IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Compare for yourself: Vinyl vs. CD
fewtch
post Apr 2 2003, 08:43
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (budgie @ Apr 2 2003 - 12:39 AM)
Have a fun... You can find cases when a LP sound better than CD (the same interpret and title) but from technical point of view is LP inferior to CD, so where's the problem? I used to be a vinyl freak (as I own more than 5000 LPs) but I would never switch back to LP now as I know how good a CD may sound when properly done.

Would you like to donate some of those LP's to a "good cause" ? biggrin.gif

P.S... surely you must admit, there's a big catalog of music that was never released on CD... so why not listen to both? IMHO it's an excellent reason to listen to vinyl if you like that older stuff (which are often closer to the master tapes than 'remastered' CD's), and records are cheap too. I've discovered a lot of "lost" music, plenty of gems that the RIAA never saw profit in re-releasing on CD.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Apr 2 2003, 08:55


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Apr 2 2003, 09:00
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 2 2003 - 12:11 AM)
QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 1 2003 - 09:03 PM)
Hehe, I see what you did, Pio.  I was thinking of doing something similar myself.  This version sounds quite close to pksample.pac, and really does warrant the use of ABX.  It's not quiet in my house right now, but I'll try to give it a go later.

Pio, you're good. I don't believe I can tell the difference between your sample and the vinyl version.

ff123

I wonder if the vinyl version could be EQ'ed to sound nearly identical to the CD (i.e. the reverse of what Pio did)? Maybe there's a project for you, ff123. smile.gif

This post has been edited by fewtch: Apr 2 2003, 09:00


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Apr 2 2003, 10:10
Post #28


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



For a good (almost April fool's) vinyl vs CD comparison...

If you have the Beatles CD "A Hard Day's Night" - the album, compare the track "You can't do that" from the CD with youcantdothat.wav from the lame samples site:
http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/samples/

I don't think you'll need to ABX wink.gif And no, it's not a different song.


So, for occasions like this, you need vinyl.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. Sometimes though the CD version of an old recording beats the LP. e.g. Frank Sinatra - Come Dance with Me - the CD isn't a great CD, but it's good, and the LP is terrible. This is quite rare though - usually the first release of a recording is the one which gets the most care, so LPs from the 1950s-1980s are often worth a listen.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Apr 2 2003, 11:35
Post #29


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Damned !
My process has been guessed !

I pasted two pictures of the spectrums of the samples, and applied a graphic equalization matching the difference.

The equalized CD sample is still sharper than the vinyl one, because there are more dynamics in the treble.
RMS level difference between cd and piosample is <1db, and the peak level is 1 db inferior on the vinyl.

After a -35 db high pass filtering, 2500 to 5000 Hz, so as to keep only treble, the RMS levels are still within 1 db, thanks to the equalisation, but the vinyl peaks have fallen 5 db below the equalized CD ones !
That's why the vinyl sounds smooth.

I should now try to apply a multiband dynamics compression on the equalized sample in order to try to smooth completely the treble.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Apr 2 2003, 12:40
Post #30


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



QUOTE (fewtch @ Apr 2 2003 - 09:35 AM)
It should be noted perhaps that we're hearing a CD (digital) vs. "vinyl recorded to digital" (lord knows what ADC was used) -- so it isn't a true comparison of vinyl vs. CD.

I recall for those who don't browse the hardware section, that I recently performed a real analog vs digital blind test at home with hardware switching.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ST&f=21&t=7953&
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ger@co
post Apr 2 2003, 13:27
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 20-January 02
From: Canada
Member No.: 1088



I Think (because I'm not positive) that the mastering for vinyl incorporates EQing, or sound processing if you prefer, not to make it sound better, but, rather, to compensate for the medium. Whereas, for CDs, the engineer does not have to worry about the sound of the stylus scraping across the vinyl or tape being dragged across the playback heads, and the final result is truer sound. As a result, vinyl may sound better because of the processing, while CDs give a more accurate representation of the original recorded sound. Dolby is another example of sound processing--EQing--that further compensates for the limitatons of tape.


Later.


--------------------
"Did you just say he contacts you through a bird? Did I just hear you say that?" Sonny Valerio (Cliff Gorman). Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 2 2003, 13:44
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (fewtch @ Apr 1 2003 - 11:43 PM)
P.S... surely you must admit, there's a big catalog of music that was never released on CD... so why not listen to both?  IMHO it's an excellent reason to listen to vinyl if you like that older stuff (which are often closer to the master tapes than 'remastered' CD's), and records are cheap too.  I've discovered a lot of "lost" music, plenty of gems that the RIAA never saw profit in re-releasing on CD.

