The compression on LPs was always much worse.
MP3s are bad for music quality because of the type of lossy data compression they use, which has nothing to do with the sort of dynamic range compression afflicting current pop music CDs. MP3s use psychoacoustic compression, based on the idea that you won’t hear the quieter two sounds played together - like a drumbeat in the violin at the same time.
There is no compression in the Redbook CD standard. If I burn a wave file that I’ve captured to a CD, I can restore that from the CD and will be exactly the same waveform. Advanced audio formats have better sampling rates, but that has nothing to do with compression. If I record audio on DSD, it will be a much higher sampling rate and bit rate than the 16-bit 44.1 of the CD. But it won’t be any more or less compressed.
Absolutely! if you try driving a cutting lathe with an uncompressed signal, you will burn up the cutting lathe head, and it will cost you a lot of money. The absolute best dynamic range possible with an LP is 60 dB, and that’s on the first playing. It starts degrading immediately after that, compared to the 90 dB possible with the CD.
I’m old enough to remember friends coming over to listen to music - putting on an album, and listening to a whole album side. It really seems to be a generational thing.
I know it happened that way sometimes, but I would submit that scenes like the one you describe only took place over a span of 60 or 70 years. People have been singing or listening to music while performing various activities for hundreds & hundreds of years.
IME, the car people will, if pressed, admit that it’s really about style or status or coolness. Audiophiles, not so much.
Not to mention that guys with a Ferrari can pick up chicks.
This little series of articles may go some way to informing the vinyl Digital debate:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html
I love high end audio because I love listening to the sound of the instruments rather than an approximation of the sound of the instruments. Having said that, a great performance poorly recorded/mastered will always be better than a technically accurate recording of a dull performance. Would I pay $100k for an ultimate set up? Nah. But I’d spend half the price of a cheap new car.
For a short time some music was recorded directly to disc - no tape used at all. The big drawback was that if any mistakes were made they had to throw away the entire disc and start over. This was only done for classical music.
Anyone remember quad sound? That bombed out pretty quickly , partly because there were 3 different systems. To make matters worse 2 of the systems were called QS and SQ so they were often confused.
Incorrect. Mobile Fidelity had a whole series of direct to disk pop and jazz recordings. I used to own the Thelma Houston one. The concept required the lathe operator to adjust the track pitch (the width between the grooves) ahead of the music, anticipating when greater dynamics would require it. If he missed a cue, the tracks would overlap and the lacquer would have to be thrown away.
Luckily, digital recording came along and made this nonsense unnecessary.
Wow, what a pile of rationalizations! I’d prefer not having seven percent distortion, second order or not. LP fans have been tying themselves into logical knots trying to justify their love of a format that should have been left on the dust heap of history.
As I said, I own a lot of vinyl - twenty-two feet of shelf space. And if I could get all of it on CD, I’d dump it all into the trash instantly. I’m a music listener, not a fetishist.
No, actually, when the music stops, it’s time to change the needle. Every. Damn. Side. One side = one needle.
Music is not audio. Music is perception and imagination; audio is, or at least desperately aspires to be, science.
Guess I missed the jazz and pop direct to disc stuff.
There are bands now that are selling CDs of a concert right after the concert is over. They bring a disc making machine to the show.
I’ve given this subject a lot of thought, as I’ve been an ‘audiophile’ for 30 years (but only in the sense that I’m someone who appreciates excellent audio fidelity). I approach the subject like an engineer. If it’s not measurable, it doesn’t matter. If it can’t survive a double-blind test, it doesn’t matter. Also, I’m a pragmatist. I’m always trying to use the 80/20 rule to find the best price/performance range for anything I buy (i.e. the point at which you’d have to spend 80% more to get a 20% improvement). It’s basically the inflection point on an exponential price/performance curve.
That logic put me in the range of audio gear worth about $6,000 for a complete surround sound system, and I do believe that after that point it becomes extremely difficult to get perceptible performance improvements at almost any price, and certainly not without spending 3-4 times as much money, and even then the differences would be so small that other factors would come into play, such as ventilation system noise or how much wax happens to be in your ear on that day or whether you’re a little tired or not.
And the only reason I hit the $6,000 mark is because there are so many necessary parts to a complete surround sound system - six speakers, a receiver, blu-ray player, SACD audio player, room treatments, etc. A basic stereo system of the same quality would be about a third of that price.
I’ve engaged the wacky ‘audiophiles’ on other message boards for decades. They fall into several categories:
-
The Golden Ear. These are the people who are emotionally invested in simply being able to perceive things no one else can. They’re kind of like conspiracy theorists - they need to believe that they are on the ‘inside’, more in the know than you are, having powers of observation that make them superior to others despite obvious deficits in brains or education. They’re the worst of all audiophiles, because they’ll believe anything if it reinforces their belief in their golden ears, and they’ll bankrupt themselves in the process.
-
The Tinkerer. These guys want their hobby to be interactive. A lot of them are older, and come from the day when you really could tinker constantly with your equipment. They used to change needles all the time, replace tubes in their amplifiers, balance their tonearms, etc. They’re hobbyists. These guys were left in the cold by the digital revolution, where everything just works. So they’ve invented all kinds of gadgets and gizmos that they claim improves sound. Really, what they want to do is scratch the itch of tinkering and collecting. They’re the model train enthusiasts of the audio world.
-
The Rich Guys. These are people who simply have to have the best, for no other reason than to have the best. They’re filthy rich, and because even the best audiophile gear costs less than a Ferrari, they’ll buy it on a whim. If a company comes out with a $100,000 speaker system, they’ll buy it. They may not even *listen to it, or not much, and they may not be real audiophiles. By the same token, they’ll buy a Bugatti Veyron and never drive it over the speed limit. These guys have largely moved on now to home theater, and they’re the ones that have the $500,000 theaters showcased in ‘Audio Visual Interiors’ magazine.
-** The Huckster.** These are guys that work their way into the audiophile community and develop some level of ‘credibility’ with that group - mostly by playing to their biases and weaknesses - then they start ‘inventing’ new audiophile gadgets and selling them. Some of these people may be sincere, but most of them are just predators who know damned well their product does nothing. They are often exceedingly nice, offering to help people in many ways, volunteering to come to people’s homes to do personal ‘tuning’ of their gadgets, etc. That’s the way con men build trust which they then exploit.
They all have a few things in common. One is that they absolutely despise double-blind testing. And indeed, there are audiophile forums where opening a thread on double-blind testing will get you immediately banned because it riles up the community so much. Another is that they generally don’t have a lot of education in engineering or science, so they’re vulnerable to snake-oil claims and impervious to reason or logic.
Excellent summary of the various types of audiophiles. I’ve encountered each.
I don’t know if you saw a link I’ve posted a couple of times. The gist of it is that, due to comb-filtering effects of the acoustics of the room, a change of location as small as 4" can change the sound at different frequencies as much as 6 dB. In an A/B/X comparison, the listener’s head is not likely to move, compared to the typical audiophile magazine reviewer will listen, then get up, change the cables, or the component, then sit back down. They are hearing a difference, but it has nothing to do with what they think is responsible. Combine that with all the other flaws inherent in non-blind testing, and you get people hearing subtle differences in two wires of the same gauge.
Yeah, I’ve seen that before. It’s one reason why the best bang for your buck, if you can do it, is to treat the room. In my home theater, I’ve got 1" and 2" acoustic fiberglass paneling on the first reflection points and on the entire front wall, covered by acoustically transparent cloth. I’ve also got bass traps in the corners in the front, and a tray ceiling that I designed to minimize corner reflections. The whole setup is homemade and cost a grand total of about $600, and it made the biggest difference to the sound of the room than any equipment upgrades ever did. And since I built the room myself and had control over the dimensions, I used some acoustic modeling software to make sure I wasn’t setting up standing waves in bad places. I tweaked the height, width, and length of the room to prevent those kinds of interactions as much as possible. That was completely free - just some extra time spent thinking about the problem.
It’s always hilarious when you see some ‘audiophile’ with his $10K+ audio system set up in a room with hard walls with no consideration whatsoever to the acoustics of the setup. But by God he’ll spend $2000 on speaker wire…
I call it the hair cut rule. At some price point - for me that’s about $25 - haircuts just don’t get any better no matter how much more you spend on them.
I toyed with building as Accuphase audio setup. They are pretty. But in the end I just couldn’t justify the cost of a $5000 amplifier.
I used to share a house with a Tinkerer type audiophile. He has Maganapan Tympani speakers - which he had modified. And a pair of Grandson of Ampzilla amps - which he had modified. He written the optimum vertical tracking angle and weight for each of his LPs on their covers. Luckily we had met through a shared love of music, so he wasn’t one of these “listen to whatever HP recommends” types - he loved music and wanted to hear the music he loved better.
The reason they hate double blind testing is because it can show that a $300 amp is just as good as a $3000 amp.
This is what I was going to bring up. In order for the music to fit within the space of the grooves it is compressed for vinyl records. If someone strikes a drum you will hear the spike in sound on a CD versus the compressed version on a record.
I haven’t shopped for equipment in 15+ years but at the time I bought my last system I could hear the difference between a $100 CD player and a $1000 player. I would imagine those differences have been mitigated since then. I wouldn’t mind upgrading my amp but I’m still pleased with my speakers.
There is I think some difference between very expensive cars and high end audio gear: the cars are not frauds. They are sold on prestige, looks and performance (all of which they do have). Whether these features should be worth what they are is a relevant point, but nonetheless they exist in measurable form, they are not fraudulent.
Much high end hi fi is simply fraudulent: it is sold on features it does not have. All it really has is audiophile value (the value to the audiophile of owning it). But it is sold as actually having material effect on sound it does not have.
Some funny trivia about high end stereo gear - Mark Levinson founded a company that makes amps that cost $50k, he was married to Kim Cattrall for 6 years. They wrote a book about sex and orgasms.