Apple Had 'Worked On' Offering a High-Definition Music Format

[krigsmakten]

I'm not sure I follow those saying they enjoy vinyl, but not lossy music. Vinyl is a very very lossy transfer due to an analogue medium. Far worse than even a 160 kbps mp3.

If you don't think it's evolution to now have music offered via a worldwide network in a 256 kbps AAC format, I'm really not sure why you think that... It's not 100% CD quality, but it's like 95% that can be transfered via the air we breathe. And modern HiFi systems can do so much more than yesterday's.

I guess we all have different views on what's evolution.

Foolish comment of the year - congrats! Ever dawned on you that every sound you hear is analog? That a singer's voice is analog? That 100% of everything that comes out of an orchestra is analog?

Compress the range, slice it into slivers, throw away various info -> MP3

Vinyl is a pressed copy of the master recording - in all its analog glory - and given a good job by the engineers involved, has a heck of a lot more info than any other medium widely available to consumers.

Sure, play dirty vinyl with tired needle and crappy amps, speakers etc and it won't sound good.

Absence of static ('filtered' MP3) doesn't mean 'better' sound, just less information.

Just because vinyl isn't convenient doesn't mean that it is inferior from an audio perspective... just not user-friendly.

----------

Vynil has worse quality than CD based on the intrinsic nature of the medium. It also loses quality each time you listen to it, unlike CD.

Second-most foolish comment of the year - read my comment above for the details on why this is so ignorant.

----------

Vinyl's are definitely less quality than CD's, yes they are good but they definitely do not carry the same amount of high/low frequencies than in CD audio.

And the third runner-up to the most foolish comment of the year!

 

[firestarter]

Vinyl is a pressed copy of the master recording - in all its analog glory - and given a good job by the engineers involved, has a heck of a lot more info than any other medium widely available to consumers.

Most masters these days are 100% digital. So your vinyl comes from a digital source...

Vinyl IS highly limited in it's bandwidth and fidelity. Bass is rolled off during mastering. I'm sorry, but your enthusiasm for the medium is not backed by your knowledge.

 

[mariowario]

he is right in many ways …

I use all kind of devices and collected rare records of the last century. Finally all releases I bought via iTunes were crappy replacements for what is formerly known as music.

I heard a Bill Evans (you must believe in spring) recording as a musepack file: outstanding !
I recorded digitally (through the years) vinyl records with different devices: the best was apogee's duet (for one reason you hear it in same (ok, close to) quality as on vinyl). The dynamic range is mostly audible: 16bit=no playing techniques can be heard - 24bit=you hear everything (wrong grabbed guitar riffs and slides - music comes alive).

John Coltrane on CD (impulse recordings) is a good convenience listening / rip ping on iTunes - but even these recordings don't reach the quality of reissue vinyl LP's - sorry guys.

Neil Young is pretty much right: Gettin' the stuff on your iPhone/Computer isn't the same music experience we had 30 years ago (but 30 years ago some sound engineers made awful mixings/cuts of great recordings (e. g. Stooges LP on german Elektra - you couldn't identify the Marshall Amp)).

I rarely buy music on iTunes and listen mostly to podcasts on my iPhone due to the low level on quality.

 

[androiphone]

Perhaps.

He also grew up when 8-track tapes and reel-to-reel were popular, but he didn't latch onto those 🙂

oh, I had no idea there were multiple 'old' formats in the US (I had to google what 8-track was) here in the UK it was only ever vinyl, even if there were any other formats no-one ever speaks about them, people only ever talk about vinyl, followed by cassette, then CD and now digital.

 

[krigsmakten]

Most masters these days are 100% digital. So your vinyl comes from a digital source...

The flaws of modern mastering is a separate topic - and actually a really sad one - the recording engineers these days have radically lowered standards since the days of vinyl. What is standard studio quality (master recording) these days would have been totally unacceptable only a decade or two ago. Why? The clients who produce and distribute CDs don't want any better.

All the clowns who claim MP3 or any digital version is objectively better need to hang it up and go home - it isn't.

Please get that it's about convenience - I listen to tons of MP3s too - but I don't fool myself into thinking it is better audio quality.

The point of this topic is that a standard that is as good as vinyl at reproducing the soundstage - yet as convenient as MP3s - is needed.

Pathetic really, that this is such a misunderstood area.

