't keep "outdated" electronics.

The most annoying thing is that high-res audio from most online shops is 320 kbps MP3 which adds all sorts of oddities which is noticeable if the recording is close to perfect. It would be great if more shops adopted FLAC as their high-end format.

Seem's HD TRACKS tried to pull off some sad tactics of cheating for Hi-Res as did iTunes

iTRAX from Mark Waldrep has been setting up true "Hi-Res" downloads, AND even has original PCM Master files long with Meridian Lossless Packing, now Dolby TrueHD ,Flac.
At any rate to each thier own, but 24/96 has been uprising for quite some time now, and it appears that Artist are having the label and engineers make Hi Res audio including records and a lot of public consumers are indeed wanting it!

 

[Frederik S]

Thank you for about the compresion, I'd not taken that part into reasoning. Hadn't thought about that, but my first CD, when compared to the record, was far more quiet, so there again could have been the MM vs MC , in that a MM had a higher output @1v IDK Even today, again the radio is louder, you'd think they'd want thier CD to be as loud lol
78db is only if all the ducks in the row were perferct, alot would be closer to 60-75db, still falling short for good Dynamic range, but as you pointed out the loudness war At any rate to each thier own, but 24/96 has been uprising for quite some time now, and it appears that Artist are having the label and engineers make Hi Res audio including records and a lot of public consumers are indeed wanting it!

There is no mention anywhere on that page regarding dynamic range. Only peak levels are noted which of course should be around 100 dB if engineered correctly. The high definition masters I have of Pink Floyd have a dynamic range of around 30 dB. The noise floor is -86 dB. Since you usually do not listen at a 100 dB but more around 75 dB the distance to the zero is 65 dB. Done with audacity and no I did not go through all I took the MFSL master of Another brick in the wall pt 3. So peak to peak in the recording uses all available range -10 max (no clipping), which is not needed to have non audible sections and the DR which is extreme is around the 30 dB (lets say 35 dB because I did not go through all). If they aligned the peak with the maximum of the medium they would have an even blacker background, but that is not needed as the range is still way beyond what is audible.

 

[revin]

You have the Master copy of Wish You Were Here ?
And wondering how the MFSL master's compare to the Colombia, or Sony releases.
I'm not so sure Part 3 the Wall is a represinative adution of DR, but are the MF lab's are only for the best vinyl recordings they made[not like the so called back in the day 2 track Japan [crap}

Somewhere iirc there was around 120db of dynmic range on WYWH.
A while after the title cut starts when some drums come in, and then after the end of the elevator ride, into Have a Cigar is Very loud,

Listening levels are independant of a recordings Dynimac Raange, and yes indeed I have listened at extreme levels thru headphones, and speakers

BTW I appreaciate you going thru the effort and contributing to this !
.

 

[Frederik S]

I do not have the master but I have several different masterings of most of the Pink Floyd records. DCC, MFSL, newer releases etc.

 

[revin]

I do not have the master but I have several different masterings of most of the Pink Floyd records. DCC, MFSL, newer releases etc.

That's sweet brother !
That special DBX Dreamboat Annie had notice on it that A. It was a very delicate record, and B. it had 109db of Dynamic Range to use caution at high volumes.[Tape recordings were able to go 110-120db]
What Generation would the WYWH be from [mabey link back to the discogrrophy page] and just so i'm clear, it's for vinyl release ?

Can you post quick file of those couple spots off the WYWH album and note if it is from vinyl or digital?

I did a look today and it said at about 4:20 into title cut WYWH was a "stagering 120db DR", but I'm pretty sure it is from the LPCM, and then the DR begining of Have a Cigar.

I've seen today how some on youtube are showing the nasty tidbits of compression, and how some indeed keep the Gain much lower[like the -10b] to make compression more viable, but way nasty'
Thanks again for all you input Fredrik !

 

[remixedcat]

@m1dg3t I think he was on about vinyl too

 

[m1dg3t]

@m1dg3t I think he was on about vinyl too

I'm on drugs. Sound is analog. My ear comprehends an analog signal and my brain processes these vibrations and lets me hear shit. Vinyl, when done right sounds better. Digital media sacrifices quality for ease of use and portability, plain and simple. IMHO of course.
Of all the media i own, i would say on average that my vinyl sounds better than my digital stuff...

