All good then
Appreciate internet and forums can make nuanced chatter difficult, especially when at times one can suffer a humour bypass operation (like I did last night it seems
).Cheers
Orb
LP with better dynamic range than digital
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
All good then
Appreciate internet and forums can make nuanced chatter difficult, especially when at times one can suffer a humour bypass operation (like I did last night it seems
).Cheers
Orb
Bruce,
just curious you ever seen this issue yourself as you do a lot of mastering?
Ray was able to deduce part of the problem because he received the stereo interleaved files and also the monos from a client.
Wondering how often you think you may had come across something not right with the stereo interleaved files you receive (appreciate without having both it is hard to quantify).
Thanks
Orb
It was discovered a while back that Pro-tools and other workstations would pan things L/R differently. This was a problem especially when projects were collaborated over multiple platforms. With newer workstations this is not a problem. You can take 2 mono or non-interleaved files and then change them into a stereo interleaved file and hear no difference. You can also invert phase and it will null to infinity. With the older workstations, you can not do this and a lot of the studios are still using software that is 5-10yr. old and it was a problem back then. It is certainly easy enough to check. Unfortunately some of these myths have crept into the modern age and it just isn't so. Take for instance when Grundman says you loose fidelity every time you copy a file from one drive to another!
He's the Grammy winning expert so it MUST be true!Yeah in the interview the point was not about the stereo interleaved being a problem in itself but how done (user or solution/software) and mentions basic how to check or a better way for a more equipped studio.It was discovered a while back that Pro-tools and other workstations would pan things L/R differently. This was a problem especially when projects were collaborated over multiple platforms. With newer workstations this is not a problem. You can take 2 mono or non-interleaved files and then change them into a stereo interleaved file and hear no difference. You can also invert phase and it will null to infinity. With the older workstations, you can not do this and a lot of the studios are still using software that is 5-10yr. old and it was a problem back then. It is certainly easy enough to check. Unfortunately some of these myths have crept into the modern age and it just isn't so. Take for instance when Grundman says you loose fidelity every time you copy a file from one drive to another!
Thanks for the additional info, that Air Studios interview was 2012 so people and artists/musicians being recorded-mixed were still having issues even then including ones sent to Air for mastering from their clients.
Worth noting they are also including a specific example where they had both the stereo interleaved and monos so easy to see if different so not just subjective, more information though would had been nice, anyway I guess the topic depends who the client is and their technical/expertise capabilities *shrug*.
Ray mentions just makes more sense for the mastering studio to deal with the monos rather than a client add an additional process that they may add problems to; does not take them much time for a mastering studio to deal with monos (Ray mentions extra 10-15 minutes).
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
Just in case some wondering how critical bandwidth affects the perception of my A Chord example, here are the cut off points relating to the bands.
This is one reason (not the only one when it comes to complex sounds and instruments' notes) why the chord will sound louder than the individual note as three combined notes in a chord is enough to go across a critical band, for the notes to be masked/same level they would need to be within same band.
Here is a rough guide as it pertains noted as Barks bands given in Hertz as work done by Zwicker; 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 510, 630, 770, 920, 1080, 1270, 1480, 1720, 2000, 2320, 2700, 3150, 3700, 4400, 5300, 6400, 7700, 9500, 12000, and 15500.
Also another is by Rossing using center frequency with associated critical bandwidth, both in Hz; Center 100 and Critical 90, Center 200 and critical 90, Center 500 and critical 110, center 1000 and critical 280, center 2000 and critical 700, center 5000 and critical 1200).
Rossing's shows threshold for the changes to critical bandwidth, so please appreciate center can be changed to be applicable to all frequencies one may hear and use the right critical.
So playing an A chord will be perceived as louder to the single note.
I am using the example to show how it works on note-chords, but it is also applicable to all that is recorded/played back and what we hear.
As I mentioned earlier while this is physiological, there are also other cognitive possibilities that also can influence perceived loudness (such as the piano study and awareness of cues for say key being hit hard/soft).
Cheers
Orb
The Bark bands have largely been superseded by ERB values. For example:
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/bbt/Equivalent_Rectangular_Bandwidth.html
There is apparently some more recent work indicating that the bands might be slightly narrower than the current ERB values.
NOTE: I mention the above only for completeness. The point you made is still valid, only the numbers change slightly.
Yep agree, but worth having both and also Rossings numbers that I included.
Although many papers refer to Zwicker even now, I do have a 2003 study-research paper done as well, tbh this is a grey area and results all add up to the same-similar; both of us underestimated how narrow the critical bandwidth was
Ah well now everyone can play around with their 1 note-2 notes-chords on an instrument (easier with synth-keyboard though IMO) and try it out
It is an interesting experience when one critically listens out and focuses on this (much easier with sustained notes).
