On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:41:22 +0100 Hartmut Noack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Gustin Johnson schrieb: > > Larry Lines wrote: > > |> Cory K. schrieb: > > |> Christopher Stamper wrote: > > |>> Who cares? I'm not using either. Ever. > > |>> > > |>> That's fine stick with your crappy, downloaded, lossy MP3s. ;) > > |>> > > |>> -Cory > > |>> > > |> Vinyl is still the best - I used to listen to MP§ for the last 2 > > or so > > > | Even worse, our ears and eyes are getting used to it. Almost all > > digital | formats > > | of music have been very bad for quality of music. > > > I have grown up with both vinyl and CD (I am in my 30s). The > > crackles and the constant noise irritate me, especially since I do > > not have that nostalgic emotional connection that _can_ cloud ones > > subjective judgement. > > I never understood what makes people love the crackles. Ever since I > spinned my first record in the early 80ies (cheeeesh - zombies walk > the list again har harr harrrr) crackles and noise where enemy number > one. I accept them as unevitable if I listen to my australian copy of > masters of the universe made in 1974 and bought for less then 20E, > but they are definitely NOT what I like about listening to vinyl! > > > > A proper 24/96 digital recording can capture the same frequency > > range as vinyl > > 24/96 is not available on CD - if it would be, this certainly would > make a difference. If I listen to a recording I made at 96KHz in > Ardour and compare it A-B with an 44.1KHz/16bit CD I exported from > the very same session the difference is evident. > > > > (well, it exceeds a human's ability to tell the difference, there > > are limits to what we can hear) > > Frequency range is not everything. Even though 96KHz tend to sound > more brilliant then 44.1 CD the main difference and the one big > advantage of vinyl is dynamics. The dynamics of sonar waves cannot be > described correctly in a simple digital model. They cannot be > reproduced exactly by a microgroove record also but the model of the > microgroove provides a very good analogy - it is similar to sonar > waves by its nature. > > > and therefore be indistinguishable from > > vinyl > > LP does not sound more brilliant then 24/96 but played with a capable > equipment (stereo plus turntable for about 500E 2nd hand), it can > reveal more room and details. > > best regards > > HZN > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHtsvh1Aecwva1SWMRAkR5AJ0Xz9OM3SQhjP4ide94OcBW7PuhCwCeJ+1m > iqt4ZNK4HTgk6NGm/0KybbY= > =jodb > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Hartmut, have you ever been to hydrogenaudio.org ? The site is mainly about lossless and lossy audio formats but also a lot about listening tests, and how to do them properly. I think many people in that forum would love to see proper double-blind-test results that show that you can hear the difference between for example 24/96 and 16/44.1. Best Regards Philipp -- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