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I'm on drugs. Sound is analog. My ear comprehends an analog signal and my brain processes these vibrations and lets me hear shit. Vinyl, when done right sounds better. Digital media sacrifices quality for ease of use and portability, plain and simple. IMHO of course.
Of all the media i own, i would say on average that my vinyl sounds better than my digital stuff...

best post ive seen for ages, on any topic, and a brilliant avatar too.

 

[Aquinus]

I'm on drugs. Sound is analog. My ear comprehends an analog signal and my brain processes these vibrations and lets me hear shit. Vinyl, when done right sounds better. Digital media sacrifices quality for ease of use and portability, plain and simple. IMHO of course.
Of all the media i own, i would say on average that my vinyl sounds better than my digital stuff...

You do realize that by the time the DAC is done with it, it's analog again, right? You're never listening to a "digital" signal. Just an analog one reproduced from digital components. Also every time you listen to a vinyl, it heats up and the quality degrades with every playback.

The argument for vinyl is dumb (in my opinion) since there are formats and methods that will reproduce sound as well if not better, sampling and bit depth aside. Nothing should have better quality than a lossless medium.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

You do realize that by the time the DAC is done with it, it's analog again, right? You're never listening to a "digital" signal. Just an analog one reproduced from digital components. Also every time you listen to a vinyl, it heats up and the quality degrades with every playback.

The argument for vinyl is dumb (in my opinion) since there are formats and methods that will reproduce sound as well if not better, sampling and bit depth aside. Nothing should have better quality than a lossless medium.

Its an end user thing and i think maybe @m1dg3t and myself are one end of the user scale and @Aquinus the other.
Aquinus you are a technical expert and an audiophile and i respect you for that,@revin too. and @Frederik S I have learned a lot from this thread.

Im all for kicking back and turning it up. Ive got vinyl, ive got cd's, ive got youtube. I use youtube by far the most.......but thats me.

 

[qubit]

You do realize that by the time the DAC is done with it, it's analog again, right? You're never listening to a "digital" signal. Just an analog one reproduced from digital components. Also every time you listen to a vinyl, it heats up and the quality degrades with every playback.

The argument for vinyl is dumb (in my opinion) since there are formats and methods that will reproduce sound as well if not better, sampling and bit depth aside. Nothing should have better quality than a lossless medium.

Agreed, especially with the bold bit.

This reminds me that a prototype true digital record system was developed a long time ago. Just imagine, "perfect" digital sound paired with the wear characteristics of a mechanical record player - all sounds great until that record wears out too much and develops dropouts and odd clicks and pops, which get worse with repeated plays, lol. No doubt this is one of the reasons it didn't take off.

Also, you know how you can hear the sound directly from the stylus running through the record grooves? I'd love to know what the equivalent sounded like on that digital record.

 

[revin]

Well your all correct this thread has ran it's course.
I do love some vinyl, mainly the DBX disc's, very quiet, and high dynamic range. But obviuoslly ost Digital will be the best sound
There has been some very great vinyl record's made recently, but for the consumer's that didn't keep turntables, discwshers ect, again it proablly not worth it for the 99%
but still, a really good setup and care vinyl can be played many years.

That said, the only true Digital is LPCM, [PCM} which is what most true Masters are output to. Problem is, about 1 Gb per minute iirc

From there is can go into the Lossless formats, for obvuios reasons, nobody wants a 100Gb album.

Follow up with the AIX Studio's with Mark Walderp, they are in the leading forfront to true Hi-Res Digital sound.
As I mentiond before, the title cut WYWH PCM at only 320kbs, was the best sound I have ever heard, and it was HUGE file size !

Huge thank you to @qubit for the thread and poll, and to all the great contrubitors !

 

[qubit]

I've just come across this article from way back in 1997 that shows all the limitations of vinyl which must be worked around when cutting a record. These are all significant limitations which do not exist from the digital source that the record is often made from, such as, wait for it, a CD.

These include things like reducing the bass and treble to improve stylus tracking and increasing playing time, reducing sibilants to prevent gross distortion and of course the glorious end of side distortion as waveform is compressed in the inner tracks which really mucks up the sound.

So much for records sounding better than a high quality digital source.

What I found interesting was just what it takes to cut a record master. The sheer amount of power required to cut a record master is 200-400 watts! The tiny coils on the cutting head are helium cooled, but can still reach a staggering 200 degrees centigrade. There's even a circuit breaker to prevent catastrophic destruction! Watching one of these things in action would be so cool.

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm