Double-blind test of SACD and DVD-A vs. Redbook 16/44 in JAES Septembe, (hint: no surprises!) (bumped from 2007 in post #35) Options

[Nessuno]

I've yet to hear this magical vinyl set-up that plays wide dynamic range classical music without audible flaws during the quiet passages.

Uh? Regarding classical, wider dynamic range is maybe the only advantage that even the most diehard vinylists acknowledge to digital.

Maybe I've already told it: I have a couple CDs of symphonic music from early '80 with a great red "WARNING" written on the first page of the booklet together with an advice not to turn up too much on quieter passages not to damage speakers on subsequent fortissimi...

Edit: for example this CD.

This post has been edited by Nessuno: Jan 28 2013, 15:27

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

So the point I'm getting at is this: I think it is the kind of mastering as they do for vinyl what the people really like, the people who prefer vinyl over cd, of course.

More likely, vinyl sells to people for whom it is new and its warts seem like beauty marks, and to people for whom it is old and its warts seems like beauty marks.

Maybe it is that of the modern vinyl pressing have a greater dynamic range than their cd counterparts.

Not a chance. They made the mistake of releasing test records on "modern vinyl pressings" so that technical types can measure its dynamic range. It's about 30 dB shy of what its CD counterparts can do.

Maybe it is the differences in the depth of the bass or some such.

The differences in the depth of bass or some such is that vinyl doesn't have greater depth, it has audibly far less depth.

Maybe it is related to something else.

Yes, naivete and sentimentality.

But I don't think it is related to the physical medium itself and that if they are not visually exposed to the medium they'd still prefer the vinyl-style mastering over the mastering intended for cd reproduction.

It is only a very tiny minority that prefers vinyl.

And I still stand by my idea that putting on a vinyl is more of an effort and that has a positive influence on the experience of music.

Good thing that you stand by your ideas... ;-)

[greynol]

I'm totally lost.

You and I both.

[greynol]

Maybe it is that of the modern vinyl pressing have a greater dynamic range than their cd counterparts.

Not a chance. They made the mistake of releasing test records on "modern vinyl pressings" so that technical types can measure its dynamic range. It's about 30 dB shy of what its CD counterparts can do.

Time for my 180.

I think he means "mastering" instead of pressing, implying that usually heavy DRC is often only applied to CD releases of titles.

If you want to join in on a discussion over that subject, here's a recent one:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=98199

[krabapple]

I'm totally lost.

Why?

True differences between vinyl and CD issues, such as exist, can be *at minimum* attributed to mastering (with all that entails), and to inherent audio issues with the analog technology. (Unless you believe that digital has inherent audible issues too)

I think you know this already....?

[2Bdecided]

I was lost with who suggested we blind tested what. It doesn't matter.

I'm quite clear that both vinyl and CD can sometimes sound the same (to my ears), but CD is sonically transparent to the source (to my ears) while vinyl often isn't (to almost anyone's ears!).

I do have a lot of records, and some decent turntables - but I can't take it too seriously. I don't look for, or expect, perfection. That would be to invite disappointment. I get easily as much fun out of my mp3 player.

Cheers,
David.

[jeffb]

Re: vinyl and CDs...

I enjoy both, and have over the years collected many recordings on vinyl. Most are in very good condition, and in some cases made better by cleaning. Much of this is unavailable on digital; and in any case the cost of duplicating generally is now prohibitive for me. Of course the LP is a fragile medium.

My observation is that a large orchestra's dynamic range is too great for comfortable playback in the home (hearing the Rite of Spring or Daphnis and Chloe live -- wow), and part of mastering the LP (and heeding its limitations) can be a service to the listener, to limit the dynamic range to 'fit' in the home. Of course the same is possible with digital media including the CD, but without the same dynamic restrictions, it would be up to the mastering engineer to tailor the dynamic range to 'fit' for reasons other than constraints of the medium itself. How much compression is right? I don't claim to know. Even the dynamic range of an LP can elicit strongly worded requests from my wife to "turn it down".

My own experience in recording LPs to CDRs (via a Yamaha CDR-1000 w/ UV22) is that I cannot reliably distinguish one from the other. That home-brew experiment has made me wonder about higher resolution formats for music delivery, and the results of the experiment are not surprising to me. As I would like to archive many of these vinyl recordings, choosing an appropriate format is something I've been thinking about. Redbook seems fine for my purposes, but it is rather clunky to have to record to CDR and rip it rather than recording directly to a hard drive.

Jeff

[greynol]

Due to the two off-topic posts in the last 24 hours, this thread will close. If you wish to talk specifically about the study send me a PM and I will consider re-opening the discussion.