|
 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26690
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
 Link Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| El Duderino wrote: |
I'd bet that most all of us could digitize the spinning LP with a cheap 16 bit DAC at 44.1k sampling and we couldn't pass a blind A/B level matched discrimination test. |
I've done this test. You CAN hear the difference. Even on computer speakers, especially on the Hi-Fi speakers.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Link Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | El Duderino wrote: |
I'd bet that most all of us could digitize the spinning LP with a cheap 16 bit DAC at 44.1k sampling and we couldn't pass a blind A/B level matched discrimination test. |
I've done this test. You CAN hear the difference. Even on computer speakers, especially on the Hi-Fi speakers. |
You did the test double-blind? Really? If not, then it wasn't a good test. Our ears and what's between them are hilariously inaccurate and can be easily fooled into hearing what we want to hear. That's why double-blind test are so important and why the results are so often very different from non-double-blind tests.
If there really was a big difference, and you didn't just trick yourself into hearing the difference you wanted to hear (like we all do), then something was wrong. There's no way in hell you'd be be able to hear the difference between an original vinyl recording and the same vinyl digitized to 16/44 with even a modest A/D-D/A conversion. I'd put money on it. People can't even tell the difference between 16/44 and high-res, let alone 16/44 and vinyl. If you heard a difference, it was because somethng was wrong with your cabling, equipment, test regimen, or levels weren't matched.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Link Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| El Duderino wrote: | | I'd bet that most all of us could digitize the spinning LP with a cheap 16 bit DAC at 44.1k sampling and we couldn't pass a blind A/B level matched discrimination test. |
| ecrabb wrote: | If there really was a big difference, and you didn't just trick yourself into hearing the difference you wanted to hear (like we all do), then something was wrong. There's no way in hell you'd be be able to hear the difference between an original vinyl recording and the same vinyl digitized to 16/44 with even a modest A/D-D/A conversion. I'd put money on it. People can't even tell the difference between 16/44 and high-res, let alone 16/44 and vinyl. If you heard a difference, it was because somethng was wrong with your cabling, equipment, test regimen, or levels weren't matched.
SC |
lot of betting and swearing from people who haven't even compared the 2 at home. hint, hearing a digtized LP " on the radio" doesn't count. 
You guys are welcomed over ot my place any time to try. I had a friend over who brought SACD player and we hooked it with 5 channel analog outputs using pre-amp in's so the receiver wouldn't affect the players digital awesomeness. Now this guy was fully expecting to hear his player beat the TT, he was convinced the LP would lose. So as far as bias goes, that's as pre-judged of a bias as you can have.
He liked the TT better on every single record we played. I actually liked a few things on SACD, on the Who's Tommy album they put the trumpets in the surrounds, which was cool. Some things were just awful, like one part where they put a solo guitar in the center channel. Despitethat, Overall the LP is more musical, more dynamic, has better Bass, better sound-stage, more presence, sounds more natural on Piano's, on and on.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4627
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Link Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | He liked the TT better on every single record we played. I actually liked a few things on SACD, on the Who's Tommy album they put the trumpets in the surrounds, which was cool. Some things were just awful, like one part where they put a solo guitar in the center channel. Despitethat, Overall the LP is more musical, more dynamic, has better Bass, better sound-stage, more presence, sounds more natural on Piano's, on and on. |
Clearly you were comparing different mixes and mastering, more than analog/digital. For most music, I'd generally prefer a 2-channel master on a 2-channel environment as well. What you describe isn't anywhere near the blind level matched A/B test of the same mastering. It's likely difficult to find a RBCD or SACD with the same mastering as the LP, thats why I said digitizing the LP then A/B that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Link Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep. Apples and oranges.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Link Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We listened to straight CD's too on the same player, same result. Actually, they sounded even worse.
look I don't really care, you can believe what you want ,or you can bring over any CD of any mastering version you can think of and we'll compare it to whatever LP's I have, which is in the hundreds. Even with the filter built into the software, I can hear the jitter and sampling on CD's at 16/44.
Or, you can you base all you opinions on conjecture and hyperbole, up to you. It's weird how people who have never actually sat down and tried something can be absolutely convinced of an outcome.
It's like me saying " well I've never tried Kobe beef but i've seen pictures of it and it looks disgusting, it's SOOO fatty, It just HAS to be gross. I have no idea why anyone would pay $100. a pound for it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4627
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Link Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You presume I've never digitized an LP or conducted A/B tests? While I haven't recently, I did a fair bit decades ago, when I mothballed my TT. Back when I had a much better system and much better hearing and fancied myself an audiophile.
Look, I don't disagree that many modern CDs sound crappy and fatiguing compared to LPs. Many modern CDs sound crappy and irritating compared to decades old CDs too. One can see it on a cheesy VU meter. Many audiophiles prefer the original releases and there are scores of measurements that show how each new 'remaster' has sucked more life out in terms of the dynamics. It's why you're unlikely to ever be able to A/B the same mix on CD and LP, they were mastered differently. LP can't support the kind of dynamic compression and peak riding that many modern CDs have due to intergrove crosstalk, ~50db noise floor, and tracking problems.
Much modern music delivered recently (decade+) suffers from too much dynamic compression. This isn't the fault of digitization, it's just that digital technology CAN enable and support it better and that modern music execs thought it sold better. In the A/D debate, consider that most modern studios use digital technology, regardless if the end product is vinyl. If ANY of the newer music being pressed on 180g vinyl for hipsters to peruse and drop $25 at trendy record stores was EVER digitized and manipulated, and I submit it likely was, then the whole "digital sucks out the soul of music" is clearly bunk.
I'd note that in your comments about what you found better on LP, nearly all of them can be explained by larger dynamics in the mastering and mixing. This is easily measured and quantified and has nothing to do with analog/digital. Indeed, if LPs actually ARE inherently sonically superior, then it seems it must be because there is some property or mechanism of sound that human science and engineering don't understand and/or don't have the means to identify, measure and quantify.
http://youtu.be/7UjQc0dM4H4
http://youtu.be/3Gmex_4hreQ
http://youtu.be/3TlQo9k827c
http://youtu.be/qUcgg2vMX_s?t=4m22s
| draganm wrote: | | I can hear the jitter ... |
Ha! The 'jitter' (Wow/flutter) on the BEST TT is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than the crappiest DAC timebase.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nettwerkjohn
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 915
Location: Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand
|
| Link Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i did some fairly extensive testing: 20bit remasters on cd of the patti smith albums horses and radio ethiopia, vs 180g issues on vinyl, vs original pressings of both on vinyl.
playback gear:meridian g08 cd player. oracle delphi/sme5/dynavector 22.5
the original pressings, despite years of play, sounded the best. then the cds, then the 180gm reissues. the reissues had a TON of surface noise...
was pretty surprised, thought the reissues would have been the best sounding...
regardless, the only music we buy now is on vinyl. its just cooler!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4264
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Link Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nettwerkjohn wrote: | i did some fairly extensive testing: 20bit remasters on cd of the patti smith albums horses and radio ethiopia, vs 180g issues on vinyl, vs original pressings of both on vinyl.
playback gear:meridian g08 cd player. oracle delphi/sme5/dynavector 22.5
the original pressings, despite years of play, sounded the best. then the cds, then the 180gm reissues. the reissues had a TON of surface noise...
was pretty surprised, thought the reissues would have been the best sounding... |
That's some seriously good hardware.
