(...) We, as audiophiles, have a single means of arriving at an opinion - listening. As such, any discussion that does not involve a listening experience is moot by definition.
Felix
+1!
(...) We, as audiophiles, have a single means of arriving at an opinion - listening. As such, any discussion that does not involve a listening experience is moot by definition.
Felix
As an example, if there were half a dozen individual peaks in a given song (totaling anywhere from a fraction of a second to perhaps a couple of seconds) that were limited by 1-2 dB, do you think that would be audible? And supposing that if you knew just where to listen and were able to notice that, do you really think that would significantly affect your opinion of the overall sound quality? That's the kind of limiting that was done on the USB Apple files, and not all tracks had compression or limiting.
Similarly, the micodetail located below the noise floor can indeed be audible, in spite of naive logic, as can the harmonics driven by FR above the threshold of audibility. My point is, all this is academic. Once folks actually hear the records - aside from the few who have - we'll have something to discuss. Until then....
Felix
In a way it's more than academic, since if the LP's do in fact sound "better" than the files from which they were made, it indicates less fidelity to those masters, even though it might be euphonicly less fidelity.
And I have no idea how microdetail below the noise floor is applicable in any way to this discussion....
And I must retract an implication I made earlier: looking at (and measuring) the waveforms from the USB stick compared to the mono CD's, there is clearly widespread compression rather than just peak limiting. It's relatively little compression (typically the 1-2 dB I did mention), but it's there for sure.
...Have you listened to the albums? ...
Felix
No, and since my LP setup is long retired I won't be, at least on my system. And other systems I might listen to all have complete Beatles LP collections and won't be getting the new ones either.
Whoa, not without a turntable...
rbbert said:...since my LP setup is long retired...
and certainly not without records; I have the last 8 Beatles MFSL LP's, I just don't listen to them. And although I usually let it pass, it's really tiresome to read and listen to people rave about how good LP's sound and how bad CD's and hi-res digital sound when my experience (which is usually more than theirs) suggests otherwise.
This particular example (the new Beatles LP's) just provides a fantastic opportunity for me to propound on one of my pet theories, i.e. that the preference for LP sound by most (not all) LP proponents has nothing to do with better or more high-fidelity sound, just preference for the distortions inherent to the LP medium.
I do know that many members here at WBF prefer vinyl, and I've had some experience actually listening with some of them ( as well as other LP loving audiophiles not on this forum) to get a better idea of why, but nothing has happened to change my overall opinion.
I'm sounding more dogmatic than I mean to, and it's hard for that to come across in an Internet forum, sorry.
...Does anyone honestly think that folks like that are ignorant as to the bases for a given measure of technical superiority in any medium? They just don't care; that's not what this is all about. These individuals enjoyed playing and listening to music. Data analysis is another hobby.
Felix
Which one?
Rob
I'm merely referring to simple logic, nothing technical about it, no data analysis necessary. The audio-political motive is my personal frustration at the music industry's reluctance to sell better source material; rather than have made a serious effort to transfer, master and release the Beatles' catalog at 24/192 (eminently doable in every way), it chose 24/44.1 as the "definitive" version and is now milking the hell out of what appears to be a gullible public.
But as far as your other implications, there are numerous Internet audiophile forums (like SHF) where people who prefer digitally stored music to LP's are indeed villified. I've heard that there are others where listeners who prefer LP's are viewed similarly, but I haven't frequented any of them, and I very much doubt there are nearly as many as of the former.
Your comment about the 'table spinning is a perfect illustration of my hypothesis.
(...) This particular example (the new Beatles LP's) just provides a fantastic opportunity for me to propound on one of my pet theories, i.e. that the preference for LP sound by most (not all) LP proponents has nothing to do with better or more high-fidelity sound, just preference for the distortions inherent to the LP medium. (...)
I can not forget that when the first version of the Beatles CDs was lunched most of the digital proponents used exactly the same arguments of your pet theory to fuel their preference. As a result they spent many years listening to poorer sounding perfect CD versions while we (vinyl lovers) spent decades listening to the great sounding distorted vinyl versions.
I think that analog distortion argument Is bogus. The better one's turntable gets, the closer it approaches the sound of the tape.I can not forget that when the first version of the Beatles CDs was lunched most of the digital proponents used exactly the same arguments of your pet theory to fuel their preference. As a result they spent many years listening to poorer sounding perfect CD versions while we (vinyl lovers) spent decades listening to the great sounding distorted vinyl versions.
I think that analog distortion argument Is bogus. The better one's turntable gets, the closer it approaches the sound of the tape.
So it's back to the drawing board for the record execs for the new wave of format approach to the next unsuspecting group of buyers who would succumb once again.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |