|
Interesting articles on the vinyl vs. digital debate (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pvdclubber |
| quote: |
The figured that the louder cds are the more resolution they use so they made stuff loud almost clipped.
In their attempt to use every last bit of information peak and rms levels are closer than ever .
the volume that a record is recorded in has nothing to do with the amount of data one needs to record it.
Ask any respectful engineer and he will tell you that mp3 is a leap back quality wise.
ok, what is this based on??
go to www.hydrogenaudio.org
these people have years of competency in this field and 320kb/s is generally accept to be cd transparent
their tests are run on very high quality gear, which judging by your grammar you will never be able to afford
nobody masters in mp3, we are discussing playback at home and in clubs so your point is redundent
I noticed Dj mag also sells mp3s at their website but I am sure that is just a coincidence...
mp3 is the industry standard along side AAC, so what's your point here?
[/b]The truth is mp3s are sharp and do not support frequencies over 15.5 thousand cycles.[/b]
utter crap, 320kb/s mp3s don't roll off at 15.5khz
my mini disc player plays back mp3s and its frequency range goes up to 22khz on 320 mp3s
lower mp3 bit rates at 128kb/s have high frequecy roll-offs in order to save space, but we are talking about high quality files
Us human can hear up to 20 thousand cycles.
"us humans" or as you would allude to,
(we human) "find it hard to hear above 17.5 khz after the age of 16"
Entire chunks of data are thrown away so you can conveniently download it and if you can't tell the difference and between that red-book than don't get into post production or mastering.
yes its called psyco-acoustic masking detection
some sounds overlap and take up space, the human cannot hear certain sounds because of this,
why include them if this is the case
sound quality is not diminished
Flac and other compressed stuff are inferior to the already inferior and dated redbook format.
you don't even know what flac is,
it is a bit-perfect compression of a pcm datastream.
what comes out of winamp playing either flac files or pcm (wav) files is bitperfectly identical
flac is not a lossy fileformat like mp3s
Tell me... what has more resolution 320 kbts/s or 4608 kbits/s?
read up on psycho-acoustics and you will find the answer.
perhaps this will help you.
you can write "12 + 13" or 5 +5 +5 +5 +5
the former uses less computational power, does this mean that the answer (output) is any different to the latter caculation,
no so why use the high bit stream if current pc equipment still has issues with rediculously high quality streams
it is monkeys like you that talk crap all the time,
you are prob one of the super-dudes that never wears ear protection in clubs and have ed up hearing
which renders this discussion useless for your personal hearing experience
|
|
|
|
| humilis |
| quote: | Originally posted by movingincircles
what can vinyl do that digital can't? |
Make generic-trance-made-with-crappy-sounding-vst-plugins sound better. |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdclubber
these people have years of competency in this field and 320kb/s is generally accept to be cd transparent.
their tests are run on very high quality gear, which judging by your grammar you will never be able to afford
|
You need to master the quote function and start capitalizing before you can talk about my grammar.
It's called first language interference and I am perfectly comfortable with it.
| quote: |
utter crap, 320kb/s mp3s don't roll off at 15.5khz |
Oh really...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#De...itations_of_MP3
In technical terms, MP3 is limited in the following ways:
-Bit-rate is limited to a maximum of 320 kbit/s
-Time resolution is too low for highly transient signals, causing localization blur and the frequency resolution is limited by the small long block window size, decreasing coding efficiency
-There is no scale factor band for frequencies above 15.5/15.8 kHz
| quote: |
my mini disc player plays back mp3s and its frequency range goes up to 22khz on 320 mp3s |
Talk about a dead format here...
That is the specified frequency range of the equipments analog stage you moron.
There is no scale factor for frequencies over 15/15.8khz on mp3s.
| quote: |
lower mp3 bit rates at 128kb/s have high frequecy roll-offs in order to save space, but we are talking about high quality files |
I am talking about high quality files. Files like DVD-A, DVD BLU-RAY, DSD and super-audio.
You are talking about mini discs and ''ringtones''.
| quote: | | mp3 is the industry standard along side AAC, so what's your point here? |
They are the ''industry standard'' not because of their super-duper audio quality but because you can get them for free. And because it costs them nothing to reproduce or store.
| quote: |
yes its called psyco-acoustic masking detection
some sounds overlap and take up space, the human cannot hear certain sounds because of this,
why include them if this is the case
sound quality is not diminished |
Yes it is. If it was not, cds would not use 1441.2 kbit/s 26 ago...
Why master at 24 bit 192khz if nobody can tell the difference?
| quote: |
no so why use the high bit rate if current pc equipment still has issues with rediculously high quality streams
|
Because we are talking about music not pcs, thats why.
Consider the possibility of taking the pc out of the equation and you will see why.
| quote: |
you are prob one of the super-dudes that never wears ear protection in clubs and have ed up hearing
which renders this discussion useless for your personal hearing experience. |
How the fu*k did did you figure that? |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
Pulse code modulation motherfu*ker!
All DATS are 24 bit and therfore they are substantially superior in quality to the red-book format as the 24 bit format has virtually no audible quantization errors.
Get a clue. |
Do you even know what 24 bits means? It's obvious you don't, because if you did, you'd know that the shift from 24 bits to 16 creates no audible change in sound quality. Period.
Why? 16 bits allows for 2^16 possible levels for a sample. That means that's 65536 possible volumes. Let our max peak be 120 dBSPL (roughly the threshhold of pain). The maximum change in in pressure between samples here is 1/32768th of the max peak. 120 dBSPL = 20 Pa. 10*log(20 Pa /327868)/200000 Pa) = -85 dBSPL. That's really ing quiet, and inaudible for all frequencies. I repeat: the change in intensity at 16 bit PCM cannot be heard.
Stop pretending that CD's audibly reduce quality. It's becoming obvious that you're just spouting biased rhetoric that you probably got from someone else. |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by thoughtlessjex
Do you even know what 24 bits means? It's obvious you don't, because if you did, you'd know that the shift from 24 bits to 16 creates no audible change in sound quality. Period. Personally, I hear no audible chang until around 10 bits, and that's when I'm listening closely. Unless you have superhuman hearing, then there is no difference. If you happen to have such, then you're in a very small minority, and no one has the time nor the money to waste on you, because you frankly aren't worth it.
Stop pretending that CD's audibly reduce quality. It's becoming obvious that you're just spouting biased rhetoric that you probably got from someone else. |
Numbers speak for themselves...
At CD (16/44.1) quality there are 65,536 discrete levels to describe the sample.
At DVD (24/96K) quality there are 16.777,216 discrete levels to describe the sample.
Quite a big difference if you ask me....
DVD 16.777,216
-CD -----65,536
If a job gave you $16.777,216 a year and another job gave you $65.536 a year
would you say...
''Either one... It doesn't really matter.... they are both really good jobs''
''I couldn't even tell the difference in pay''
You wouldn't. So shut it. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Yeah, because that's a working analogy... |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
Pulse code modulation motherfu*ker!
All DATS are 24 bit and therfore they are substantially superior in quality to the red-book format as the 24 bit format has virtually no audible quantization errors.
Get a clue. |
That really doesn't prove anything in fact you state below:
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
Numbers speak for themselves...
At CD (16/44.1) quality there are 65,536 discrete levels to describe the sample.
At DVD (24/96K) quality there are 16.777,216 discrete levels to describe the sample.
Quite a big difference if you ask me....
DVD 16.777,216
-CD -----65,536
If a job gave you $16.777,216 a year and another job gave you $65.536 a year
would you say...
''Either one... It doesn't really matter.... they are both really good jobs''
''I couldn't even tell the difference in pay''
You wouldn't. So shut it. |
You are defending one digital medium over another (CD vs. DVD). My point was that vinyl is just as great as cd. Perhaps you need a clue. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
There is no scale factor for frequencies over 15/15.8khz on mp3s.
|
what are you trying to tell me with this??
are you implying mp3s don't record frequencies above 15khz??
well you're wrong, they do, the scalability is just an inefficiency issue with recording frequencies above the 15khz threshold
compared to AAC recordngs you will get a slightly higher file size,
the rest of your comments are again waffly
and please be careful with wikipedia entries
they are often good but not professionally monitored so often inaccurate,
this 15khz business is misleading |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdclubber
what are you trying to tell me with this??
are you implying mp3s don't record frequencies above 15khz??
well you're wrong, they do, the scalability is just an inefficiency issue with recording frequencies above the 15khz threshold
compared to AAC recordngs you will get a slightly higher file size,
the rest of your comments are again waffly
and please be careful with wikipedia entries
they are often good but not professionally monitored so often inaccurate,
this 15khz business is misleading |
There are no frequencies above 15.8 in MP3 files. |
|
|
| harriz |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
That really doesn't prove anything in fact you state below:
You are defending one digital medium over another (CD vs. DVD). My point was that vinyl is just as great as cd. Perhaps you need a clue. |
Vinyl these days is pressed from digital audio 24bit 96k.
There is more there.
Period. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
There are no frequencies above 15.8 in MP3 files. |
did you read my post??
of course there are frequencies above 15khz,
i just gave you a detailed analysis of the 15khz threshold,
i'm sorry but you know absolutely nothing about music codecs at all |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by harriz
Vinyl these days is pressed from digital audio 24bit 96k.
There is more there.
Period. |
So are cds. I fail to see your point. All I'm saying is that there is no difference between cds and vinyl since they are pressed from the same source which happens to be a digital one. Also that the rich bass you get on vinyl is the buzzing feedback from the needle.
Besides turntables or more specifically needles are only capable of reproducing frequencies around 20kHz-22kHz, not 96kHz.
In addition, "the frequency response of vinyl records may be degraded by frequent playback if the cartridge is set to track too heavily, or the stylus is not compliant enough to trace the high frequency grooves accurately, or the cartridge/tonearm is not properly aligned. The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays. While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times, when using care and high quality equipment."
Like we both said vinyl and cd are both pressed from the same digital master so this debate is pointless. I think the better argument here is digital vs. analog. Now that's worth talking about. From personal experience analog beats digital big time. If you have ever listened to old dance (disco) records from the 70's you can hear a dramatic difference between analog recordings and todays digitally ones.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record |
|
|
|
|
