Final word from Mikey Fremer: USB Stick better than Vinyl.

[microstrip]

(...) 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!

 

[Shaffer]

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

 

[rbbert]

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, unless you mean artifactual microdetail added by the LP playback process; same for frequencies above those that actually exist on the master.

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.

 

[Shaffer]

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.

I don't understand what this means.

And I have no idea how microdetail below the noise floor is applicable in any way to this discussion....

...to wit:

"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?"

Thinking about what's audible and the act of listening are not the same thing, clearly, as many factors that should not be audible in theory kinda are. That was the point.

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.

Please don't misunderstand; I don't know who you are. If you're a mastering engineer who's heard the records and is able to discuss the process from the standpoint of his own experience, I'll gladly shut up and listen. If, OTOH, you're guy with a stereo like me....

Are you an engineer? Have you listened to the albums? Just so everyone knows where they stand.

Felix

 

[rbbert]

Here is the mastering chain courtesy of the mastering engineer, from another forum:

2009
192/24 - - - analog eq(emi TG and Prism MEA-2) -----D-A-----sadie (24/44.1).

sadie 24/44.1 ----junger limiter-----sadie (24/44.1)

sadie 24/44.1 -------prism ad124 truncation/noise shaping-----sadie 16/44.1


signal chains as above. I wont argue with you Stefan, life's too short.


declick and denoise 96kHz (cedar)...declicked sections upsampled, edited back in...a click is typically micro seconds long,....some very intricate editing.

I have work to do, so I wish you all the best
kind regards
Sean

So which of those 24/44.1 files went on the USB and which went on the LP?

 

[rbbert]

...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.

But I can read, and hear, and recognize signal processing on a digital waveform. And I know that if an LP is cut from a 24/44.1 digital master, any frequencies above 22 kHz are artifacts not on the master, and the "noise floor" of the master is lower than the noise floor of the associated electronics or the LP.

 

[Shaffer]

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.

I see. As the other question was not acknowledged, I guess it means that you're a guy with a stereo just like me, except without a turntable and without the actual records. Great.

Felix

 

[rbbert]

Whoa, not without a turntable 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.

 

[flez007]

Mediaphiles

 

[Shaffer]

Whoa, not without a turntable...

...since my LP setup is long retired...

Perhaps I misunderstood.

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.

See, just as I posted on the first page, there had to be an audio-political motive behind all this. Can't we just talk about the records?

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.

In all truth, I spent several years on RAO debating every possible objective/subjective concept. That was a lifetime ago. You like digital? Great. Is it such a grave injustice that some voice on the Internet expresses a preference for another medium? Yes, I know, it's the technical inaccuracies that drive you nuts, because the sophistication of the technical information and expertise at your disposal allows for a verdict that defines the trVth. You're on more than one forum dissing something you've never heard, arguing vehemently. C'mon.

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 just saw your posts on SHF, which is why I replied. "Vinylistas." Like seriously? I'm trying to think of what we call guys who like digital. Oh, yea, now I remember. We call them, "guys who like digital." Maybe you can help us think of a more inflammatory title.

I'm sounding more dogmatic than I mean to, and it's hard for that to come across in an Internet forum, sorry.

My 'table is spinning the White Album at this very moment. Have fun with your stick.

[sorry, I just couldn't resist ]

Edit: I couple of months back I met a few other audiophiles. Very nice guys, a pleasure to spend time with. As it turned out, we all had turntables and we all liked playing records. If you asked any of them what sounded better, they'd say the LP. It also turned out that almost everyone in the room had a post-doc in a quantifiable field, if you will. 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

 

[Robh3606]

My 'table is spinning the White Album at this very moment.

Which one?

Rob

 

[rbbert]

...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

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.

 

[c1ferrari]

Precisely

Once digital always digital.

+1

 

[Shaffer]

Which one?

Rob

The new release.

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.

I think most folks who care about sound quality would have preferred a package not unlike the recent Doors 45rpm reissues, myself included. That would have been truly great. Yes, the industry doesn't cater to us, as a whole, but I am grateful for the LP box, nonetheless. For a person who wants to hear the music, what options are there? Old used albums at a premium, poor reissues, a USB stick that necessitates the purchase of a DAC ...what else? Nothing.

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.

Humanity's reach knows little bounds. You have folks on SHF complaining about poor pressings, while playing the albums on Numark turntables with bent "needles." Why do you care about their opinion of your preference?

Your comment about the 'table spinning is a perfect illustration of my hypothesis.

... it was a joke.



Felix

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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.

 

[rbbert]

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.

The depressing thing about this statement is that the 1987 Beatles' CD's sounded better in most ways than the typical USA LP at that time.

 

[MylesBAstor]

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.

Furthermore the problem isn't the medium but the messenger. First we addressed issues in the arms, tables, then the cartridge and finally phono sections. The dynamics, sense of ease, low level resolution and transparency on the better analog systems is impressive.

 

[Nevillekapadia]

Isn't this a "milk them as much as you can" from the recording label company! There is no way they will ever provide the analog master tapes to derive the ultimate playback performance. What format will they ever be able to sell after that! None.
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.
Imagine if they got these remastered then released in DSD download and 45rpm pressed one side Vinyls, or Tape Project!
Then that would be curtains closed for those album/s for any future re-releases.

 

[rbbert]

I think that analog distortion argument Is bogus. The better one's turntable gets, the closer it approaches the sound of the tape.

I'm pretty sure that was (mostly) a joke, but there is no question there is something to it. Frequency spectrum graphs of needledrops from the new Beatles LP's show quite a bit of signal above 22 kHz which can't be anything other than distortion/noise of some kind.

 

[rbbert]

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.

Anyone who frequents enough audio boards will read statements like "I don't need another version (or also, a hires digital version) of ..., I already have the ... LP, and how could it be bettered?" This is my real problem with LP's, that not only much of the industry but also a large part of the potential buyer pool for better sounding sources seems to be content with current LP's. Not only that, from attitudes like Gregadd's post above (and this isn't meant personally, just as a convenient example because it does seem to be common) no matter how much better hires digital might sound, it may not matter to a large part of the potential buyer pool. Anyway, I've sounded off on that before.