tuga

Intersample Overs in CD Recordings

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tuga said:

Measurements exist which determine technical superiority or how accurately a signal is read, converted, amplified or transduced. This is called high-fidelity. Even if it doesn't sound good (to you).

Garbage in, garbage out.

There's no argument on whether or not to up/oversample. Reedbook has to be oversampled.

This is the only situation when a CD is worse than an LP; but that is not beacuse of the CD.

Enough - the electronics required to extract the digits off the CD are usually full of problems - jitter errors and loads of other mush - 

Go enjoy your cds - and tell all the valve enthusiasts in here that their equipment is garbage or technically inferior to similar priced solid state amps.7

Manufacturers and reviewers choose what measurements to give - and they can be manipulated - your ears are the final defining factor ...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tuga said:

audio_1979-08_decca-f-10.jpg

Decca London - Left and right channels with a 1 kHz square wave from the CBS STR-112 test record at 3.54 cm/sec. Fig. 10B Same as Fig. 10A, except expanded to show the leading edge. Note relationship of high frequency phase indicated by vertical cursor. Fig. 10C Same as Fig. 10A, except left vs. right presentation. For perfect channel relationships the two bright dots should appear in the lower left and upper right quadrants.

Figures 10A, B, and C show the response to the 1-kHz square wave of Band 1 of CBS STR-112 test record. This signal represents a fundamental at 1 kHz and the odd harmonics of 1 kHz with known amplitude and phase relationships. The "squareness" of the right and left channel waveforms indicate that the amplitude and phase relationships of the reproduced square wave are very good. The "ringing" indicates that at about the high frequency resonance at 23.8 kHz, there is phase shift and a rise in amplitude. Figure 10B shows that there is also interchannel phase shift at this frequency. The amplitude is also greater in the right channel. The panel noted that there appeared to be a smearing of the high frequencies in both their overtone-to-fundamental relationships but also as related to the positional accuracy of the stereo image. Although this smearing was present it was not thought to be so bad as the photos may lead one to believe. souce

666DJubfig2.jpg

London Jubilee - 1kHz squarewave after RIAA correction.

A glimpse of this ultrasonic ringing (though not so severe, as groove contact was hopefully maintained with this signal) may be seen in the squarewave response. Here, the leading edges, while featuring a short risetime, did have significant overshoot accompanied by high-frequency ringing. The shape was generally "square," confirming the cartridge's essentially uniform frequency response.

source

Perhaps it's this ringing/distortion that you perceive as "fast". That and the high levels of harmonic distortion and noise in the upper octaves.

-

Here's a CD player's square-wave measurement for comparison:

693Sony779fig9.jpg

Sony CDP-X779ES - 1kHz squarewave at 0dBFS. source

Depends on the arm and damping applied .. as for sqare waves being an total statement of overall sound quality?  For god's sake man stop arguing - you like CDs we have got that - the problem is all the old stuff put on CD is usually a crap conversion from less than master quality sources resulting in all my favourite music from the past sounding much better on vinyl - end of .... as for new recordings I find some sound better on vinyl  Other people find all vinyl sounds better - that is a fact.   If your reliance on measurement is correct why do CD players all sound different if they all measure technically superb? ,,, surely if they all measure the same they should sound the same (but they don't) .. 

Well I stand by my measure which is my ears - if they do not enjoy it then I aint gonna buy it  ,,, also you ignore my comment about early transistor amps versus valve amps which measured so much better but sounded so much worse.   See how much a Quad valve amp costs on ebay compared to a Quad transistor amp (which on paper is technically more proficient).   

Also can someone explain to me why a copy of a bought CD can sound better than the original?  There are many articles and this debate from another forum states a lot about it https://www.stereophile.com/content/cds-burned-copy-pressed-originals-better-sounding-1    After all I thought the CD medium was supposed to be "perfect"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, uzzy said:

After all I thought the CD medium was supposed to be "perfect"

It's not. It is less flawed than vinyl. I use files.

33 minutes ago, uzzy said:

Well I stand by my measure which is my ears

Ears don't measure, they taste. And people like what they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
28 minutes ago, tuga said:

It's not. It is less flawed than vinyl. I use files.

Ears don't measure, they taste. And people like what they like.