I have a Copy of John Scofield "A Go Go" that was issued for the first time on vinyl a couple years ago (was only CD initially). I got two copies from Amazon because the first was so noisy. Some of these reissues really stink.
| nettwerkjohn wrote: | | regardless, the only music we buy now is on vinyl. its just cooler! |
I still buy CD's sometimes, but it's 95% vinyl for us now too. Especially with new releases that come with a download code anyway so you can get a digital copy.
craigr
_________________
*NEW JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
X-Rite i1Pro2 Spectroradiometer & Spyder Colorimeters *For JVC auto-calibration when Klein & Jeti are not applicable
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
*NEW Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Version β Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
*NEW OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying 
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nettwerkjohn
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 915
Location: Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand
|
| Link Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, the last vinyl I bought was the new leonard cohen. great album. and it comes with a free cd...
the vinyl sounds better. more alive.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4627
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Link Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nettwerkjohn wrote: | | regardless, the only music we buy now is on vinyl. its just cooler! |
I certainly understand that. I think there is a certain romance, anticipation, and satisfaction in the tactile ritual of vinyl. I recall buying new LPs and the joy of the 'unboxing' ceremony. The artwork, liner-notes, even the smells. Then the sound of the needle dropping into the lead-in grove. It's like that Heinz commercial where the mouth starts to water before the ketchup even gets out of the bottle.
My romance with movies on film was similiar. I was fortunate to get a job as a projectionist. I recall the excitement of receiving a new print and touching the film, cleaning the gates and heads, threading through the sprockets, and finally bringing down the house lights and opening the curtains just so.
| nettwerkjohn wrote: | | the vinyl sounds better. more alive. |
Interesting choice of words. Alive. Clearly it's inanimate, so there must be some technical quantifiable aspect that contributes to that quality. The engineer in me wonders what if could be, unless it's part of the emotional and tactile ritualism involved, and in that case I defiantly agree that digital doesn't deliver like analog. Do you happen to know if the vinyl has the same or similar mastering as the CD? I do see it was mastered at Marcussen Mastering in California and their equipment list show lots of digital equipment that may have (or not) been used in the workflow.
I watched an interview with Alan Parsons on his State of the Ark studio and I noted where he commented about missing the ritual of recording to tape. I had to wonder how his studio could avoid digital if he's not capturing mic feeds to tape?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Link Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| El Duderino wrote: | | Ha! The 'jitter' (Wow/flutter) on the BEST TT is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than the crappiest DAC timebase. |
You can analyze, quantify, and do all the engineering calculations you want, but until you sit down with a really good Vinly system like Craigs, Nettowrk Jongs , or mine and just f*cking LISTEN all your deductions mean squat.
| El Duderino wrote: | | You presume I've never digitized an LP or conducted A/B tests? While I haven't recently, I did a fair bit decades ago, when I mothballed my TT. Back when I had a much better system and much better hearing and fancied myself an audiophile.. |
what TT-cartridge combo was that BTW?
| El Duderino wrote: | | I watched an interview with Alan Parsons on his State of the Ark studio and I noted where he commented about missing the ritual of recording to tape. I had to wonder how his studio could avoid digital if he's not capturing mic feeds to tape? |
it's called Direct to Disc Recording. The live performance is fed directly into a record master cutting machine. This is how they id it before the magnetic tape was invented in Nazi Germany.
you've never heard of it before because you don't really know anything about LP's
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4627
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Link Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | You can analyze, quantify, and do all the engineering calculations you want, but until you sit down with a really good Vinly system like Craigs, Nettowrk Jongs , or mine and just f*cking LISTEN all your deductions mean squat. |
I happen to believe that we have the science and technology to measure and quantify sound pressure variations traveling through air or as SP information captured on a given media, likely much better than the human ear/brain. I also happen to believe that human perceptions are quite fallible and the placebo effect is quite real. This is often borne out in double-blind A/B tests. Indeed, it's why DB A/B tests are used in such matters.
I acknowledge there is much debate about this amongst some audiophiles though. Many believe the human ear and human perception is superior to SOTA measurement and analysis tools. There is some 'magic' to sound reproduction that modern science and engineering just doesn't understand and can't quantify. I'd also note most of these audiophiles can't pass a proper DB A/B test of their claims and assertions, on the rare occasions that they're confident enough to even conduct them and have the results witnessed and published. On some rare-air forums, the discussion of DB A/B tests or measurements are even forbidden. They won't even allow objective metrics or tests and will only focus on subjective flowery adjectives that can't ever be tested or quantified. It's like religion.
