Why should one medium sound better than another?

[Old1625]

I hear odious comparisons of one medium versus another on the forum. One favors vinyl while another favors another medium for listening to music.

I listen to most of the media available to me, and convert most of it to digital mp3, as I find it convenient in such format to hear in my car indash--as my car is where I find myself spending most of my "idle" time.

IMHO 'taint one really better than the other--except that they have different flavors.

I like most media as it seems to be convenient.

If some like to listen to iPods, and they truly enjoy what they hear, I say let them go at it. I don't personally, but far be it for me to condemn them for doing so.

I have a good system in my Mercedes sedan, but it isn't worth a cent to drive on New England winter roads around here, so I drive a Honda CRV.

And darned if the audio setup with a Poineer indash in that car doesn't meet the mark--it sounds pretty darned good.

Some day I'll get the old stereo here going again (not a hot priority at this point) but in the meantime the car stereos will probably do, as that's where I spend a good chunk of my time lately--driving a car.

Vinyl, acetate, tape of all sorts, CDs, mp3s, etc... I go on the record saying that no one is "better" than the others. What ever floats your boat in audio enjoyment--do it. And let others do as they like.

Further debate on this to my way of thinking is totally meaningless.

 

[KeninDC]

No one is debating the convenience of CDs in the car over vinyl.

Or, loading MP3s on the iPod for a treadmill workout. We all use and enjoy various mediums.

That being said, 8-track blows.

Ken

 

[Augy]

theres a thread in the digital formats and music servers systems section thats all about how a cd player works and gives interesting facts and statistics comparing a cd to vynal...Very interesting read!!!

 

[Old1625]

I'll have to give that a look-see.

While I enjoy really clean stereo sound while listening to Steely Dan--or classical music or jazz of other sorts for that matter--I can listen to an old standard tune on--say--a Webcor wire recorder I've just repaired, and still enjoy it. It's all a matter of proportion.

This phenomenon about tastes may account for another recent posting here about how prices for old console stereos are escalating.

The thing I like about this forum is that there seems to little flaming going on about any individual opinion.

I stand as having none. I like what I like, you like what you like. It is interesting to read what various audio buffs here enjoy to hear.

And I've always derived great joy out of getting an old console Hi-Fi working for an older person who perhaps has lost their spouse, and just wants to go back and listen to old tunes from happier days in their lives. Some of those old sets didn't sound half bad. :thmbsp:

 

[PacificStereo]

I don't understand the question, or its basis.

If one is really going to argue that "one medium isn't really better than another" when it comes to sonics and reproduction, I would submit that the premise is insane.

Granted, all mediums have advantages and disadvantages and all have their applications, but is the OP really going to argue that MP3/AAC/ATRAC audio is equivalent to, say 30ips analog?

Might as well say that a Bosendorfer is the same as a Yamaha Grand synth patch.

Nuh-uh.

 

[TerryO]

I pretty much agree with Pacific Stereo. If true to life adhearence to what was actually recorded, then some are just "better" than others.

Here's my ranking:

R2R master tapes (15 or 30 ips)
R2R tapes (7.5ips)
Good vinyl direct to disk at 45rpm
Good vinyl direct to disk at 33rpm
Good vinyl at 45 or 33 rpm
Hi-Rez digital (and it's getting pretty darn good!)
K2 mastered cds with high bit rates
SACD
XRCD 24
redbook cds
cassettes
IPods depending on how they're recorded
MP3s

I'm afraid that the OP seems to want equivalent outcomes in all areas and it isn't in the scheme of things that occur in the real, natural world.
Sorry Folks, but that's just the way it is. Like Newton (or was it Einstein?) said: "You can't polish a turd."

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[heekma]

Hey there TerryO,

A brief detour if I could--is the difference between master taps and R2R tapes that master tapes were direct, live recordings to tape--first format to record the sound--and R2R tapes are like the tape version of LPs, CDs, etc. that were mass produced for commercial sale?

I honestly don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...:thmbsp:

Best,

John

 

[TerryO]

Hey there TerryO,

A brief detour if I could--is the difference between master taps and R2R tapes that master tapes were direct, live recordings to tape--first format to record the sound--and R2R tapes are like the tape version of LPs, CDs, etc. that were mass produced for commercial sale?

I honestly don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...:thmbsp:

Best,

John

John,

It's my understanding that the Master Tapes of a live event, or of a studio recording are the product of the Mixing Engineer followed by the Mastering Engineers, that produces "the" tape that all subsequent media is derived from. Usually recorded @ 15 or 30 ips for the best fidelity possible, they are usually as good as you can get.

What some people forget is that with each generation of reproduction, the fidelity is diminished by a certain amount. Even old stampers used for manufacturing vinyl records are less capable of adhearing to the sound of the first records made from that stamper when it was new.
Tapes lose fidelity by being reproduced at slower speeds, and also through generational decline.

There are other factors as well, like the slew rate of the recording electronics. Glenn White, who used to record the Seattle Symphony Orchestra years ago, would make all his duplicate tapes in reverse (yes, the Nagra recorders allowed you to do this!) because, as an example, the intial attack of say, a piano string being struck by the hammer would require an immediate and immense pulse (slew rate), followed by the decay of the note. By reproducing it in reverse, the decay would allow a ramping effect for the note, followed by a sudden cessation of the signal, which is, of course, no big deal for electronics to handle. This helps preserve the integrity of the original signal to some extent.

Winston Ma of First Impression Music once brought to the Pacific Northwest Audio Society a glass stamper of a cd that he produced, along with an actual cd made from that stamper. The glass master was just an order of magnitude better than the cd! Regardless of what the digital weenies want to believe, the actual production of a commercial cd is a mechanical act and that's where the problems occur. It goes a long way to explain why you can actually burn a copy of a cd that will be better than the original (if certain steps are taken).

I hope that this lends some clarity to a topic that is very complex and greatly misunderstood. I'm certainly no expert, but I've been around for a long time, so even a dummy like me tends to pick up bits and pieces along the way.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[Old1625]

I don't understand the question, or its basis.

If one is really going to argue that "one medium isn't really better than another" when it comes to sonics and reproduction, I would submit that the premise is insane.

Granted, all mediums have advantages and disadvantages and all have their applications, but is the OP really going to argue that MP3/AAC/ATRAC audio is equivalent to, say 30ips analog?

Might as well say that a Bosendorfer is the same as a Yamaha Grand synth patch.

Nuh-uh.

I tune a Hamburg Steinway worth about $150 grand at a local theatre here. Some performers don't like it because it doesn't have the long sustain of a New York Stein. It is what they have to play if they don't like it, and they will play it. There are others that love the instrument.

And I have many other venues with unrestored pianos that date back to the late 1800s that I keep attending.

It's all a matter of personal preference.

A famous musician played at a local theatre here where the production manager was kind of a steamroller. The artist said he refused to play house acoustic pianos because he could not trust them to be adequate in tuning, regulation and such.

The manager smiled and said he would take care of things--and assured that everything was in good hands, but that the artist would be playing the house acoustic. (Whether he liked it or not!)

The artist went on the stage finding himself facing a Stein D that I had just tuned. He wanted his synth, but decided that it was too late to argue.

The piano was just fine for him, and he said so after the fact.

Point I'm trying to make here is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating of same.

Myself I will not preemptively condemn a system until I have heard it.

 

[Old1625]

As for magnetic tape I prefer open reel over any other form. I will use Ampex 406, 456 or 499--or perhaps the Scotch equivs, and I have a machine hot enough to handle all three. But the machine weighs about 75lbs. And seems to be gaining weight over the years.

And I thus find myself these days gravitating toward all digital eqpt. --which to my aging ears seems to do a pretty darn good job. And is a darn sight easier to carry.

Back to magnetic tape--Again: I prefer open reel; cassette tape has broken my heart too many times--too many times! 'Tis not the medium that a professional should take seriously--IMHO. I don't prefer them.

 

[Markw]

"Better" is a subjective decision and first must be defined.

In the lat 30's, I think it was RCA that did a test with a group of people sitting ij front of a curtain. On the other side they had a good AM radio playijg a transcription of a song that was recorded by a band. They also had the band itself that would play the same piece.

The listeners preferred the sound of the radio.

 

[timofred]

You still get to hear the music, don't you..............

 

[guiller]

The listeners preferred the sound of the radio.

Yet another proof of the preferences of the majority of people of the fantastic over the real (escapism of the masses!). Poor Reality, nobody seems to like it!

 

[Markw]

Excellent point.

You still get to hear the music, don't you..............

Both Waffle House and Ruth's Chris serve steaks. I gues that makes them equal, no?

But, hey, I'm sure some some people may prefer waffle house, perhaps because that's all they ever had?

 

[fastbike]

If a person thinks their car sounds pretty good then there certainly isn't any point debating it. For starters, the background noise level is so high, particularly in a CRV in New England, that you've just got sound that's different from the ambient noise and have a wide latitude in the definition of good.

 

[TerryO]

If a person thinks their car sounds pretty good then there certainly isn't any point debating it. For starters, the background noise level is so high, particularly in a CRV in New England, that you've just got sound that's different from the ambient noise and have a wide latitude in the definition of good.

That's right, the background noise is a factor. MP3's are just fine for car audio, especially when driving as the portion of the sound that's attenuated
(15kHz +) isn't liable to be heard very well anyway, and that's with people have extremely good hearing in the first place. A fella in Belgium did a comparison of MP3s vs. CDs afew years back and the frequency response was identical until ~15kHz when the MP3 drops like a rock! The road noise in a car is enough that I'm sure most people (like me!) wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Speaking of car audio, a couple of months ago I got a chance to listen to Patrick Bateman's system in his Honda. That's absolutely the best car audio I've ever heard, He uses small OS flair Unity Horns mounted at the corners of the dashboard (the windshield being the final flair of the horn) with midbass horns under the dash and the hornloaded bass/sub bass in the trunk! Amazing how good it sounds.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[JohnVF]

In the lat 30's, I think it was RCA that did a test with a group of people sitting ij front of a curtain. On the other side they had a good AM radio playijg a transcription of a song that was recorded by a band. They also had the band itself that would play the same piece.

The listeners preferred the sound of the radio.

Best argument against double blind testing I've ever read.

 

[Markw]

Best argument against double blind testing I've ever read.

Not if one sells radios for a living. :scratch2:

 

[Mark W.]

I hear odious comparisons of one medium versus another on the forum. One favors vinyl while another favors another medium for listening to music.

I listen to most of the media available to me, and convert most of it to digital mp3, as I find it convenient in such format to hear in my car indash--as my car is where I find myself spending most of my "idle" time.

IMHO 'taint one really better than the other--except that they have different flavors.

I like most media as it seems to be convenient.

If some like to listen to iPods, and they truly enjoy what they hear, I say let them go at it. I don't personally, but far be it for me to condemn them for doing so.

I have a good system in my Mercedes sedan, but it isn't worth a cent to drive on New England winter roads around here, so I drive a Honda CRV.

And darned if the audio setup with a Poineer indash in that car doesn't meet the mark--it sounds pretty darned good.

Some day I'll get the old stereo here going again (not a hot priority at this point) but in the meantime the car stereos will probably do, as that's where I spend a good chunk of my time lately--driving a car.

Vinyl, acetate, tape of all sorts, CDs, mp3s, etc... I go on the record saying that no one is "better" than the others. What ever floats your boat in audio enjoyment--do it. And let others do as they like.

Further debate on this to my way of thinking is totally meaningless.

And you sir are completely entitled to your opinion of the debate. That said others enjoy the debate some much more passionately then others. Many many will disagree with you and that's there opinion. In a fair society everyone gets at least one opinion sometimes a bunch of opinions.

My opinion is that you will never find a way to get people to stop arguing about what they like and dislike.

 

[PacificStereo]

That's right, the background noise is a factor. MP3's are just fine for car audio, especially when driving as the portion of the sound that's attenuated
(15kHz +) isn't liable to be heard very well anyway...

I would disagree simply because the defects and artifacts inherent in MP3-encoded audio are audible regardless of whatever the noise floor is.