I don't own music simultaneously on LPs and CDs; the older releases I have on LPs and newer on CDs... but the CDs go back only to early 90's, when they really started to sound reasonably. A lot of CDs I got are the golden ones from DCC and MFSL (from the original masters) and JVC's jazz XRCDs. Anytime I get the possibility to listen to a CD-title I have on LP I listen to it and then I decide if I keep on having the LP or change it for CD... So I have a lot of remasters or Japan-imported disks, which sound really good. A lot of doesn't, though.

About donating - although I am definitely not a Salvation Army member, if I'm going to do something like this, then I get you on the top of my list - I mean it...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 2 2003, 13:50
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (ger@co @ Apr 2 2003 - 04:27 AM)
I Think (because I'm not positive) that the mastering for vinyl incorporates EQing, or sound processing if you prefer, not to make it sound better, but, rather, to compensate for the medium. Whereas, for CDs, the engineer does not have to worry about the sound of the stylus scraping across the vinyl or tape being dragged across the playback heads, and the final result is truer sound.  As a result, vinyl may sound better because of the processing, while CDs give a more accurate representation of the original recorded sound.  Dolby is another example of sound processing--EQing--that further compensates for the limitatons of tape.


Later.

You are wrong... When mastering a CD, the engineer must worry a lot, because he knows, the format reveals everything done wrong or inproperly... When mastering a LP-material, you must worry about the limits of the vinyl (or the transferring medium, i.e. stylus), especially in low frequencies. It's just different attitude and it's not easy to switch from one to another as it may seem...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Apr 2 2003, 15:08
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (budgie @ Apr 2 2003 - 05:44 AM)
QUOTE (fewtch @ Apr 1 2003 - 11:43 PM)
P.S... surely you must admit, there's a big catalog of music that was never released on CD... so why not listen to both?  IMHO it's an excellent reason to listen to vinyl if you like that older stuff (which are often closer to the master tapes than 'remastered' CD's), and records are cheap too.  I've discovered a lot of "lost" music, plenty of gems that the RIAA never saw profit in re-releasing on CD.

I don't own music simultaneously on LPs and CDs; the older releases I have on LPs and newer on CDs... but the CDs go back only to early 90's, when they really started to sound reasonably. A lot of CDs I got are the golden ones from DCC and MFSL (from the original masters) and JVC's jazz XRCDs. Anytime I get the possibility to listen to a CD-title I have on LP I listen to it and then I decide if I keep on having the LP or change it for CD... So I have a lot of remasters or Japan-imported disks, which sound really good. A lot of doesn't, though.

About donating - although I am definitely not a Salvation Army member, if I'm going to do something like this, then I get you on the top of my list - I mean it...

Hey, I appreciate it smile.gif. It might be a bit expensive to ship from Europe to the USA, but if some were LP's I've been looking for (perhaps hard to find in the USA), it would be worth it.


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Apr 2 2003, 15:13
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Apr 2 2003 - 03:35 AM)
After a -35 db high pass filtering, 2500 to 5000 Hz, so as to keep only treble, the RMS levels are still within 1 db, thanks to the equalisation, but the vinyl peaks have fallen 5 db below the equalized CD ones !
That's why the vinyl sounds smooth.

Could you explain this further? When you say 2500 to 5000 Hz, it sounds like you used a band-pass filter. If high-pass, above which frequency did you keep -- 5KHz?

Anyway, I think it's clear there's significantly less treble in the vinyl version. Whether that has to do with the cartridge that was used or the vinyl, is up in the air (although I regularly hear more treble with CD's myself, a more expensive and/or better cartridge might do better in the treble). Ff123 says the cartridge was a (Shure) M97xE, which I think is MSRP $140 and about $75 street price (not expensive, but it should do the trick)... hmmm.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Apr 2 2003, 15:20


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 2 2003, 15:40
Post #36


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Apr 2 2003 - 01:10 AM)
P.S. Sometimes though the CD version of an old recording beats the LP. e.g. Frank Sinatra - Come Dance with Me - the CD isn't a great CD, but it's good, and the LP is terrible. This is quite rare though - usually the first release of a recording is the one which gets the most care, so LPs from the 1950s-1980s are often worth a listen.

I once borrowed Horowitz playing Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto on vinyl from the library. The record was very thick (it was from 1951 and they used lots of material), but it was old and scratched -- just terrible condition. But it must have been the first pressing, because all the high frequencies were there, nonetheless.

I later bought one of those re-releases on LP because I liked that rendition so much, and was horrified by just how much loss of high frequencies there were in that version.

So I went to a record collectors store and bought an earlier pressing from the 1950's, but damned if it still wasn't bad.