It's like your valve phono-amp in your other thread. I think your subjective flowery adjectives of 'warm' and 'smooth' is likely spot-on. "Like Nutella spread over warm bakery bread". That sounds like colored and flavored. I too can appreciate the characteristic 'tube sound' and science knows just why it's appealing and whats different about it. It's not about accurate, it's about coloration that most humans happen to find pleasing. I'd argue that 'sounding great' isn't necessarily the same thing as 'high fidelity'. A CRT often looks 'smoother' because it can't be uniformly converged or uniformly focused as well or doesn't have sufficient BW. It's like your comment about Rembrandt. A modern digital camera would likely capture a persons portrait much more 'accurately' than Rembrandt ever could, yet not be considered 'beautiful art' like a Rembrandt. The modern camera could do a pretty good job of capturing a Rembrandt painting though, and be about the only way either of us would ever see it. We wouldn't desire accuracy from Rembrandt, but we would for any capturing or reproduction of it.
| draganm wrote: | | what TT-cartridge combo was that BTW? |
I had a Thorens belt-drive for most of that period. I don't recall the model. I think the cartridge was an Audio Technica but I don't recall the specifics on that either. It was probably a higher output MM as I used a Hafler pre amp and I know I didn't have a separate phono-amp stage. My serious listening audiophile period lasted about 15 years and spanned the hayday of LPs and the introduction of digital. As I've shown and acknowledged, as have other here, music WAS recorded and presented better then, on both CD and LP, although LP was largely dead during the period that CDs were being butchered the most. It's no surprise to me that many prefer a 25yr old LP to a 3yr old CD and I believe I've shown here why that is. I'm hopeful that in 10 years we have better sounding LPs and CDs. It's already beginning: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war.htm
"Thankfully, there's a physical limit to how loud a vinyl record can be cut without making it unplayable, so even the loudest-cut records managed to retain quite reasonable dynamics. Unfortunately, digital recording removed such constraints — a CD, for example, is playable regardless of the amplitude of the encoded audio data — and that simple technical freedom facilitated the 'war' that has been raging with (arguably) ever more musically destructive power over the last 30 years."
| draganm wrote: | | it's called Direct to Disc Recording. The live performance is fed directly into a record master cutting machine. This is how they id it before the magnetic tape was invented in Nazi Germany. you've never heard of it before because you don't really know anything about LP's |
Yeah. I somehow doubt that the artists and studio albums being discussed here were produced one-take, live, direct-to-lathe with zero editing, or processing.  School me on Edison wax cylinders too. As Leonard Cohen was mention here, I checked out some of his concert videos. Of course, I listened to them digitally, but I noted that the keyboards in most, and even the 'horns' in some, were DIGITAL instruments. Even Niel Peart, who I know we both admire, is using some Simmons e-drums and AKAI DIGITAL samplers in his kit these days. Many (most?) studio vocal tracks are laid down with DIGITAL pitch-processing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Link Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| El Duderino wrote: | | It's like your valve phono-amp in your other thread. I think your subjective flowery adjectives of 'warm' and 'smooth' is likely spot-on. "Like Nutella spread over warm bakery bread". That sounds like colored and flavored. I too can appreciate the characteristic 'tube sound' and science knows just why it's appealing and whats different about it. It's not about accurate, it's about coloration that most humans happen to find pleasing. I'd argue that 'sounding great' isn't necessarily the same thing as 'high fidelity'. A CRT often looks 'smoother' because it can't be uniformly converged or uniformly focused as well or doesn't have sufficient BW. It's like your comment about Rembrandt. A modern digital camera would likely capture a persons portrait much more 'accurately' than Rembrandt ever could, yet not be considered 'beautiful art' like a Rembrandt. |
yes there's definitely a religiosity to it, and the audiophile movement is as full of nonsense as any irrational human behavior can be. A lot of audiophiles are 55 year old men with money to burn who have lost 75% of their hearing above 15Khz. I have heard plenty of systems costing $100K at the rocky Mountain audio fest that sounded like someone was pushing an ice-pick into my ear and where the best sounding systems were smaller rooms showing $5K rigs, the Wilson room was one that sticks out in my mind as 100% awful.
