Well, I'm getting a copy of it on CD in what I assume is a 144Kbps format. Is there any chance of maybe getting an imprint in Vinyl done from the original recording? I'm guessing there's more than a few audiophiles willing to check if Eve has sound or not?

Simple question, Dev answers get double chocolate chip cookies

I assumed they would have recorded it in either analogue or a very high fidelity digital for editing from the original recording.

I'm kinda new to this side of audio to be honest

Do records really sound better? I hear that every now and then but I haven't used a record player since I had a fisher price one as a kid and 5 year olds generally don't care about sound quality.

Classical should only be heard on vinyl, like this particular recording.

Vinyl records sound radically different from CDs and other digital formats.

Mostly it has to do with ambient artifacts, like the subliminal hums of the turntable and the needle itself dragging across the medium. And the pops and clicks of course.

But all that contributes to a warmth in the sound that is utterly missing from digital.

I remember the first song I ever heard on CD, MJ's "Billie Jean" (when the players cost about US$1000), and it sounded slower. I guess it was all the more audio information coming in for the brain to process or something.

This doesn't make difference when it comes to rock, pop, and electronic music, but for classical and other acoustic instrument strong genres, we have definitely lost something.

Classical should only be heard on vinyl, like this particular recording. Digital classical is truly sub-par.

RPMs on turn tables (cheap ones especially) were rarely correct.
Do miss cheap giggles playing queen tunes at 72rpm when made for 33.333333

After about 1978 it was standard for turntables to have speed adjustment wheels so yes they were 100% accurate.....as accurate as you are wrong..

I bet most of the so called audiophile people only believe in vinyl, because they have bought their first stereo with their very first hard-earned money and during a time where this was basically the only electric device for recreational purposes available to consumer.

When CDs first came out, I could definitely hear the 'digitalness,' compared to vinyl. My friend had really good turntable and all-around excellent audio system. We compared U2 "Unforgettable Fire" on vinyl and CD, and to me the vinyl sounded much smoother and richer.

You are saying that nobody under the age of 60 could possible understand the sound of a vinyl album.

This is no different than film, where say, a Kubrick film with particular written instructions for the projectionist simply won't have the same experience if remastered into higher quality digital.

I'm wondering the sample rate or whatever is better with digital these than in the early days. I don't really notice that digital sound anymore-- kind of like sharp, crisp, flat layers. Then again I haven't heard vinyl in years, nothing to compare too.

Do records really sound better? I hear that every now and then but I haven't used a record player since I had a fisher price one as a kid and 5 year olds generally don't care about sound quality.

Without a doubt the difference between vinyl and digital is there.

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"

I guess I'm not human then as I can tell in a blind-hearing demonstration. If it's the same song or whatever.

Difference is night and day.

But you go ahead and believe your fantasy. That's just fine.

Interesting that you selectively quoted me, and in doing so literally cut out the link which shows that people who make this claim can't back it up.

I guess I'm not human then as I can tell in a blind-hearing demonstration. If it's the same song or whatever.

Difference is night and day.

But you go ahead and believe your fantasy. That's just fine.

Perhaps use a better setup and stop listening to MP3s?

I'm basing my experience on recordings made during the first 20 years of my life before CD's were even available, as contrasted with digital formats at that early time, and now.

It's 28 years later, and my mind just is not going to be changed on this ever. Sorry.

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"

There's scientific evidence that says that a human ear should not be able to "hear" a difference between high quality digital and an analog source. There is no evidence however that sounds outside the average frequency ranges can't be heard, and and it's an absolute fact that digital sounds are clamped between frequencies. The way digital is stored, there will always be a set limitation on how much data can be stored, while analog can have a considerably higher limitation and is only limited by the quality of the recording and the system playing it.
There's also the problem that digital music is so precise and doesn't have wear. I prefer much of my music on vinyl simply because there's a certain way it feels when you hear it. It just sounds more natural, and the flaws it has that haven't been digitally stamped out are a part of that.

It might be easier to understand when you look at a picture taken with a digital camera and one taken with an analogue camera.

Analogue pictures appear more natural, because even the sharpest contours have a blur and disappear in the grain caused by the mixture of chemicals. It makes these pictures look raw and being full of details, but also imprecise and sketchy, because it is impossible to tell where a detail disappears and where the grain begins. Not knowing where something ends or begins can be just as satisfying as having clear beginnings and ends.

It is like enjoying a good argument with somebody, and then sometimes it is good not to have an argument at all.

I base my opinion on personal experience, not what other have to say.

I have more integrity than to rely solely upon Interwebz Poastings and their "truths".

There's scientific evidence that says that a human ear should not be able to "hear" a difference between high quality digital and an analog source. There is no evidence however that sounds outside the average frequency ranges can't be heard, and and it's an absolute fact that digital sounds are clamped between frequencies.

There's also the problem that digital music is so precise and doesn't have wear. I prefer much of my music on vinyl simply because there's a certain way it feels when you hear it. It just sounds more natural, and the flaws it has that haven't been digitally stamped out are a part of that

It might be easier to understand when you look at a picture taken with a digital camera and one taken with an analogue camera.

It's easier to understand because it's a completely different process and not related in any way.

It's easier to understand because it's a completely different process and not related in any way.

We can't hear well enough to grade a sound played for 1/44,100th of a second into 256 discrete levels no matter how many times people ignore evidence to the contrary and make up ~audiophile language~ to explain how they can.

The vast majority of self-claimed audiophiles can't double-blind test 192kbps AAC, which is taking the CD version and throwing ~87% of it away.

Our perception systems are very easily fooled and we're pretty bad at doing this as a species.

Hence my comparison with photography, where we can see the difference more clearly.

I could not tell the difference between a raw digital image and a high quality JPEG either. But I sure can tell both apart from an analogue picture. Can you?

Yes, but that's my point. In photography you can see the differences quite clearly, in music, nope.
It has everything to do with signal information, and acuity - when you're looking at a photograph your brain is processing the image based on longterm exposure to the medium; the same information. Your eye can also see more colours than any of the colour-spaces that can be described with common 8-bit images. You can literally perceive every pixel and the colour of it.

With (CD) audio your brain is *not* telling you it's perception of each frame of music. You hear a snare drum, you don't get 90,000 samples with a resolution of 8-bits per channel into your perception system, your brain has already made massive amounts of assumptions and discarded most sounds out of your perceptual space - this is how an MP3/AAC file can discard 80+% of the audio signal and you can't tell the difference - because the codec knows what you can't perceive and discards it.
This is a very good thing, because if your brain didn't lock onto certain audio signals and cues and push that to your perception, we'd not be able to do things like hold conversations in a noisy space, or pick your conversation out in a restaurant over the others.
With raw CD audio, it's more complex than that - the 44.1khz sample rate means it can represent, with no deviation from source, every frequency between 0 and 22,050hz - this is wider than the human hearing range and so we simply can't perceive the difference in-between that, and a source that also has things going on over 22khz.
Indeed, not only can people not double-blind 44.1khz/16bit CD from Vinyl or 24bit/48khz, but you can go quite far below 44.1 as a sampling frequency before people start being able to spot the difference. Useful if you want to apply quite heavy compression.

For any other purpose, a medium which is literally designed to be able to hold any frequency the human ear can hear is good enough

n.b. if you're over 30, good luck hearing much above 15-16k anyway.

What matters is the sum of it all and not how much you can take away from it before it becomes distorted

You have dug yourself in so deep in the belief that if you only focus on scientific facts you then could not be wrong

But do you understand that the industry, who pays for the research

a) There's no evidence people can innately tell digital from analogue - literally all the tests show the opposite, in fact. Between digital and higher bandwidth/fidelity digital (i.e. 24bit/48khz) has also shown to be impossible.
b) There's pretty definitive evidence people can't hear outside of normal hearing ranges.
Are you trolling by literally posting the opposite of what is factually supported? Because goddamn.

If you prefer worn recordings that don't sound like the artists intended, then there's no problem with that

Most of the music I listen to is a lot older. The artist intended for it to be heard like this, as digital didn't exist when they created it.

Technically, 95%+ of people won't be able to A/B test 256kbps MP3 vs FLAC. Only extremely trained ears with hi-fi equipment will have any success A/B testing 320kbps vs FLAC.

44.1/48khz vs 96/192khz recording is another difference virtually nobody can A/B test.

What is important is how the music was mastered. If it was mastered for vinyl and you have a digital version, you might not be getting the experience that the producer intended. This is no different than film, where say, a Kubrick film with particular written instructions for the projectionist simply won't have the same experience if remastered into higher quality digital.

But these days, assuming you're not listening to music recorded by a retro studio with 1970s era equipment, you're getting a perfect audio experience listening to CD quality digital.

That's not to say that some people don't like a bit of coloration to their sound. I'm one of them. I have neutral reference headphones (DT880), and I like the warmth and body that a tube amp adds. I certainly won't say it's improving that quality though, the analog component is just degrading the signal in a way that I happen to enjoy.

The only "digital sucks" argument that really has any credence is basic bitrates. On high end equipment, anything less than 320kbps will have a noticeable reduction in bass quality (and high end, if you have good ears). It's a shame that 128kbps is the standard, because it has obvious shortcomings even on midrange equipment.

---

As for the OP, the CD comes with 144kbps tracks? CD standard is LPCM 44100 Hz 16 bits == 1411 kbps (generic .wav file you get from a CD rip). It would be a shame if the original recording was done low bitrate :/

You get the same thing with video equipment nowdays. I've heard lots of complaint from older folks that HD video looks "too real" to them. When you come to expect a certain amount of distortion, any improvement or degradation of signal seems "wrong".

Welp, you weren't there then and don't know.

After about 1978 it was standard for turntables to have speed adjustment wheels so yes they were 100% accurate.....as accurate as you are wrong.

Also, make that 78 RPM and I may believe you are over 30 yo.

What matters to which medium is better is whether or not you can perceive a difference between one medium and another. Which people can't.
The rest of it is just you convincing yourself the above isn't true in whatever way you can.

Do you want me to believe in fairies, instead? Yes, when discussing facts, facts tend to be pretty relevant. I am sorry this is inconvenient for your argument built on flowery thinking and invented nonsense.

You could have clicked on the link and seen it was independent. Or, you can use any search engine of your choice to determine the same information based on sources you find independent enough.
On searching, the only people I can find talking up a storm about how great 24bit audio is, are people who are writing about it on a page where it's sold.

Huh.

Weird.

See what happens when you try to argue technical fine points to prove aesthetic integrity ?

You wind up discussing ear hair.

The Goon is discussing technical fine points.

You are discussing religion.

Our perception systems are very easily fooled and we're pretty bad at doing this as a species.

The Goon is discussing technical fine points.

You are discussing religion.

Recording in all analog is still done, just not very often. Once a recording has been in digital form however, copies taken from that lose all the "good stuff" that having an analog copy preserves.

Drums are often recorded via analog methods, and then the tracks are bounced to digital copies for mixing/editing/mastering with the other instrument and/or vocal tracks. Some guitar purists will only record playing through tube amps and tube microphones (for analog warmth) but the recording of that is still done digitally.




If you can really tell the difference (using good quality playback gear and recordings) you might just be an audiophile. Most people can't, and after we all get to be about 30, we have lost a lot of our high frequency hearing above 14Khz anyway.

It is all right when one makes an assumption like this in order to reduce the size of audio data, but to use it to say that nobody could ever hear a difference between compressed audio and the original is just plain ignorant. It is like saying that all ears and all hair was the same, which is nonsense.

Aside from physiological limitations, there's also the psychological reaction to stimulus, and much of that is simple taught reaction.

There are plenty of examples where higher fidelity creates a perception of worse quality because it's not the fidelity we have taught ourselves to prefer. High-res 50fps films and high-bit/high-sample audio are two of those because we have long since learned that the imprecise blur of 24fps from 35mm is how a film GÇ£should lookGÇ¥, and the inherent imperfections of rubbing stone or metal against plastic is what recorded music GÇ£should soundGÇ¥ like.

Imperfections create character and our perception system doesn't care much for details since it's all being pattern-matched anyway and the detail don't make that much of a difference, whereas character gives that pattern-matching machine something fun and stimulating to chew on.

The difference between a good analog recording laid down on quality vinyl and digital media is palpable.

While you can't "hear" outside of normal ranges, it's also been shown that exposure to high and low frequencies that are inaudible can bring out emotional responses. Just because you can't process those sound waves as noise, doesn't mean they don't cause your ears to react. I prefer the sound of vinyl to digital. It feels warmer and more natural to me. That's about as much proof as I need.

Well, I'm getting a copy of it on CD in what I assume is a 144Kbps format. Is there any chance of maybe getting an imprint in Vinyl done from the original recording? I'm guessing there's more than a few audiophiles willing to check if Eve has sound or not?

Simple question, Dev answers get double chocolate chip cookies

Once again, it's Science vs. Religion.

Factual proof that not only shows most people cannot tell the difference, but also that they are usually horrendously wrong, well outside of any statistical average that one would expect from a reasoned comparison.

vs.

The belief (confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof -dictionary.com) that "well, I can hear the difference".

I guess my 7 years of musical training tricks me into what I'm hearing.

Because of your thread I youtubed the whole thing and listened to it all over again.

Thank you.

Once again, it's Science vs. Religion.

Factual proof that not only shows most people cannot tell the difference, but also that they are usually horrendously wrong, well outside of any statistical average that one would expect from a reasoned comparison.

vs.

The belief (confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof -dictionary.com) that "well, I can hear the difference".

Was that "musical" training specifically working as a studio and/or audio engineer?

For once I agree with Whitehound, there is a difference between digital and analogue recordings. It's not so much about the sound, as about the warmth and clarity of the sound, both of which are one of the results of the sounds that a human shouldn't be able to hear, high end audio gear is also important for a good sound, a decent amp providing 7 watts RMS sounds a lot better than some cheap mickey mouse amp boasting 400 watts of bullshit power (PMPO,MAX etc)

The Trolls are just going to deny your real life experience.

It's the Way of the Interweb.

edit:

God GÇÅ@TheTweetOfGod

"Aren't I allowed to have an opinion?" is what people say when they have a stupid opinion.

For once I agree with Whitehound, there is a difference between digital and analogue recordings. It's not so much about the sound, as about the warmth and clarity of the sound, both of which are one of the results of the sounds that a human shouldn't be able to hear, high end audio gear is also important for a good sound, a decent amp providing 7 watts RMS sounds a lot better than some cheap mickey mouse amp boasting 400 watts of bullshit power (PMPO,MAX etc)

1 year of that in addition to 7 years of actual music studies and performing. Concurrent actually.

Except that analog recordings have frequency response limitations that exist *within* the range of human hearing. That warmth and clarity you perceive is being generated by the playback equipment and not the recording.

O.K. so you you are a musician and not a audio or studio engineer, check.

O.K. so you you are a musician and not a audio or studio engineer, check.

Except that analog recordings have frequency response limitations that exist *within* the range of human hearing. Those limitations depend on the recording media used. That warmth and clarity you perceive is being generated by the playback equipment and not the recording. The original sound engineers involved in the mastering also have a bit to do with it.

That's why tube preamps are so darn awesome in any home audio setup, because they bring that analog "feeling" to the party whether the original source material is analog or digital.

Bah! Give it up Jonah. It's just feeding him at this point.

He's the kind who would argue that "2001" is a terrible science fiction film because it doesn't have any lazerz pew-pew.

Nonsense. Echoes, hall, vibrations, distortions, dampening and other effects all take place at any frequency. Even when you measure the frequency range of a component do you use a measuring device, which in itself posses characteristics that you cannot deny. You still do not get that these all play a role in what we hear in the end.

Bah! Give it up Jonah. It's just feeding him at this point.

He's the kind who would argue that "2001" is a terrible science fiction film because it doesn't have any lazerz pew-pew.

2001 was an awesome movie. I even have it on laser disk if you want to get into that discussion.

Thou dost assume to much about Doc methinks.

Your otherwise stubborn determination to be "absolutely correct and king and guardian of all Correct Knowledge" is not only unbecoming and immature, it's the same problem that has been affecting the American political system for the past 5 years.

So, now this is a politics thread?

Am I the only person surprised this isn't in OOPE given its turned into a debate on audio engineering, yet everything else gets sent there without much reason?

Am I the only person surprised this isn't in OOPE given its turned into a debate on audio engineering, yet everything else gets sent there without much reason?

I guess my 7 years of musical training tricks me into what I'm hearing.

Oh brother.

"logical discourse is dead" -ftfy

Not my fault.

Believe what you will, I choose to believe what can be proven.

For example, I believe that you believe you can 'tell the difference', as is proven by your posting.

Ever try to have logical discourse with a religious fanatic? Same result.

Do records really sound better? I hear that every now and then but I haven't used a record player since I had a fisher price one as a kid and 5 year olds generally don't care about sound quality.

The way an A/D converter works requires it to hold the signal for a certain time until it has been digitized. There are many implementations for A/D converters, but a popular one is a successive approximation of the input signal by using a comparator and to compare the input to the output of a D/A converter until all bits have been matched. In order to achieve this is the input signal stored in a capacitor. The method is nothing short of brutal to anyone familiar with analogue electronics. Even capacitors have a characteristic.

IKNOWRITE ?

Good point.

Movings...