The CD release of it wasn't too bad, except they applied that stupid pseudo-stereo stuff to it, and I still think the library record sounded the best, even with all the scratches! I am appalled to think of all the great performances sitting around on first-pressing records which I'll never hear.

ff123

This post has been edited by ff123: Apr 2 2003, 15:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Apr 2 2003, 16:16
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 2 2003 - 07:40 AM)
The CD release of it wasn't too bad, except they applied that stupid pseudo-stereo stuff to it, and I still think the library record sounded the best, even with all the scratches!  I am appalled to think of all the great performances sitting around on first-pressing records which I'll never hear.

Actually, you could hear some of them... finding them would be the trick. There are lists and such (favorite pressings of certain records by various people) altho I don't have any specific links.

At the price of records at some places ($0.25 to $0.50 apiece) it's worth the gamble if something looks promising. That's basically a price where it wouldn't hurt just to chuck it in the trash if it sounded bad. Classical LP's in particular you can often find near-mint at throwaway prices.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Apr 2 2003, 16:19


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Apr 2 2003, 19:18
Post #38


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



QUOTE (ger@co @ Apr 2 2003 - 03:27 PM)
I Think (because I'm not positive) that the mastering for vinyl incorporates EQing, or sound processing


I've kept an article in french, by a sound engeener of the times of vinyl, telling about the art of processing master tapes so that the vinyl pressings sounds like them. According to him, a record factory could refuse a master tape arguing that the sound of it could not be properly cut on a vinyl.

QUOTE (fewtch @ Apr 2 2003 - 05:13 PM)
If high-pass, above which frequency did you keep -- 5KHz?


2.5 to 5 kHz is the transition band. If I'm not mistaken, it means that the 5 kHz is kept, and that the 2.5 kHz is a the attenuation I set (-35 db).

QUOTE (fewtch @ Apr 2 2003 - 05:13 PM)
Anyway, I think it's clear there's significantly less treble in the vinyl version. 


Here are the spectrums, from 1 to 22 kHz.



Blue is the CD, grey is the vinyl, and red the equalized CD. The vertical lines are spaced by 11 db

QUOTE (fewtch @ Apr 2 2003 - 05:13 PM)
Whether that has to do with the cartridge that was used or the vinyl, is up in the air


The vinyl can play a bigger role than the cartridge, go back in http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....f=1&t=2896&st=0 (samples available on request). On the same record, the treble of track 2 of side 1 was 2 db below the CD, and the one of track 4 side 2 was 9 db below the CD. !
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 3 2003, 05:47
Post #39


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 1 2003 - 11:11 PM)
Pio, you're good.  I don't believe I can tell the difference between your sample and the vinyl version.

I tried this again, this time focusing on the impact of the snare drums, and I could tell the difference this time (ABX 16/16). Interesting that when you know what to listen for, it gets easier to hear.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 3 2003, 08:25
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 2 2003 - 08:47 PM)
I tried this again, this time focusing on the impact of the snare drums, and I could tell the difference this time (ABX 16/16).  Interesting that when you know what to listen for, it gets easier to hear.

Good morning! laugh.gif I say (write) it here from the very first moment I discovered this forum... But always got laughed at... Mostly I don't really need any ABXing... The only thing you must have is EARS rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KikeG
post Apr 3 2003, 08:36
Post #41


WinABX developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1578
Joined: 1-October 01
Member No.: 137



QUOTE (budgie @ Apr 3 2003 - 08:25 AM)
The only thing you must have is EARS  rolleyes.gif

And what do you think ff123 used to hear the differences?

The only difference is that his procedure is reliable, whilst sighted ones are not guaranteed to be.

(Edit: removed some extra irony)

This post has been edited by KikeG: Apr 3 2003, 11:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ff123
post Apr 3 2003, 09:22
Post #42


ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1396
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (budgie @ Apr 2 2003 - 11:25 PM)
QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 2 2003 - 08:47 PM)
I tried this again, this time focusing on the impact of the snare drums, and I could tell the difference this time (ABX 16/16).  Interesting that when you know what to listen for, it gets easier to hear.

Good morning! laugh.gif I say (write) it here from the very first moment I discovered this forum... But always got laughed at... Mostly I don't really need any ABXing... The only thing you must have is EARS rolleyes.gif

I typically use ABX when I'm in doubt that I can hear a difference, as in this case. An added benefit is that other people who might also have trouble hearing a difference can trust my results (assuming I report high confidence ABX numbers).