 

[firestarter]

The flaws of modern mastering is a separate topic - and actually a really sad one - the recording engineers these days have radically lowered standards since the days of vinyl. What is standard studio quality (master recording) these days would have been totally unacceptable only a decade or two ago. Why? The clients who produce and distribute CDs don't want any better.

All the clowns who claim MP3 or any digital version is objectively better need to hang it up and go home - it isn't.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Our ears are band limited. 24/96 digital is amply high resolution to record and master audio on.

Uncompressed (both in terms of data and in terms of dynamic range) digital audio is every bit as good as analogue.

Yes - loudness compression during mastering is bad... but that's a problem of the expectations placed on mastering engineers, it's not a limitation of the underlying technology.

Please get that it's about convenience - I listen to tons of MP3s too - but I don't fool myself into thinking it is better audio quality.

Forget mp3s and convenience. You said that ALL digital was inferior.

All digital is not the same. 128kbit/s mp3 is not the same as 24/96 studio quality.

Pathetic really, that this is such a misunderstood area.

I have to say that your lack of understanding of high end digital isn't helping...

 

[krigsmakten]

Sorry, you're wrong.

Our ears are band limited. 24/96 digital is amply high resolution to record and master audio on.

Uncompressed (both in terms of data and in terms of dynamic range) digital audio is every bit as good as analogue.

Yes - loudness compression during mastering is bad... but that's a problem of the expectations placed on mastering engineers, it's not a limitation of the underlying technology.



Forget mp3s and convenience. You said that ALL digital was inferior.

All digital is not the same. 128kbit/s mp3 is not the same as 24/96 studio quality.


I have to say that your lack of understanding of high end digital isn't helping...

enjoy the wallowing!

 

[KnightWRX]

Second-most foolish comment of the year - read my comment above for the details on why this is so ignorant.

Wait, my comment was about vinyl being a soft medium which you then submit to a metal, sharp object. Thus its quality degraded on each playback. I also compared it to CDs, not mp3s, which your "comment above for the details" mention. CD is 44khz, 16 bit lossless audio.

And that's low quality digital music these days. Again, FLAC/ALAC can both be encoded from much higher quality sources, up to 32 bit with sampling rates above and beyond 600 khz.

Ignorant ? Maybe, but at least I'm not so biased I can't recognize technical advances when they slap me in the face.

 

[firestarter]

enjoy the wallowing!

Educate yourself, krigsmakten - or do you enjoy your current blissful ignorance too much?

Suffice to say, 95% of modern vinyl records you buy will have been processed digitally... and the fact that you still like the medium should cause you to re-appraise your prejudices.

 

[subsonix]

Suffice to say, 95% of modern vinyl records you buy will have been processed digitally... and the fact that you still like the medium should cause you to re-appraise your prejudices.

IMO vinyl has "a sound", meaning it adds something that is comparable to how some analog film has a certain vibe and color.

 

[firestarter]

IMO vinyl has "a sound", meaning it adds something that is comparable to how some analog film has a certain vibe and color.

Yes, I agree. I'm not criticising vinyl... it's cool, gives a warm sound, and it's fun to use.

Same with valve amps. They add warmth to sound, and I can fully understand why people like them.

But that doesn't mean they're accurate, and it doesn't mean that there's something fundamentally wrong with the underlying digital recording.

 

[xiaotuanzi]

You can store information with as many data as you want. The important thing is the lower bound; thats what you should compare and use as measurement. For example, if you have a signal with only 0, it doesn't include any information and a file with size 0 could represent all its information.

 

[subsonix]

But that doesn't mean they're accurate, and it doesn't mean that there's something fundamentally wrong with the underlying digital recording.

Totally, since we are strictly talking about accurate representation.

But ironically the lack of artisticly pleasing artifacts is probably some of the reason for the popularity of analog simulation plugins and color grading. 😀

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Neil Young: great songwriter, dumb engineer

I love Neil Young's music, but he is a complete idiot with regard to analog vs. digital technology. He, along with just about everyone else who touts vinyl as inherently superior to CD, should spend some quality time at Hydrogenaudio.com. That sure cured me.

