Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
darrenyeats wrote: > I'm arguing vinyl transcription reverses extreme compression, somehow, > so that would be consistent with my view. Any suggestion of what the mechanism would be? Pretty much all the non-linearities of the vinyl path would cause *more* compression - but as has been pointed out, the frequency response characteristics of vinyl makes DR readings artificially higher. Look of waveform and subjective listening evaluation tell us they sound *different*. That is all. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
arnyk wrote: > DBTs have shown that a single generation of vinyl transcription is > highly audible while a single generation of even mediocre but modern > digital is sonically transparent. I'm arguing vinyl transcription reverses extreme compression, somehow, so that would be consistent with my view. Is there some "intangible/meta-physical compression quality" than remains the same - even when all three of DR number, look of waveform and the sound all indicate the vinyl is less compressed? It smacks of denial a bit. Darren Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
darrenyeats wrote: > > Ian is convinced that the vinyl can't have more dynamic range on > principal but I think it's mistaken. > Since they are so often conflated, we seem to need to distinguish between the needs of the people who produce the media which are social, and the capabilities of the media itself which are technical. At the physical media level, audio CDs have 20-30 dB or more dynamic range then vinyl is capable of. That is basically why vinyl was almost totally blown off the marketplace by the CD. > > There are such things as dynamic range expanders (what limited use they > have is for de-compressing compressed waveforms ... but that happens to > be what we're talking about!) > Dynamic range expanders were thought to be helpful when vinyl and analog tape were all we had. The CD eliminated their technical justification. Notice that their consumer versions have been off the market for 20-30 years. > > If you watch Ian's video through, you'll see the vinyl waveform > _measures_ as more dynamic (obviously Ian and yourself aren't > impressed!) but also it _looks_ obviously more dynamic and it _sounds_ > more dynamic. > The appearance of a waveform does not necessarily indicate its dynamic range. The sonic perceptions of biased listeners are equally unreliable. > > As I asked Ian, "So my question is, what OTHER kind of proof would we > need to accept dynamics have increased? I can't imagine any other kind > of evidence." > > I did not receive a proper answer. > You didn't ask someone who knows, and you are using unreliable evidence. > > PS: Here you go: > http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/183049-dbx_1bx_dynamic_range_expander__processor/images/238691/ > > [image: > http://img.canuckaudiomart.com/uploads/large/238690-dbx_1bx_dynamic_range_expander__processor.jpg] > > "Expand your mind (the rest will follow)"! Such a device can only make > sense in the situation where a signal has been compressed and you are > reversing this process. I'm certain this process will be far from > perfect, but nevertheless expansion is "A Thing". > > I repeat, it exists. > Incorrect. It existed (note past tense} This web page says it all: http://dbxpro.com/en-US/products/1bx-series-iii: "Discontinued" Secondly, it wasn't a consumer product when it existed - it and devices like it were found to be too complex to appeal to general consumer. > > It can come to pass. > It came, it saw, and it was conquered. You've misrepresented the device pretty thoroughly, whether intentional or not;. DBTs have shown that a single generation of vinyl transcription is highly audible while a single generation of even mediocre but modern digital is sonically transparent. Don't forget that High Fidelity = sonic accuracy and transparency. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
cliveb wrote: > So the LP master is commonly derived from the already hypercompressed > "master master", because from an artistic viewpoint that is how it's > supposed to sound. Sad but true. That's also why modern remastered CDs > routinely sound worse than the original 1980s release - because the > level balance has been "corrected" to conform to modern standards. All too true. Seems today's musicians and producers think the reason older music sounded great was because of use of crappy technology (as opposed to skill and creativity). "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
browellm wrote: > ftfy. Point taken :) "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
ralphpnj wrote: > Finally I believe that there are several "masters" in use when making a > CD or an LP. There's the master tape, which is then used to make a > separate CD master and then a different LP master. Since the overall > volume of an LP can't be boosted like that of CD there is no reason to > use as much dynamic range compression on the LP master There is never any reason to use excessive dynamic range compression, regardless of the delivery medium. In fact, if vinyl is the medium, there is MORE reason to use it, to get the signal level as far above the surface noise as you can. In the rock/pop world, dynamic range compression is no longer a tool for making things louder or eliminating dead air. It has simply become dogma that pop music is meant to be mastered that way. There's a whole generation of artists, producers and possibly even engineers who think that's the right way to do it. So the LP master is commonly derived from the already hypercompressed "master master", because from an artistic viewpoint that is how it's supposed to sound. Sad but true. That's also why modern remastered CDs routinely sound worse than the original 1980s release - because the level balance has been "corrected" to conform to modern standards. Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
Julf wrote: > There are loudspeakers ftfy. Modwright Transporter/SBT/SBR/Boom http://www.last.fm/user/browellm browellm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14260 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
darrenyeats wrote: > "Expand your mind (the rest will follow)"! Such a device can only make > sense in the situation where a signal has been compressed and you are > reversing this process. I'm certain this process will be far from > perfect, but nevertheless expansion is "A Thing". > > I repeat, it exists. It can come to pass. If the music has been compressed using a known, fixed non-linear function, it can be uncompressed by applying a non-linear function that is the inverse of the compressing function. This is how many early speech codecs worked in the telephone world. Unfortunately the compressor algorithms used by studios are not fixed, but variable in time, so "undoing" them becomes a bit of a challenge (engineer-speak for "pretty much impossible"). In any case, you are applying non-linearity... "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
browellm wrote: > Hi Clive > > I'm aware of the artefacts that fool the DR database into reporting > higher DR, but I can only offer my subjective impressions of owning both > the digital and vinyl versions of many pop and indie new releases and > the vinyl sounds way more dynamic. Now I appreciate this *subjective* > difference means bugger all to anyone else but me. If non-linearity, > distortion and euphonic colourations give the impression of greater > dynamic range then to me, it's all gravy. I'm not going to sit in front > of a another botched production CDrip and admire its technical > superiority through gritted teeth. There are digital effects boxes that can add all that distortion and colouration if you want it... "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] A Look at MQA...
ralphpnj wrote: > I'm not sure but I believe that the dynamic range compression used on so > many popular music CDs is the result of trying to push the overall > volume of the CD way, way up. Remember that dynamic range compression > was originally used on radio broadcasts to make the quiet passages > louder so that there was never anything close to silence, and silence, > aka dead air, is a major no-no in broadcasting. But when one boosts the > quiet passages one must also lower the loud passages otherwise these > loud passages get way too loud, hence the result is dynamic range > compression. > > So it's not just dynamic range compression but also an overall boosting > of the volume level. One can test this by simply playing an older CD, > say from the early 1990s, and then playing a new CD, say from the last > few years, and comparing where the volume knob is set for each CD to > produce the same relative volume. > > Edit: In other words, for the CD first everything is compressed and then > the volume level for the entire compressed recording is raised. So now > all the music is way above the noise floor but also very near the > highest available level. > > Finally I believe that there are several "masters" in use when making a > CD or an LP. There's the master tape, which is then used to make a > separate CD master and then a different LP master. Since the overall > volume of an LP can't be boosted like that of CD there is no reason to > use as much dynamic range compression on the LP master. > > Please note that if anything above is not correct, then by all means > post a correction. I agree. Overall volume was probably the driver (no pun intended), necessitated by the propensity of yoofs to stick low quality earbud speakers into their ears for use with mp3 players (or more likely m4a players from a well known brand) with only a low power amp on board. The buds you get with your standard player device are not of the highest quality. I can't stand them - even the expensive ones which do have a wee bit of bass are rubbish IMHO. Regular followers of the "What are you listening to..." thread will know that I do use various iOS devices with iPeng player but I use an inline headphone amp and a decent pair of B&Ws. I would also suggest those people that listen to Classical or Jazz music are less likely to do so using an mp3 player and therefore the need to "boost" the volume just isn't there. I am generalising but in the main they are a more mature bunch. On the question of masters. There are usually more than a couple. As I understand it the process was to take the original and then copy it to a number of secondary masters for use in the manufacturing process which could in turn be copied for re-mastering purposes etc etc. *Vortexbox LMS 7.8 music on QNAP TS419p via NFS* iThingys/iPeng/Tablets *Living Room* - SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 - > Celestion Ditton F20s - Zone 2 -> Sony TA FE 320 -> Sennheiser RS 130 & B&W P7 *Office* - RPi -> Sony TA FE320 -> Celestion F10s / SB3 -> Onkyo CRN 755 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes *Dining Room* -> SB Boom *Kitchen* -> UE Radio (upgraded to SB Radio) *Bedroom (Bedside)* - SB Touch -> Topping TP21 -> AKG Headphones *Bedroom (TV)* - Amazon Fire TV (SB Player) -> Topping TP20 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes d6jg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=44051 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105070 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