Cheers
Orb
Not to put too fine a point on it but when describing the LP in recent posts, you've really been talking about cartridges. Not all cartridges are the same, not all tone arms are the same nor the geometries.
For example, I can get 'pretty good' playback from our Technics SL-1200 with Grado Gold cartridge, but its a simple fact that the arm does not allow the cartridge to be set up for proper geometry. Yet it can hit the 1% levels you mention quite easily. OTOH, my Transfiguration Orpheus set up in my Triplanar 12" arm has *way* lower distortion on the same cut. In a word- wutup??
I'm really interested to see what this new optical cartridge can do. No coil to ring, no need for high gain equalizer.
I do agree that higher bit rates and word length are the deal with digital. I worry about storage- but that is a topic of a different thread.
Well other than the Finial, and the upcoming optical system, it becomes difficult to listen to LP without the cartridge. So cartridge performance, perhaps the tightest bottleneck in LP playback, becomes a very relevant topic.
Not sure what the storage issue with digital is, but maybe it would make a good topic for you to start.
Agreed. I think what was bothering me about your post was that there was an assumption that the LP had that distortion because the cartridge might have it.
Did you see that post Peter B made about the optical cartridge? I've thought about this for years- its nice to see someone finally doing it.
At any rate if you really wanted to measure the distortion of the cartridge, you might also need a straight tracking arm to do the measurement, else the geometry of the playback is an issue. I'll bet you that most cartridge manufacturers are not doing that!
Since we've already drifted (discussing distortion instead of dynamic range...:
The storage issue with digital is the longevity of the media. About 25 years ago the Library of Congress did a study of archiving sound recordings, and concluded that any form of laminated media was subject to failure (tape, optical disk magnetic disk) in a period of years or decades under ideal conditions. Non-laminated media (LP and stampers) had the ability to store for over a century in the right conditions. I see that earlier this year they did another study...
I have LPs in my collection that are over 50 years old and a lot of stereo recordings that are over 45 years old and play beautifully.
Of course nowadays there is the cloud, but I've already heard of several people that have had disasters with that.
In a nutshell, that's what I mean about storage. Of course, I might already be old enough that none of that matters anymore.
Did you see that post Peter B made about the optical cartridge? I've thought about this for years- its nice to see someone finally doing it.
At any rate if you really wanted to measure the distortion of the cartridge, you might also need a straight tracking arm to do the measurement, else the geometry of the playback is an issue. I'll bet you that most cartridge manufacturers are not doing that!
Since we've already drifted (discussing distortion instead of dynamic range...:
The storage issue with digital is the longevity of the media. About 25 years ago the Library of Congress did a study of archiving sound recordings, and concluded that any form of laminated media was subject to failure (tape, optical disk magnetic disk) in a period of years or decades under ideal conditions. Non-laminated media (LP and stampers) had the ability to store for over a century in the right conditions. I see that earlier this year they did another study...
I have LPs in my collection that are over 50 years old and a lot of stereo recordings that are over 45 years old and play beautifully.
Of course nowadays there is the cloud, but I've already heard of several people that have had disasters with that.
In a nutshell, that's what I mean about storage. Of course, I might already be old enough that none of that matters anymore.
Bruce quick question,
from your experience and knowledge which noise shaping algorithms were/are used by various mastering studios (assuming only a few were common in use) when creating a CD release, and how often-circumstances it is applied?
Just curious how this may had changed over the last 15 years, both in terms of what used and decision when to use it (specific only to classical genre or other/more analytical decision factors).
Would be interesting to know as I linked earlier a study showing most of the different noise shaping available at mastering, and some might be deemed more detrimental than others in terms of high frequency noise (especially I would had thought around 15 years ago).
Link again regarding the various dither noise shaping (but I appreciate they are I think trying to sell-promote ExtraBit): http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/dither.htm
Would be great to know as there are many with a diverse range of CDs from now to spanning decades.
Thanks
Orb
from your experience and knowledge which noise shaping algorithms were/are used by various mastering studios (assuming only a few were common in use) when creating a CD release, and how often-circumstances it is applied?
Just curious how this may had changed over the last 15 years, both in terms of what used and decision when to use it (specific only to classical genre or other/more analytical decision factors).
Would be interesting to know as I linked earlier a study showing most of the different noise shaping available at mastering, and some might be deemed more detrimental than others in terms of high frequency noise (especially I would had thought around 15 years ago).
Link again regarding the various dither noise shaping (but I appreciate they are I think trying to sell-promote ExtraBit): http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/dither.htm
Would be great to know as there are many with a diverse range of CDs from now to spanning decades.
Thanks
Orb
Agreed. I think what was bothering me about your post was that there was an assumption that the LP had that distortion because the cartridge might have it.
Did you see that post Peter B made about the optical cartridge? I've thought about this for years- its nice to see someone finally doing it.