On that site people get banned if they repeatedly make claims that cannot be scientifically verified, and they offer the proper procedures and software to run properly controlled experiments with. Over the last several years of objective and fair double-blind ABX testing, the results tell us:

1. No human population can reliably distinguish 44.1k/16 bit music playback from any other "hi-fi" resolutions/bit depth. That's what hundreds of studies, all with duplicatable parameters and objective criteria confirm. Not even professional mastering engineers can. 48/88.1/96/192k sample rates cannot be distinguished from 44.1k, and 20 and 24 bit depth cannot be distinguished from 16 bit--so long as the tests are a) all at a consistent volume level, and b) properly controlled and double-blind, so that neither the person giving the test or taking it have any idea which example is which.

Higher sample rates really only give you a higher ceiling for top frequency, and only the pure virgin ears of young children can typically hear anything above 22k.

And while it is absolutely true that very low volume program material will have better resolution at higher bit depths, the benefit is negligible at "normal" listening volumes. In other words, you can hear the slightest inhale breath of a piccolo player before he/she begins to play a ppp melody line if you crank up the volume on your playback system to the max, but if you leave the volume setting there your ears will be bleeding and ringing with tinnitus when the fff orchestra hits are played. When volume levels are set for normal listening levels below the pain threshhold, the super-quiet passages are so soft and close to the noise floor that no one can consistently distinguish the 20/24 bit ones from 16 bit.

You can call that my "opinion," but the results of hundreds of ABX test verify this. In fact, it is safe to say that for all intents and purposes, 44.1/16 bit IS "ear drum" resolution for human beings. The bats in your attic and your family dog might be able to hear additional content in a 96k recording, but you can't.

"But I DO hear a difference!" you claim. Well, what you might be hearing are issues with how the D/A conversion is occurring within your playback equipment. The easy way to control that factor is to set up a test like this:

a) Take a native 96k/24 bit sound file and make a copy.
b) Downsample it to 44.1/16 bit. Much of your data is lost in the process
c) Uprez it back to 96k.
d) Play both the original and the uprez'd back on 96k/24 playback equipment
e) Compare

The second file will essentially be at 44.1 16 bit resolution (as far as available information goes) but processed identically on the same playback equipment as the native 96k file, ruling out potential differences with how the playback system's D/A converters handle different sample rates. From everything I've read, you'll fail any ABX discrimination test between the two (i.e., you'll only guess right half the time given enough trials).

2. Vinyl is in no quantifiable way superior to CD. With only 80 db of s/n range, CD's 98 db totally smokes it. In listening tests, people easily identify vinyl from digital sources, but only for the texture of the noise and distortion--the pops, hiss, and other goofy idiosyncracies of the medium. But make a 44.1k/16 bit recording of the vinyl, complete with the pops and hisses, and people can't discern the difference between real vinyl and 44.1k/16 bit recordings of vinyl in ABX testing.

_____

Having said all that, I would like to offer some possible theories to what is really going on in the minds of people like Mr. Young:

1. Early CD engineering sucked. In the early days of CD, engineers were pretty excited to have the technology, and some of the mixes were brittle and harsh because one could have more highs without increasing hiss. Back then, IIRC, clear, articulate high end was the tell-tale sound of "hi-fi". Also, engineers quickly discovered that digital distortion was entirely unforgiving, unlike analog distortion, which can be subtle and sometimes desirable, so they learned to avoid 0 db like the plague. The result was soft and shrill use of the medium. When Neil Young heard that back in the 80's he thought it sounded "digital" and knew it sucked compared to rich, fat vinyl. But what he was really hearing was poor engineering, not a poor medium.

2. Vinyl's idiosyncracies have a very familiar, warm, nostalgic sound. I love the sound of vinyl--the way the mixes were/are mastered for the medium, the hisses and pops, everything. I also really like the way one operates a turntable--putting that big plastic disk on a spinning drum and placing a diamond in the groove to hear the resulting noise from amplifying the sound of it dragging through the channel. That's wonderfully low-tech! Also, in an odd way, vinyl is potentially more permanent, as CDs, HDDs and SSDs have limited lives but properly stored vinyl could be playable centuries from now. But while vinyl is a splendid blast from the past, I would never make the claim that it is any quantifiable way superior or even close to equal to CD. If we were to believe the claims of some, then even a wax cylinder Victrola, being "analog", would be superior to a CD! 🙂

Those are only my guesses. I sympathize with Young's frustrations, but his initial diagnosis was totally wrong. And all of the deep-pocketed audiophiles who swear by vinyl? I hope they continue to enjoy it, but I also hope they can be honest and disavow themselves from the snake-oil explanations as to why it is better than CD. It is only clearly better in the manner it strikes upon the chords of nostalgia within the hearts of its proponents.