I also never said CD sounded really bad, I actually put on a CD last night for my own amusement, and you know it sounded great for the first 2 minutes. It wasn't a loud Rock album but Jazz from Sade. The problem: parts of the CD where the music gets more dynamic , the parts where there's a guitar, Sax, vocals , and such all competing with each other is where it starts to smear. The delineation between the instruments and vocals is completely lost and it just sounds like a wall of noise. I'll do your A/B test any day, but it won't be the retarded method of playing both at the same time and switching randomly back and forth where some poor sap is asked to raise his hand when the CD is on. I can listen to any song all the way thru and pick out the CD every time. BTW, a digitally mastered LP sounds the same as the CD,so it's not some vinyl "error" I am biased to but a low-rez digital source I tend to dislike.
| El Duderino wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | what TT-cartridge combo was that BTW? |
I had a Thorens belt-drive for most of that period. I don't recall the model. I think the cartridge was an Audio Technica but I don't recall the specifics on that either. It was probably a higher output MM as I used a Hafler pre amp and I know I didn't have a separate phono-amp stage. My serious listening audiophile period lasted about 15 years and spanned the hayday of LPs and the introduction of digital. As I've shown and acknowledged, as have other here, music WAS recorded and presented better then, on both CD and LP, although LP was largely dead during the period that CDs were being butchered the most. It's no surprise to me that many prefer a 25yr old LP to a 3yr old CD and I believe I've shown here why that is. I'm hopeful that in 10 years we have better sounding LPs and CDs. It's already beginning: |
I know all about the loudness wars, and that's part of it, but it's nowhere near the whole story. 44/16 is simply a flawed medium and that's why it's dying. If your so sold on technology i don't even know why your defending it when 96/24 should be the new standard. If you said " Digital medium in the 96/24 format is the superior music play-back device because almost no information is lost and you don't have any of the ticks/pops or surface noise of vinyl" then I would have no issue with that. You only need to go as far as Wiki to see that lower sampling rates have some flaws that they're just now starting to understand
| Quote: | | There has been an industry trend towards sampling rates well beyond the basic requirements: such as 96 kHz and even 192 kHz[6] This is in contrast with laboratory experiments, which have failed to show that ultrasonic frequencies are audible to human observers; however in some cases ultrasonic sounds do interact with and modulate the audible part of the frequency spectrum (intermodulation distortion).[7] It is noteworthy that intermodulation distortion is not present in the live audio and so it represents an artificial coloration to the live sound.[8] One advantage of higher sampling rates is that they can relax the low-pass filter design requirements for ADCs and DACs, but with modern oversampling sigma-delta converters this advantage is less important. |
| El Duderino wrote: | | Yeah. I somehow doubt that the artists and studio albums being discussed here were produced one-take, live, direct-to-lathe with zero editing, or processing. School me on Edison wax cylinders too. As Leonard Cohen was mention here, I checked out some of his concert videos. Of course, I listened to them digitally, but I noted that the keyboards in most, and even the 'horns' in some, were DIGITAL instruments. Even Niel Peart, who I know we both admire, is using some Simmons e-drums and AKAI DIGITAL samplers in his kit these days. Many (most?) studio vocal tracks are laid down with DIGITAL pitch-processing. |
in your Taylor swift collection that is the norm.
There is no artist I admire, or who's music I would buy , who would ever use digital pitch correction to alter their vocals after recording in the studio. I'm also not concerned about using some digitized sound effects here and there, if it sounds good in the studio it's up to the artist to decide what they want to use. I don't want to hear some crappy low-rez digital copy of that session though!