There are some listeners whose opinion I trust, and don't really need to see ABX results to believe them. Others I'm not so sure of. But ABX removes the doubt. And to reiterate KikeG's point, I only use my ears to form an opinion.

ff123
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Apr 3 2003, 11:12
Post #43


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



I definitely need ABX, even for myself. I can play the same track over and over without hearing the same thing twice. Thus I always think I hear a difference, even between A and A.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 3 2003, 11:18
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Apr 3 2003 - 02:12 AM)
...Thus I always think I hear a difference, even between A and A.

The same happens to me, mostly deep in the night, when I am really tired. But hearing the same piece again under another conditions usually removes all doubts aside.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ger@co
post Apr 4 2003, 01:56
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 20-January 02
From: Canada
Member No.: 1088



@ budgie. Yes, you basically said the same thing I did with one exception. I said "the engineer does not have to worry about the sound of the stylus scraping across the vinyl or tape being dragged across the playback heads." I did not say that they, the engineers, do not have to worry. And, you are quite correct; CDs do demand care and attention by the recording engineers, as every little defect will show itself.

Later.


--------------------
"Did you just say he contacts you through a bird? Did I just hear you say that?" Sonny Valerio (Cliff Gorman). Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JonPike
post Apr 4 2003, 06:27
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 20-November 01
From: Irvine, CA
Member No.: 504



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Apr 2 2003 - 02:35 AM)
Damned !
My process has been guessed !

I pasted two pictures of the spectrums of the samples, and applied a graphic equalization matching the difference.

The equalized CD sample is still sharper than the vinyl one, because there are more dynamics in the treble.
RMS level difference between cd and piosample is <1db, and the peak level is 1 db inferior on the vinyl.

After a -35 db high pass filtering, 2500 to 5000 Hz, so as to keep only treble, the RMS levels are still within 1 db, thanks to the equalisation, but the vinyl peaks have fallen 5 db below the equalized CD ones !
That's why the vinyl sounds smooth.

I should now try to apply a multiband dynamics compression on the equalized sample in order to try to smooth completely the treble.

Hey Pio..

What's your audio editor over there?

Just curious..

Jon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JonPike
post Apr 4 2003, 09:08
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 20-November 01
From: Irvine, CA
Member No.: 504



QUOTE (ger@co @ Apr 2 2003 - 04:27 AM)
I Think (because I'm not positive) that the mastering for vinyl incorporates EQing, or sound processing if you prefer, not to make it sound better, but, rather, to compensate for the medium. Whereas, for CDs, the engineer does not have to worry about the sound of the stylus scraping across the vinyl or tape being dragged across the playback heads, and the final result is truer sound.  As a result, vinyl may sound better because of the processing, while CDs give a more accurate representation of the original recorded sound.  Dolby is another example of sound processing--EQing--that further compensates for the limitatons of tape.


Later.

Not sure if your'e talking about RIAA equalization or something else.. You HAVE to
use the RIAA eq, but because it's a standard, and is accurately (hopefully!) re-compensated
for in your phono preamp, it's transparent and should result in no change to the sound.

Since you are carving little sound waves in the record, but want to keep the speed of the needle
motion to a fairly consistant maximum, you have to (if I remember right) emphasize the low frequencies
nearly 20 db, (cause they're slow) and de emphasize the highs a similar amount. (cause they're fast)

This is why you can't just amplify your cartridge and put it into your soundcard or whatever.

Tape as I recall is much more linear, (though I'm not as sure of this) and dosen't need quite
as drastic of a eq as the really huge one that is the RIAA standard.

All this should be independent of the "sound".. just ways to make the medium "flatter" and
more transparent to the listener. What the sound engineer does to affect the "sound" is another
story..
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ger@co
post Apr 4 2003, 09:23
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 20-January 02
From: Canada
Member No.: 1088



I wasn't talking about any specific standard. I read an article (about 12 years ago) on the differences of vinyl/tape vs CDs, and that is all I remember. Not much, I know, that's why I said "I'm not positive."

Later.


--------------------
"Did you just say he contacts you through a bird? Did I just hear you say that?" Sonny Valerio (Cliff Gorman). Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Apr 4 2003, 09:33
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE (ff123 @ Apr 2 2003 - 06:40 AM)
I am appalled to think of all the great performances sitting around on first-pressing records which I'll never hear.

That's why I desperately buy every "original masters" CD/LP I'm interested in as I see it, regardless of the price... and the price is high sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Apr 4 2003, 11:25
Post #50


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



QUOTE (JonPike @ Apr 4 2003 - 08:27 AM)
What's your audio editor over there?

Spectrum analysis : SoundForge 4.5 (+spectrum plugin ?)
Overlay of the curves : Corel Photopaint 9
Graphic Eq : Shibatch Super eq + Winamp discwriter.
Parametric eq (highpass) + RMS levels : SoundForge 4.5
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th July 2014 - 08:36