I got told off by the quack for sticking a pork pie in my ears :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bigfool1956 said:

I got told off by the quack for sticking a pork pie in my ears :) 

Did you measure it first just to make sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Would the test be on Pickle Scale ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/07/2018 at 13:48, bencat said:

Would the test be on Pickle Scale ?

I think it might be - however, the problems with CDs are in the CD mastering.  Technically a Digital Recording transferred onto CD should sound better than the equivalent vinyl (given a good DAC and transport) .. the problem is in many cases the engineer in the mix for transfer to CD boosts the volume and reduces the bandwidth (i.e. compresses the music).  With the mastering of an LP there is not the scope to do this due to the limitation of the grooves .. so in many cases there can be better dynamics from the LP.  My biggest gripe is the transfer of back catalogue vinyl onto CD where the end result is invariably worse than the original vinyl which can be due to many things (bad master tapes, over compressed badly mastered mix for cd production).   So I guess in many cases we can say the music has been pickled in the process to put it on CD ..  

I found this article which is very interesting giving four reasons why Vinyl is better than digital.  As I have always said I wished CDs were better and if they were mastered with as much care perhaps they always would be (rather than the sometimes we experience) .. if they were packaged in large gatefold folders (so we could actually read sleeve notes without a magnifying glass) etc. etc.  Anyway we buy what we like and I do like the sound of vinyl better (just as the chap in this article does and goes on to explain why people do) ..https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/reasons-why-vinyl-better-digital/

Happy Pickling 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 24/07/2018 at 01:43, uzzy said:

I think it might be - however, the problems with CDs are in the CD mastering.  Technically a Digital Recording transferred onto CD should sound better than the equivalent vinyl (given a good DAC and transport) .. the problem is in many cases the engineer in the mix for transfer to CD boosts the volume and reduces the bandwidth (i.e. compresses the music).  With the mastering of an LP there is not the scope to do this due to the limitation of the grooves .. so in many cases there can be better dynamics from the LP.  My biggest gripe is the transfer of back catalogue vinyl onto CD where the end result is invariably worse than the original vinyl which can be due to many things (bad master tapes, over compressed badly mastered mix for cd production).   So I guess in many cases we can say the music has been pickled in the process to put it on CD ..  

I found this article which is very interesting giving four reasons why Vinyl is better than digital.  As I have always said I wished CDs were better and if they were mastered with as much care perhaps they always would be (rather than the sometimes we experience) .. if they were packaged in large gatefold folders (so we could actually read sleeve notes without a magnifying glass) etc. etc.  Anyway we buy what we like and I do like the sound of vinyl better (just as the chap in this article does and goes on to explain why people do) ..https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/reasons-why-vinyl-better-digital/

Happy Pickling 

I'll see your "4 Reasons Why Vinyl Is Better Than Digital " and raise you a "Vinyl's great, but it's not better than CDs"

.

Vinyl's great, but it's not better than CDs

Happy Record Store Day! There are plenty of business-related grievances to be filed against the annual vinyl celebration, but it's hard to argue with the spirit of a day encouraging people to explore and buy new music. Moreover, vinyl's just more fun as a format than MP3s or CDs; there's something viscerally satisfying about dropping the needle, and physically spinning the record back to rewind. And in a world where people feel all too welcome to hijack the playlist at parties they attend, it's nice to have a harder-to-commandeer format on offer.

Let's not fool ourselves, though. Vinyl is great, but the idea that its sound quality is superior to that of uncompressed digital recordings is preposterous. They sound different, and that's exactly the point.

continues here -> https://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

.

Regarding the "interesting" article you posted, it's mostly nonsense. The passion is there, but not the reason.

1. Your Taste in Music Will Improve

Let’s play a game. Go to your local record store — every good town should have one — and try to find Justin Bieber’s Believe, which sold almost 1,500,000 copies in 2012. Nothing? Okay, try again. See if you can find anything by Nickelback. Nada? Okay, now see if you can find anything by The Pixies. What, an entire shelf’s worth? Why do you think that might be? I can see his point, but it's a rather weak one. You don't educate your taste in music by visting vinyl record stores even if the extremely limited variety is generally artistically "better"; it's much easier to do it online with a streaming service. And single vinyl record probably costs as much as a couple of weeks of a lossless subscription. Besides, there are perhaps 100s of times more titles available in digital than in vinyl. The Pixies are cool, but when did they last publish an album? Oh, wait, they've gotten back together again after 20 years. And they've publish an album. Is it any good? Hmmm... I wonder how many under-40s listen to The Pixies. (I have no clue as to what Nickelback is).

2. Record Buying Is an Experience

It is. And indeed vinyl does have a certain vintage-hipster-collector allure to it, plus the cover size is much nicer and the booklet print can be read without a magnifying glass. But some people like myself just don't care about records, about the object. I'm interested in music, preferably in the format that provides the most accurate reproduction of the master. CD is technically better and if well mastered will provide more accuracy (and fortunately for me classical music is generally well mastered). A download is even better because it lasts forever and storing thousands of recordings takes as much space as 2 or 3 dozens of CDs. Music buying as opposed to record buying. Alternatively you can stream and whilst not owning any music you can listen to whatever is available in a digital format during the subscription period.

3. Vinyl Sounds Better

Sorry, folks. This one isn’t up for debate. Vinyl sounds better than MP3s ever could. I’m not just talking about that warm, mahogany-rich sound that vinyl is famous for, but in general. It’s just better. Yes, Vinyl sounds better than MP3s ever could. CD also sounds better than MP3s ever could. Now the fun part: Vinyl is what’s called a lossless format. Nothing has been lost when pressing a record. It sounds as good as the producer or band intended. Really? The man really knows his stuff. He then goes on to say that vinyl for the most part, escaped the ‘loudness war’. If we are talking about rock-pop then I agree; better to buy the better mastered version. But in many cases you have no vinyl alternative to buy anyway, not for music published after the what late 80s? And I hear many vinyl collectors complaining about the poor quality of recent vinyl editions.

4. Vinyl Can Make You Money

When you buy an MP3 on iTunes, there is no way you can turn that purchase into an investment that makes you money at a later date. That’s because you don’t own that particular MP3. You merely license it. But, vinyl? That’s an entirely different beast altogether. There’s an entire industry of people purchasing, collecting, and reselling vinyl, because overwhelmingly it keeps its purchase value, or even appreciates in value. I thought vinyl was meant to be about sound and music; why are we talking about commodities all of a suden?

Edited by tuga
rephrased for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tuga said:

I'll see your "4 Reasons Why Vinyl Is Better Than Digital " and raise you a "Vinyl's great, but it's not better than CDs"

.

You do not understand where I am coming from but you carry on .. I spend most of my time collecting music (on both CD and Vinyl) and as long as the mastering process of older CDs is flawed (see the loudness wars in millions of postings from those who have no axe to grind) .. anyone with ears can hear that in many cases CDs are inferior to vinyl especially where the original recordings predate digital recording and sometimes thereafter.   Seek out Dave Grusin who has produced some fabulous CDs as to his findings on digital recordings where to ensure the best possible fidelity he records as close to live as possible (no overdubs etc) .. So I do not doubt CDs SHOULD be better than Vinyl but in many cases they are not hence the need for both.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, uzzy said:

You do not understand where I am coming from but you carry on .. I spend most of my time collecting music (on both CD and Vinyl) and as long as the mastering process of older CDs is flawed (see the loudness wars in millions of postings from those who have no axe to grind) .. anyone with ears can hear that in many cases CDs are inferior to vinyl especially where the original recordings predate digital recording and sometimes thereafter.   Seek out Dave Grusin who has produced some fabulous CDs as to his findings on digital recordings where to ensure the best possible fidelity he records as close to live as possible (no overdubs etc) .. So I do not doubt CDs SHOULD be better than Vinyl but in many cases they are not hence the need for both.  

I wasn't referring to you but to the bloke who wrote the article you linked above.

You wrote something I agree completely with:

On 24/07/2018 at 01:43, uzzy said:

Technically a Digital Recording transferred onto CD should sound better than the equivalent vinyl (given a good DAC and transport) .. the problem is in many cases the engineer in the mix for transfer to CD boosts the volume and reduces the bandwidth (i.e. compresses the music).

I have many fabulous CDs, more than 2/3rds of my music actually.

I only have one GRP CD, "The Fabulous Baker Boys" soundtrack, and the mastering is not without problems (this track clips well over 100 times) even if it sounds very good overall:

2.thumb.png.ea34aa940cc2fc5113bd12052c038d03.png

1.thumb.png.a5a3daf6f84164fc36ac20ae7995b89d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.