Your wrong again about DTD , but it takes real musicians to do it , professionals, not some Walmart pop star
http://capsulelabs.com/direct/
My point is I want the closest thing to sitting in the recording studio with headphones on when I play-back media in my room, and for me that's a vinyl record at this point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4627
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Link Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | If you said " Digital medium in the 96/24 format is the superior music play-back device because almost no information is lost and you don't have any of the ticks/pops or surface noise of vinyl" then I would have no issue with that. |
OK then. I have no problem with that. I don't know how you'd square it with your notion that analog is inherently superior though. I'm certainty NOT saying that 44/16 is superior to 96/24. I do note the words "This is in contrast with laboratory experiments, which have failed to show..." Yeah, DB ABX tests. I don't expect we'll be doing them, at least not properly. First, if you want to do it with your equipment and your environment, we'd need at least (2) people willing to travel to Co. Then if you wanted to use full tracks, we'll need to conduct at least 16 runs to achieve a statistical confidence of >95% and you'll need to score 16/16 correct. This would be admittedly stressful and 'listener fatigue' is commonly cited as the reason audiophiles usually fail them. We'd also need some gear like ADCs, DACs, testtone LPs, DVMs and ABX boxes. That would probably be the easiest part of conducting such a test. Finding at least (2) people willing to travel to conduct, witness, and score it would be the hardest part IMO. Just claiming you've done it and can ace it violates the whole premise of DB ABX testing.
| draganm wrote: | | There is no artist I admire, or who's music I would buy , who would ever use digital pitch correction to alter their vocals after recording in the studio. |
I'd argue that used judicially, you'd never know who used it and when, only when it's overused. Much like digital dynamic compression. I don't imagine any artist would want to call attention to ANY assist they may get from digital technology in the studio. I work with two guys who are both musicians and have both made several CDs. (different bands). It's a PNW hipster thing. Both of them confided to me they used it to polish up some things in their vocals. I'd have never known otherwise, although neither of them are particularly good vocalists IMO, even with the assist. I can google comments from mastering engineers who claim that 75% of the artists they work with use it. Of course, nobody is naming names.
| draganm wrote: | | Your wrong again about DTD , but it takes real musicians to do it , professionals, not some Walmart pop star http://capsulelabs.com/direct/ |
http://capsulelabs.com/mastering/ shows they have lots of digital that can be used it their workflow, including pitch-correction.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Link Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| El Duderino wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | If you said " Digital medium in the 96/24 format is the superior music play-back device because almost no information is lost and you don't have any of the ticks/pops or surface noise of vinyl" then I would have no issue with that. |
OK then. I have no problem with that. I don't know how you'd square it with your notion that analog is inherently superior though. I'm certainty NOT saying that 44/16 is superior to 96/24. I do note the words "This is in contrast with laboratory experiments, which have failed to show..." Yeah, DB ABX tests. I don't expect we'll be doing them, at least not properly. First, if you want to do it with your equipment and your environment, we'd need at least (2) people willing to travel to Co. Then if you wanted to use full tracks, we'll need to conduct at least 16 runs to achieve a statistical confidence of >95% and you'll need to score 16/16 correct. This would be admittedly stressful and 'listener fatigue' is commonly cited as the reason audiophiles usually fail them. We'd also need some gear like ADCs, DACs, testtone LPs, DVMs and ABX boxes. That would probably be the easiest part of conducting such a test. Finding at least (2) people willing to travel to conduct, witness, and score it would be the hardest part IMO. Just claiming you've done it and can ace it violates the whole premise of DB ABX testing./ |
you sound like a crazy person and this is why they don't allow this type of stupid sh*t on audio forums. I don't need to prove anything to myself and I really could care less what you prefer to listen to or what you , who owned a TT 25 years ago, feels is the superior format. I trust what I hear, and I'm the biggest pessimist out of all my Audiophile friends. Out of all the people who have sat down and A/B'd a song at my house no one has ever chosen the CD. So if your way of "proving" the CD is superior is by laying an impossibly ridiculous scenario for people to test and pass at 95% correctness, then you will have to do this at your house. Have fun
sure they offer it, it's a business, not a Church. The point is they actually care about what they're doing enough to even offer a pure , non-digitized recording possible. They still have to pay the bills and if it was my studio I wouldn't turn away someone with money just because they can't sing or play worth a sh*t.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Photo Albums
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