 

[Avatar74]

I haven't read every comment in here so forgive me if I am restating some things.

But a few facts:

Vinyl's dynamic range is about 80dB. 16-bit LPCM (CD Audio) is about 96.7dB. Just for reference, dB is a logarithmic scale. Every 3 decibels represents a DOUBLING of wave power.

AAC is a perceptual coding algorithm, so what one has to realize is that there's ways to reduce the amount of data needed to accurately reconstruct the same original signal. In the old days, ADPCM (adaptive delta pulse code modulation) achieved this by storing only the change in amplitude at each quantization interval, rather than the absolute value, this reduces the data needed to reproduce the signal losslessly. AAC has many more advanced methods of reducing data requirements, enough that the Audio Engineering Society has found 128 Kbps AAC sufficiently indistinguishable from 16 bit LPCM in true double blind tests (in other words, not internet tests).

Remember that the analogue signal is always reconstructed before playback. You can't "listen" to a digital pulse code modulated stream. It's in the reconstruction of signal where errors occur, heavily dependent upon the size of the sample & hold buffer.

Some of the other things that audiophiles (read: People with ZERO fundamental knowledge of digital recording, mixing and mastering) piss and moan about, like jitter, are absolutely nonsensical arguments because internal reclocking of the signal has been around in digital playback systems since at least 1985. You don't need to buy a super duper high end DAC to have this. Computer quartz clock synch is even better than blackburst generators that code SMPTE.

The sizable difference is not between MP3 or AAC and 16-bit linear PCM. Not even... because both those perceptual coding algorithms can, at 320kbps and 256kpbs, carry enough data to, with the perceptual coding methods used, reconstruct a signal that is indiscernible from the original audio to the average listener. Why? Well because at 16 bits stereo 44.1kHz there's only about 65,536 possible amplitude values per quantization interval (2 to the 16th power) in CD audio. So CD audio is itself quite limited to begin with.

HOWEVER, compare this to 24-bit Linear PCM. Here's where 16-bit CD audio is pathetic. 24-bit Linear PCM has 2 to the 24th power, or 16.78 MILLION possible amplitude values per quantization interval. This translates to a dynamic range of about 140dB.

But if you are listening to music mastered predominantly in the last twenty years, this is all immaterial, since the average loudness (LeqA) of a track has been jacked up from around -12 to -18dBFS (decibels full scale) to -9dBFS in the 90s and even as high as -4dBFS today.

Techniques such as amplitude pumping, brick wall filters and third party plugins such as FGX have basically completely wasted the superior fidelity and dynamic range of the digital medium. Everything is cranked to 11, and that, more than anything else, is why recordings sound so horrible.

Pick up a copy of Ahmad Jamal's Awakenings from the early 70s, or anything mastered by Bruce Swedien (including Michael Jackson's Off The Wall or Chic's "Le Freak")... and compare. Awakenings has an average loudness of -22dBFS, much closer to the dynamics of a certified Dolby Digital soundtrack (-27dBFS is Dolby Labs' Licensing Corporations stated standard).

You can take these older recordings and crank the volume on any system, even a crappy car stereo, and they sound fantastic. But newer recordings are mastered near clipping levels. They're garbage to begin with.

For further interest, a while ago I did a commentary on the so-called Loudness Wars here: http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/12/04/the-loudness-wars/

It's a two part video editorial that breaks down the problem visually with audio examples.

 

[Dan--]

ok fun facts:
if music was sold in Stereo WAV DXD 24BIT/352.8kHz then a 60 minute album would be 6GB, on a 50Mbit connection it would take 16 minutes to download, which I don't think is too bad. (though on an 8Mbit connection you are looking at 102 minutes to download)

But this is clearly a worst case scenario. If we could use 24/192, or maybe even 24/96, combined with lossless compression, we could get average albums down to about 1GB (not based on your numbers, but based on averages from my own collection), cutting download times to roughly 3-15 minutes, not bad at all.

However, based on the most recent posts, I'm not sure anyone could actually tell.

according to wikipedia iTunes has 20million tracks around the world, if we take that each track is on average 5 minutes each then that is 100,000,000 minuets if music, if all that music was in Stereo WAV DXD 24BIT/352.8kHz which takes up 1GB per 10 minutes, then apple will need 10PB (10,000TB) to store them all.

also it is important to note that apple and all digital music sites (7digital/amazon/spotify) get all their music from the music labels in lossless already, and it is up to them to convert them,
therefore if they decided to sell it lossless they would require significantly less server storage than now, considering they have a copy in lossless and a copy in lossy.