At any rate if you really wanted to measure the distortion of the cartridge, you might also need a straight tracking arm to do the measurement, else the geometry of the playback is an issue. I'll bet you that most cartridge manufacturers are not doing that!
Since we've already drifted (discussing distortion instead of dynamic range...:
The storage issue with digital is the longevity of the media. About 25 years ago the Library of Congress did a study of archiving sound recordings, and concluded that any form of laminated media was subject to failure (tape, optical disk magnetic disk) in a period of years or decades under ideal conditions. Non-laminated media (LP and stampers) had the ability to store for over a century in the right conditions. I see that earlier this year they did another study...
I have LPs in my collection that are over 50 years old and a lot of stereo recordings that are over 45 years old and play beautifully.
Of course nowadays there is the cloud, but I've already heard of several people that have had disasters with that.
In a nutshell, that's what I mean about storage. Of course, I might already be old enough that none of that matters anymore.
No I was looking at the whole playback signal path. I think linear tracking arms are the way to go myself. They have their own issues, but when set up right those I have used seemed to get the job done better.
As for storage I was curious as to whether you thought different storage sounded different which some people do think. Haven't found it to be so myself. LP is certainly a long term storage medium. Hard drives or other data holders aren't nearly so long lived. In compensation they do allow for multiple backups and transfers forward in a convenient manner. Despite the issues with laminated media I do have two or three dozen CD's from the first year, and all play just fine though they are ripped to HD now. Then I never left mine in cars, left them in the sun etc. etc. Still that is 30+ years ago. Of course there are master tapes that music companies have lost or let deteriorate in storage. Meaning the LPs made from them in hands of the public are still around. Distributed backup I suppose.
If the digital file is in a mass storage system like a hard drive I've not heard a difference. CD transports are a different matter- some of them lack what I would call robust playback (whereas hard disk is robust- all the bits that are there get played). Some CD transports have buffered outputs which sound better than those that just do the Redbook minimum.
If others are interested in how noise shaped (re)dither at mastering for CD changed around 1999 with POW-R, very interesting review by Bob Katz of this noise shaped dither algorithm and state of play (in his experience) back then: http://www.weiss.ch/old/pow-r/reviews/review-powr-e1.PDF
Maybe it is not so clear cut if one also considers UV-22 but for the most perceived dynamic/clean/transparent it does seem POW-r has benefits over that.
Be interesting to hear Bruce's experience and how this changed over time and what is prevalent with various mastering studios (might be messy due to no standard).
Anyway this topic should be of interest to anyone who still plays CDs (or ripped CDs) that makes up a large collection of their listening.
Cheers
Orb
Maybe it is not so clear cut if one also considers UV-22 but for the most perceived dynamic/clean/transparent it does seem POW-r has benefits over that.
Be interesting to hear Bruce's experience and how this changed over time and what is prevalent with various mastering studios (might be messy due to no standard).
Anyway this topic should be of interest to anyone who still plays CDs (or ripped CDs) that makes up a large collection of their listening.
Cheers
Orb
I am not sure I buy that as an explanation for higher perceived dynamic range in analog -- and I am a digital-only guy with no reason to defend analog other than that I have heard it done superbly well elsewhere. That 'elsewhere' is mainly Peter A.'s system, an analog system that, on great recordings/pressings, is one of the most dynamic systems that I have ever heard, hands down.
For example, when listened to at loud volume the brass attacks in the Pink Panther theme song (yes, that music is thrilling when reproduced well) were heartstopping. Some orchestral LP's, and Beethoven's Appassionata piano sonata, sounded tremendously dynamic too. All the time though the sound seemed not just effortless, but enormously clean as well. If there had been distortion in the aforementioned brass attacks significant enough to cause an exaggerated sense of dynamics, it should have been audible, since the tones were sufficiently sustained for that.
On the other hand I also don't buy the assertion by others that, when done well, vinyl has an effective dynamic range of 100 dB. I'd rather stick with the often heard 60-70 dB number, which seems about correct. Even when it is on the quiet side, there is just too much surface noise for a wider range.
But how then can dynamics be so explosive on LP? In my view, the explosiveness of dynamics depends on speed of surge, power and perceived authority of sound. I would assume that the brass attacks on the Pink Panther track, for example, could not have risen more than 25-35 dB above the surrounding music, but with above characteristics they were just breathtaking in dynamic impact. This effect then should easily be possible under a total dynamic range of 60-70 dB.
Also, while there may have been surface noise, on some orchestral recordings the subjective dynamic range of the music itself was enormous.
I cannot speak to comparisons of the same recordings on CD vs. LP, but most of my chamber music recordings on CD sound dynamic, and a good number very much so (all those recordings are post-LP era). On the other hand, while there were a number of LP recordings with tremendous dynamics (see above), hardly any of the few chamber music LPs that I heard on Peter A.'s system particularly impressed me in terms of dynamics, while some very much managed to do so in terms of timbral detail.