I doubt that they could only store a single copy of any file that was meant for download. Popular songs would need to be available on many servers for proper access.

 

[negativzero]

Most masters these days are 100% digital. So your vinyl comes from a digital source...

Vinyl IS highly limited in it's bandwidth and fidelity. Bass is rolled off during mastering. I'm sorry, but your enthusiasm for the medium is not backed by your knowledge.

The whole point of the vinyl vs digital cannot be quantified in bits and bytes. By debating in that domain is already a shift in biasedness to the digital format. Neither is it by campaigning for vinyl a step rooted in nostalgia.

First, do not compare vinyl made in the present day to vinyl made in the past. Don't think that just because its an old medium the technology hasn't changed. Diamond-tipped needles and better quality materials go into making vinyls today and make for higher fidelity and more accurate reproduction. Vinyls do come laser etched now and contain as much information as the master. If you're experiencing loss in quality, blame it on the poor equipment, your sound is only as good as your weakest link. Sad but true, modern vinyls are not meant for low quality systems.

Secondly and this point I've argued many times in this thread already for high quality and analogue formats is the organic nature of the delivery. Analogue is as close to nature as it gets, and I'm not even going into an argument of accurate reproduction here again. Analogue is good for our bodies, digital isn't. In the same way watching television for a few hours will get you tired, the same can be said of digitized music. We are simply not made to process digital information.

Which is why most people who after having listened to modern vinyls prefer it to digital medium. It is as natural as it gets because it records all the information it can. All the noise, distortions and crackling. Its an unusual concept to digital natives where everything must be clean and polished, but the body needs all this "white noise" for overall wellbeing. Vinyl may not be technically perfect to many, but subconsiously the body processes it better and more naturally than digital.

 

[firestarter]

The whole point of the vinyl vs digital cannot be quantified in bits and bytes. By debating in that domain is already a shift in biasedness to the digital format. Neither is it by campaigning for vinyl a step rooted in nostalgia.

First, do not compare vinyl made in the present day to vinyl made in the past. Don't think that just because its an old medium the technology hasn't changed. Diamond-tipped needles and better quality materials go into making vinyls today and make for higher fidelity and more accurate reproduction. Vinyls do come laser etched now and contain as much information as the master. If you're experiencing loss in quality, blame it on the poor equipment. Sad but true, modern vinyls are not meant for low quality systems.

Secondly and this point I've argued many times in this thread already for high quality and analogue formats is the organic nature of the delivery. Analogue is as close to nature as it gets, and I'm not even going into an argument of accurate reproduction here again. Analogue is good for our bodies, digital isn't. In the same way watching television for a few hours will get you tired, the same can be said of digitized music. We are simply not made to process digital information.

Which is why most people who after having listened to modern vinyls prefer it to digital medium. It is as natural as it gets because it records all the information it can. All the noise, distortions and crackling. Its an unusual concept to digital natives where everything must be clean and polished, but the body needs all this "white noise" for overall wellbeing. Vinyl may not be technically perfect to many, but subconsiously the body processes it better and more naturally than digital.

Neither you nor krigsmakten are really getting this... 🙄

FACT: Apart from a few very specialist labels, EVERYBODY is recording digitally these days.

Every instrument is digitised, and the mixes are processed on a computer. Effects are added digitally... volume is changed digitally. Reverb/'spaciousness' doesn't come from just the recording studio - it's added as a digital effect.

Once that mix is done, it's further processed before being mastered onto vinyl.

So although your 'analogue' music is delivered to you on vinyl - it has been digitised. Any argument about 'digital is like bad man!' is nonsense - because the origin of that cracking record is every bit as digital as a CD.

Yes, you might prefer the theatre of playing a record. You might like the noise, the roll-off of high frequency, the lack of deep bass, the wow and flutter, clicks and pops. I can relate to that - psychologically, playing records is fun. But all that is just a filter adding character back to what was a clean and precise digital recording and production.

We are simply not made to process digital information.

Which is why all media devices convert it back to analogue for us!! 😉

 

[negativzero]

Neither you nor krigsmakten are really getting this... 🙄

FACT: Apart from a few very specialist labels, EVERYBODY is recording digitally these days.

Every instrument is digitised, and the mixes are processed on a computer. Effects are added digitally... volume is changed digitally. Reverb/'spaciousness' doesn't come from just the recording studio - it's added as a digital effect.

Once that mix is done, it's further processed before being mastered onto vinyl.

So although your 'analogue' music is delivered to you on vinyl - it has been digitised. Any argument about 'digital is like bad man!' is nonsense - because the origin of that cracking record is every bit as digital as a CD.

Yes, you might prefer the theatre of playing a record. You might like the noise, the roll-off of high frequency, the lack of deep bass, the wow and flutter, clicks and pops. I can relate to that - psychologically, playing records is fun. But all that is just a filter adding character back to what was a clean and precise digital recording and production.

Here's where you are wrong. Yes, studios have transitioned to digital recording, as far as hi-def goes, the digital master is never pressed into vinyls. Why would they do that? You cannot upscale quality. They are recorded as digital and produced as SACDs or DVDs, which is still no substitute for analog.

And again, why would vinyls be of lower quality? Have you even listened to a good vinyl on good equipment or did you just plug this off google?

Which is why all media devices convert it back to analogue for us!! 😉

Again wrong, the digital signal is processed and converted into an analog waveform by interpolation, but it is still a digital signal by virtue of an analog signal made by algorithms.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

The whole point of the vinyl vs digital cannot be quantified in bits and bytes. By debating in that domain is already a shift in biasedness to the digital format. Neither is it by campaigning for vinyl a step rooted in nostalgia.

I would not suggest that vinyl vs. digital be "quantified in bits and bytes". I would assert that the claims of vinyl be tested using the most analog of transducers--human ears. When human audio testing is done, no one can tell vinyl from CD if all of the goofball distortions inherent in vinyl are recorded on the CD. Period. End of story.

First, do not compare vinyl made in the present day to vinyl made in the past. Don't think that just because its an old medium the technology hasn't changed. Diamond-tipped needles and better quality materials go into making vinyls today and make for higher fidelity and more accurate reproduction. Vinyls do come laser etched now and contain as much information as the master. If you're experiencing loss in quality, blame it on the poor equipment, your sound is only as good as your weakest link. Sad but true, modern vinyls are not meant for low quality systems.

Red herring. No one doing respectable ABX testing is using old turntables and styluses. The newest, very best engineered vinyl recordings, played back on modern systems cannot match CD, or at least so says all of the properly engineered objective listening tests.

Secondly and this point I've argued many times in this thread already for high quality and analogue formats is the organic nature of the delivery. Analogue is as close to nature as it gets, and I'm not even going into an argument of accurate reproduction here again. Analogue is good for our bodies, digital isn't. In the same way watching television for a few hours will get you tired, the same can be said of digitized music. We are simply not made to process digital information.

Pure marketing snake-oil B.S. If any of that were true, the difference would be discernible to listeners. Vinyl fails every test in that regard. Sound waves are not "organic." They are not, nor have they ever been alive. They are a phenomenon that can be studied and measured via physics, and the sensory perception of them can be quantified by listening test using human subjects.

Please feel free to offer any reasonable conjecture as to the adverse affect of "digital" on the human body.

BTW, I've been no less tired watching analog TVs than digital ones. In fact, the extra detail in a digital HD program usually keeps me engaged longer than its "analog" counterpart.

Which is why most people who after having listened to modern vinyls prefer it to digital medium.

"Most" people who walk into a hi-fi store will be sucked in by smooth-talking sales people who offer completely bogus pseudoscience as justification for dropping $20k on a turntable, an all-tube Class A amp, "oxygen-fee" cables thick as your thumb, and uber-pricey speakers.

However, ALL people will consistently fail double-blind testing designed to test whether or not the B.S. claims of the audiophile world are valid. Hmmm. Who should I believe?

It is as natural as it gets because it records all the information it can. All the noise, distortions and crackling.

Funny, I don't usually hear hissing, pops, low-end roll-off, or ghosting from adjacent grooves when I listen to an orchestra live in a concert hall...

Its an unusual concept to digital natives where everything must be clean and polished, but the body needs all this "white noise" for overall wellbeing.

What in the name of Jehosaphat do you mean by that!?!

Vinyl may not be technically perfect to many, but subconsiously the body processes it better and more naturally than digital.

Oh. So now you suggest that vinyl appeals to the subconscious mind? I suppose it would make sense to take the argument there, seeing as the conscious mind--you know, the one people use when taking listening tests that conclusively debunk your claims--cannot perceive this "difference".

Maybe listening tests should be done under hypnosis? We could possibly communicate with the test subject's subconscious mind and get to the bottom of this inherent superiority. Or perhaps Freudian analysis on a couch would confirm your assertions.

You should have really made the issue totally untouchable and claimed that the glories of vinyl can only be SPIRITUALLY PERCEIVED. That would make it a metaphysical experience entirely beyond the reach of any rational means of testing the claim. It would also be more accurate, in that audiophilia is nearly a religion, as it certainly relies upon blind faith.

 

[Kimmo]

Unbelievably, you've misunderstood the meaning of compression, only a few posts after someone explained it all for you. 🙄

Thank you jowie. If you are referring to the differences between dynamic range compression and lossy file compression, I have a pretty good understanding, unbelievable as that might sound. 😉

Dynamic range compression, introduced in the mixing process, is significant to this discussion for a couple of reasons. First, it predates mp3 and iTunes. Second, the CD recordings that were compromised by this process (to appeal to an audience that preferred loudness to other musical qualities such as dynamic range and resolution) became the measure by which iTunes downloads were later compared. Excellent engineers, like Steve Hoffman and Bob Katz, have done a fine job bringing attention to the problem and have demonstrated how good CD's can sound, but a lot of damage was already done.

Walt Mossberg made an interesting point during the Neil Young interview when he related this discussion with Steve Jobs: "A few years ago he said he, personally, was quite surprised that the digital music revolution was the first thing he could remember in art where people traded quality to the extent they had for convenience or price or whatever."

In retrospect, it's probably not all that surprising seeing that the music industry and large segments of its customer base were willing to make such large quality tradeoffs before the days of digital downloads.

A year ago, the word was that Apple was preparing to offer 24 bit downloads and that music industry leaders, like Jimmy Iovine, were supportive of the move to higher quality downloads. Today, we are reading about Apple "backtracking." Given the history of the music business, I'm sure they are asking themselves if it's worth it. Personally, I think it is and I appreciate Neil Young raising the issue. iTunes has been a tremendous success, but from a "quality of the art" standpoint, it can be so much better.

 

[negativzero]

I would not suggest that vinyl vs. digital be "quantified in bits and bytes". I would assert that the claims of vinyl be tested using the most analog of transducers--human ears. When human audio testing is done, no one can tell vinyl from CD if all of the goofball distortions inherent in vinyl are recorded on the CD. Period. End of story.

And have you tested this out yourself?

Red herring. No one doing respectable ABX testing is using old turntables and styluses. The newest, very best engineered vinyl recordings cannot match CD, or at least so says all of the properly engineered objective listening tests.

See above

Pure marketing snake-oil B.S. If any of that were true, the difference would be discernible to listeners. Vinyl fails every test in that regard. Sound waves are not "organic." They are not, nor have they ever been alive. They are a phenomenon that can be studied and measured via physics, and the sensory perception of them can be quantified by listening test using human subjects.

Please feel free to offer any reasonable conjecture as to the adverse affect of "digital" on the human body.

You are so very wrong in this. Naturally produced sound waves are organic.

BTW, I've been no less tired watching analog TVs than digital ones. In fact, the extra detail in a digital HD program usually keeps me engaged longer than its "analog" counterpart.

I was never comparing HDTV to analog TV. Try comparing HDTV with natural scenery instead.

"Most" people who walk into a hi-fi store will be sucked in by smooth-talking sales people who offer completely bogus pseudoscience as justification for dropping $20k on a turntable, an all-tube Class A amp, "oxygen-fee" cables thick as your thumb, and uber-pricey speakers.

However, ALL people will consistently fail double-blind testing designed to test whether or not the B.S. claims of the audiophile world are valid. Hmmm. Who should I believe?

Again, here your assumption is that people who put down five-figure sums for speakers here are audio snobs who have too much money to blow away.

What in the name of Jehosaphat do you mean by that!?!



Oh. So now you suggest that vinyl appeals to the subconscious mind? I suppose it would make sense to take the argument there, seeing as the conscious mind--you know, the one people use when taking listening tests that conclusively debunk your claims--cannot perceive this "difference".

Maybe listening tests should be done under hypnosis? We could possibly communicate with the test subject's subconscious mind and get to the bottom of this inherent superiority. Or perhaps Freudian analysis on a couch would confirm your assertions.

You should have really made the issue totally untouchable and claimed that the glories of vinyl can only be SPIRITUALLY PERCEIVED. That would make it a metaphysical experience entirely beyond the reach of any rational means of testing the claim. It would also be more accurate, in that audiophilia is nearly a religion, as it certainly relies upon blind faith.

So now the subconsious mind is spiritual? You really don't know a thing do you? So reflex action, control of hormones, emotions and heartbeat is all controlled by a spiritulal being huh?😉

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

A year ago, the word was that Apple was preparing to offer 24 bit downloads and that music industry leaders, like Jimmy Iovine, were supportive of the move to higher quality downloads. Today, we are reading about Apple "backtracking." Given the history of the music business, I'm sure they are asking themselves if it's worth it. Personally, I think it is and I appreciate Neil Young raising the issue. iTunes has been a tremendous success, but from a "quality of the art" standpoint, it can be so much better.

I wouldn't consider it "backtracking" so much as "coming to their senses." 16 bit recordings as a final delivery medium have reached the minimum "overkill" level of resolution. That's what the audio research indicates. Anything beyond 44.1k/16 bit is wasted data and CPU cycles.

For those of us who record music, tracking @ 24 bit guarantees a very low noise floor and fidelity at all levels, which is desirable when mixing dozens or even hundreds of individual tracks. But the final mix? 44.1k/16 bit is more than sufficient with regard to dynamic range and high end frequency resolution.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Anyone remember Super Audio CD?

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

I would not suggest that vinyl vs. digital be "quantified in bits and bytes". I would assert that the claims of vinyl be tested using the most analog of transducers--human ears. When human audio testing is done, no one can tell vinyl from CD if all of the goofball distortions inherent in vinyl are recorded on the CD. Period. End of story.

And have you tested this out yourself?

Don't have to. Literally hundreds of people all over the world have conducted verifiable, duplicatable experiments with proper controls. I would recommend you spend an afternoon or two at HydrogenAudio.

Please feel free to offer any reasonable conjecture as to the adverse affect of "digital" on the human body.

You are so very wrong in this. Naturally produced sound waves are organic.

What is "natural" about a sound being converted into electromagnetic energy via a condenser microphone, then, after a substantial amount of signal alteration and amplification, that electromagnetic signal is converted into the forcible movement of a needle cutting into a master plate? Which is then used to press a piece of vinyl, which, in turn, is scraped by a needle again, by which the original signal is recovered, then reconverted into electromagnetic energy again, amplified, and converted one more time into movement via a voice coil of a speaker?

Is it less "natural" to record the audio signal with a mic, digitize it into a data file, then convert it back to an electromagnetic signal, amplify it, and convert the signal to motion via speakers?

It's fewer steps, that's all. Also, vinyl recording just uses crude mechanics to get the job done.

Neither are "natural". The real question is "is one way to replay a captured performance more accurate than another?"

Oh. So now you suggest that vinyl appeals to the subconscious mind? I suppose it would make sense to take the argument there, seeing as the conscious mind--you know, the one people use when taking listening tests that conclusively debunk your claims--cannot perceive this "difference".

Maybe listening tests should be done under hypnosis? We could possibly communicate with the test subject's subconscious mind and get to the bottom of this inherent superiority. Or perhaps Freudian analysis on a couch would confirm your assertions.

You should have really made the issue totally untouchable and claimed that the glories of vinyl can only be SPIRITUALLY PERCEIVED. That would make it a metaphysical experience entirely beyond the reach of any rational means of testing the claim. It would also be more accurate, in that audiophilia is nearly a religion, as it certainly relies upon blind faith.

So now the subconsious mind is spiritual? You really don't know a thing do you? So reflex action, control of hormones, emotions and heartbeat is all controlled by a spiritulal being huh?

You're the one who made the claim that vinyl affects a listener at a "subconscious" level. This is clearly a way for you to weasel out of having to demonstrate that your pro-vinyl claims are valid. I am suggesting that if you want to weasel out, go big-time. Go "spiritual." There are ways to explore the subconscious mind, but the spiritual is a totally safe place for those who want to avoid objective scrutiny of their claims.