Yes, I noticed on two top-notch analog systems that I have heard recently that many LP pressings are just sub-standard. As for CD, most recordings do not exhaust the potential of that medium as well, even though 'pressing' itself is obviously not or hardly an issue (not at all from a computer obviously, and hardly from a good transport). For example, just recently I re-discovered an old recording of Carter's string quartets 2&3 with the Arditti quartet:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Carter-String-Quartets-2-3/dp/B000027KTZ
After the first few seconds my jaw dropped: this was so much more convincing timbrally than any other string quartet CD I had listened to the last two years. It also had much more timbral micro-detail. I had thought that CD was quite limited in reproducing the micro-detail of solo violin sound, but this recording showed how much more CD was capable of (even though -- on the very best, not typical, recordings -- vinyl may still beat it in that respect). Peter A. who heard this CD on my system in comparison with a few other string quartet CDs agreed with me. He also pointed out something that I had not explicitly noticed, namely that transients sounded substantially faster on this CD than on the other string quartet recordings. He also thought that the music sounded 'very dynamic'. We both also agreed that during the violin solo about 12 min into string quartet 2 the energetic striking of the bow over the strings produced a realistic rosiny character of sound that is rarely heard on recording. As another slap in the face to other recording engineers, this CD was produced in 1988 (!), at a time when presumably digital recording was much less mature than now. It was engineered by this fascinating guy:
http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/about/staff/p5_18.html
From the link:
He spent the early 80s as a freelance pop engineer/producer but moved into classical music recording after the birth of his first child, as “the hours were more civilised”.
I bet that few audiophiles who have not heard this CD know how good string quartets really can sound on CD (I didn't know until recently myself). In sum, when very few recordings even can show how good the respective medium is, or presumably approach the limits of resolution of the respective medium, how relevant are in fact all those debates about LP vs. CD vs. hi-rez?
Last edited:
But your description of perceived dynamics fits with the idea.
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lect5.pdf
Pretty good explanation of the basics of hearing. Talks about critical bands and other things. Page 24 shows the idea that two sounds in two different critical bands sound louder than two sounds in a critical band. I put this mainly to show it isn't some hair brained hypothesis of my own. It is researched and a result of understanding how hearing works.
Most LP systems, even expensive and good ones that sound great, have the tendency to grow distortion rapidly over a certainly level on program peaks. The better systems will have that only for fractions of a second on peaks. So the sound will still seem clean, the peaks which have a few percent distortion occur too rapidly to be perceived as dirty, but not too rapidly to trick the ear into hearing a momentary increase in loudness that is greater than the actual increase. For the fundamental range of most musical instruments the first few harmonics will land right in the ears most sensitive range. You hit a peak, briefly you have audible harmonics in several additional critical bands, the ear hearing more bands active will tag it as louder without hearing it as distorted. If the distortion gets loud enough long enough it would start to sound distorted. Instead you hear more powerful peaks as added power and loudness or dynamics when a cleaner lower distortion presentation would sound much more restrained.
(Emphases added)
Perhaps, but here is what I had said above in response to a similar assertion in your earlier post:
"If there had been distortion in the aforementioned brass attacks significant enough to cause an exaggerated sense of dynamics, it should have been audible, since the tones were sufficiently sustained for that."
Perhaps, but here is what I had said above in response to a similar assertion in your earlier post:
"If there had been distortion in the aforementioned brass attacks significant enough to cause an exaggerated sense of dynamics, it should have been audible, since the tones were sufficiently sustained for that."
By the way, even though with the new external power supplies my amps sound cleaner, they also sound more dynamic, and with more perceived power on peaks.
So this is clearly an example where "dirtier" sound didn't result in perceived better dynamics that subsequently were "lost" as the sound became cleaner.
So this is clearly an example where "dirtier" sound didn't result in perceived better dynamics that subsequently were "lost" as the sound became cleaner.
Similar threads
Members online
- hopkins
- HeavyD
- Carlos269
- Mike Lavigne
- Designsfx
- audioblazer
- willgall
- tmallin
- Young Skywalker
- bonzo75
- jbrrp1
- Argonaut
- Jerome Sabbagh
- Kingrex
- Kingsrule
- Henryhe
- wrxsti
- labelo
- tomas329
- jazzdude99
- audiobomber
- Holli82
- Sablon Audio
- sbnx
- Ron Resnick
- ticktock
- Dezy
- Mark212121
- dminches
- Cappy
- Anyoldears
- Andreas510
- DonH50
- Rdk777
- Lee
- Geoffkait
- Bobvin
- thekong
- matthias
- cpvniii
- leyenda
- MarkusBarkus
- Jimkrell42
- HansW
- iain
- ptman
- Hydrology
- 2ndLiner
- audiopip
- WillBthr
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |