True Audiophile

[Thad E Ginathom]

It sounds lovely.

And yet, what we are actually hearing here is compressed, 44100/16 150kb/s audio!

This is new stuff to me, so corrections accepted gratefully, but my thought process started with, "Isn't listening to a digitised, you-tubed, locally-DACed recording of a turntable a bit like looking at a printed advertisement for a TV?" --- as in, how could anyone judge one medium by its representation in an entirely different one? That led me to a key question: "When I watch a YouTube video, is there a way that I can tell the details of the video stream?

Google led me to general information about bitrates in YouTube videos here and to help on extracting the info from a video file here.

I didn't get the answer I really wanted, which was to see the information while playing the video from the YouTube site (I suspect VLC should give me this, but I could not open the URL with it) but had to download the file.

info from two files, here: first, the 360, then the 1080...

$ ffmpeg -i VPI\ Scoutmaster\ plays\ _To\ Know\ You\ is\ to\ Love\ You_.mp4 ### 360 video

... # all sorts of garbage

Stream #0.1(und): Audio: aac, 44100 Hz, stereo, s16, 94 kb/s

...

$ $ ffmpeg -i VPI\ Scoutmaster\ plays\ _To\ Know\ You\ is\ to\ Love\ You_-1.mp4 ### 1080 video

... # all sorts of garbage

Stream #0.1(und): Audio: aac, 44100 Hz, stereo, s16, 150 kb/s

...

$

(The guy uses a Presonus Inspire interface. I suspect it's a goodie! )

 

[venkatcr]

Here is an attempt, please use your best headphones if possible:

Ultimately it is all a question of cost. I strongly believe a digital system can deliver the same sound quality at half the price of a TT based system. That is MY belief.

Cheers

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

... I suspect that it has the potential to exceed it!

I just listened to one of the above songs, on my M-Audio monitors. It is a tribute to how good digital sound that has been on the long path I mentioned can sound, even though its transmission has been over a medium that we cannot control at all, and even though it has some compression.

Linn Radio streams some stuff at 320bps.


.

 

[Hiten]

"Isn't listening to a digitised, you-tubed, locally-DACed recording of a turntable a bit like looking at a printed advertisement for a TV?"

Yes Youtube may not be good medium for critical evaluation. But if you can intuitively look for difference in the youtube side by side you may get some idea.
Audio frequency range of LP vs. CD - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtZh5sE3zi0

 

[thatguy]

Yes Youtube may not be good medium for critical evaluation. But if you can intuitively look for difference in the youtube side by side you may get some idea.
Audio frequency range of LP vs. CD - YouTube

The guy has no idea of how to design a real experiment. What makes him believe that the frequency components he is seeing above the first bar (and those below it) are not distortion/noise?

I am not interested in vinyl/digital debate. Just saying that the experiment is flawed.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

<cross-posted with thatguy ... who says it all in one line >

The second test is neat ... but to be really valid, it would have to be a comparison between vinyl and a digitisation of the same vinyl.

I'd say that the CD sections in that comparison are lacking. It is a bit as if someone had stuffed a sock in the speaker, especially in the higher ranges. Why? Because there was some fault in the mix for the CD? Some problem with the CD player, the DAC, etc, etc --- there are too many etcs. We are listening to sound A and Sound B: one of them has a fault: we cannot tell the reason for the fault. We are also listening to the sound which does not have that fault via a digital medium, and one at the lower end of digital possibility too.

The fact that an oscilloscope can show output up to 60,000Hz from an LP does not impress me at all. It's way beyond the range of human hearing, which is covered by CD, and we have no idea what those high-frequency sounds are anyway. It might just be noise. Hiss. Bigger Numbers = Better = Naive!

Ethan Winer, Dispelling Popular Audio Myths:

Myth: Even though people cannot hear frequencies above 20 KHz, it is important that audio equipment be able to reproduce higher frequencies to maintain clarity.

Fact: There is no evidence that a frequency response beyond what humans can hear is audible or useful. It is true that good amplifier designs generally have a frequency response well beyond the limits of hearing, and the lack of an extended response can be a give-away that the amplifier is deficient in some other areas. If for no other reason, though there certainly are other reasons, an amplifier's effective cut-off frequency - the point at which its output has dropped by 3 dB - must be high enough that the response loss at 20 KHz is still well under 1 dB.

With audio transducers - microphones and speakers - the frequency beyond which they do not respond (the cut-off frequency) is often accompanied by a resonant peak, which can add ringing and a boost in level at that frequency. Therefore, designing a transducer to respond beyond 20 KHz is useful because it pushes any inherent resonance past audibility. This is one important advantage of those expensive condenser microphones that use a tiny (less than 1/2-inch) diaphragm and are designed for critical audio testing.

It is very easy to determine, once and for all, if a response beyond 20 KHz makes a difference. All you need is a sweepable audio low-pass filter. You start with the filter set to well beyond 20 KHz, play the audio source material of your choice - I've used a set of keys jingling in front of a high-quality, small-diaphragm condenser mike - and sweep the filter downward until you can hear a difference. Then read the frequency noted on the dial.

I think one could play devil's advocate with this one. Digital has a cut off, beyond which it is impossible that there should be any sound. Analogue does not, therefore is it not probable that musical instruments produce sound beyond the limits of human hearing? Perfectly possible, if not probable --- but it is beyond human hearing, and it would not necessarily be good if it wasn't. Who knows... if we could get bat ear transplants, our music might start to sound horrible!

Once again, especially as the man has obviously put this to the test, I'll join the Ethan-Winer camp on this one

Given the undoubtedly limited frequency response of cut-and-paste I do recommend reading the article in the link. Even better, watch his presentation here. It's a pity, though, that sound professionals there couldn't have managed better ...sound! :lol:

.

 

[Hiten]

The guy has no idea of how to design a real experiment. What makes him believe that the frequency components he is seeing above the first bar (and those below it) are not distortion/noise?

I am not interested in vinyl/digital debate. Just saying that the experiment is flawed.

You may be right and youtube stuff can not be trusted. But it doesn't look like noise from decibel levels graph. But I am not sure.

Once again, especially as the man has obviously put this to the test, I'll join the Ethan-Winer camp on this one

OK now I regret posting Ethan Winer links

The youtube links were posted just to give rough idea as no other info was quickly available.
Regards

 

[malvai]

The fact that an oscilloscope can show output up to 60,000Hz from an LP does not impress me at all. It's way beyond the range of human hearing, which is covered by CD, and we have no idea what those high-frequency sounds are anyway. It might just be noise. Bigger Numbers = Better = Naive!

Ethan Winer, Dispelling Popular Audio Myths:

I think one could play devil's advocate with this one. Digital has a cut off, beyond which it is impossible that there should be any sound. Analogue does not, therefore is it not probable that musical instruments produce sound beyond the limits of human hearing? Perfectly possible, if not probable --- but it is beyond human hearing, and it would not necessarily be good if it wasn't. Who knows... if we could get bat ear transplants, our music might start to sound horrible!

Once again, especially as the man has obviously put this to the test, I'll join the Ethan-Winer camp on this one

dude Thad,
those frequencies that the Lp's play out at 60,000 khz are called sub-sonic frequencies... while we do not hear them from our ears, our body sure does respond... like the thudding in the pit of our chest, the hair stading at the nape of the neck etc....

if you truly think that "those frequencies are not required and hence a CD is fine" then why don't you go a step further and recommend that people buy a good headphone unit with a good MP3 player (and one would be happy just spending 20k) for something that sounds like pure A grade audio!

however, listing to music is not just about what we hear, but also how we hear and how is the entire body and soul reacts to what we are listening to. especially some us who are very serious listeners...

just my 2 cents....

 

[Dr.Bass]

Ultimately it is all a question of cost. I strongly believe a digital system can deliver the same sound quality at half the price of a TT based system. That is MY belief.

Cheers

It is not very different from the argument that most mp3 listeners put forward while comparing mp3 to CD.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Ahhh ... to be young enough to be dude! It's been a long time.

those frequencies that the Lp's play out at 60,000 khz are called sub-sonic frequencies

I think you are confused. This is not sub-sonic. I have a dog whistle, somewhere: I guarantee you will not feel it, in your chest, or anywhere else.

It is not very different from the argument that most mp3 listeners put forward while comparing mp3 to CD.

It is utterly different --- or would be if I had ever heard it said!

Of course, if the bit rate is high, there may be no audible difference. Listen to some stuff on the Linn Radio site I linked to above. I listened to the first of the songs you posted above. That's 150bps --- sounded good to me.

Actually, compression (until we reach the low digits that, eg, some internet radio stations broadcast it) is not that easy to spot. For me, the symptom is fatigue, or even a headache. But this, too, is sooooooo subjective of course! I used mini-disc as a commuter (and also as a student) and never had that fatigue from it. Again, I am not volunteering for a blind test on that, but all loddy compression is not equal. We could branch off into the OGG/MP3 debate!

 

[ajay124]

Coming back to the first post. I admire Michael Fremer's early judgement about the digital sound (of that time). He did not get carried away with the hype of new age technology. He has a good pair of ears and he chose to use it. Very nice indeed !!!

Dr.Bass

If I am not mistaken the system which you have recently disposed off was built around an expensive CD player. Since you seem to be firmly convinced about the superiority of vinyl why did you opt for the Audio Aero Capitole Reference as a source? How did this CDP compare with the turntables which you have auditioned?

 

[thatguy]

You may be right and youtube stuff can not be trusted.

The effectiveness of the experiment has nothing to do with it being on youtube. The experiment is flawed and it *does not* prove anything.

I have never heard vinyl, so I am always curious about its capabilities. But when I see vinyl enthusiasts using half lies and untruths to prove the superiority of the medium, I get a feeling I am better off in the digital world.

 

[Dr.Bass]

It is utterly different --- or would be if I had ever heard it said!

Of course, if the bit rate is high, there may be no audible difference. Listen to some stuff on the Linn Radio site I linked to above. I listened to the first of the songs you posted above. That's 150bps --- sounded good to me.

So, it is not different from the point of view of a mp3 listener whose argument is based on scientific reasoning and here is an excerpt from wikipedia which is the exact logic I hear from mp3 afficiandoes:
"The use in MP3 of a lossy compression algorithm is designed to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent the audio recording and still sound like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio for most listeners. An MP3 file that is created using the setting of 128 kbit/s will result in a file that is about 11 times smaller[note 1] than the CD file created from the original audio source. An MP3 file can also be constructed at higher or lower bit rates, with higher or lower resulting quality.
The compression works by reducing accuracy of certain parts of sound that are considered to be beyond the auditory resolution ability of most people. This method is commonly referred to as perceptual coding.[13] It uses psychoacoustic models to discard or reduce precision of components less audible to human hearing, and then records the remaining information in an efficient manner."

Try how much ever you may want, they will tell you it is "good enough" and you are crazy to spend thousands of Rupees on CDs. So, if it is about cost I think they are spot on and all we CD buyers are crazy moron.

The thing is, when I left India I was using a well regarded $10k CDP in my system and I dont think it is near as good as a $10k TT setup that I have heard here in Singapore, forget about $20k analog setups. I have been speaking to some of the TT manufacturers in the last 3-4 weeks trying to understand their philosophy and design. Few of them were in the RMAF which just concluded, showcasing their TTs. Almost every one of them had a top end digital player in their demo rooms just to demonstrate how much superior their TT sounds to a digital player from a reputed brand costing 2-3 times the TT. Some of the favorites in such demo rooms were the likes of dCS and Accuphase CDPs.

Theoretically we can keep on arguing and anything can be debated as long as there is an article somewhere on the internet to support a particular argument. If you want to be honest to yourself and to your hobby, go out and audition. Anything that comes out of it is then "correct".

 

[arj]

I have never heard vinyl, so I am always curious about its capabilities. But when I see vinyl enthusiasts using half lies and untruths to prove the superiority of the medium, I get a feeling I am better off in the digital world.

I don't think it's about proving anything..in the end it is about what you hear..it's pretty ok to be happy with what you believe in, but criticizing someone else experience and assuming that it is flawed is rather arrogant.
Most of the folks have spent several years in this journey..refuting what one has heard with information read of the internet is not going to widen ones own perspective in this hobby..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[thatguy]

That is MY belief.

entire body and soul reacts

Oops. For a moment I thought I was in religious meeting. Guys, we are talking about things that can be measured.

On a related note, is it possible to get test vinyls; ones which have been pressed to produce single tones of different frequencies or other similar test patterns? If yes, we should be able to design some neat experiments to find the sampling frequency/width at which digital becomes a more faithful medium.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Dr.Bass

If I am not mistaken the system which you have recently disposed off was built around an expensive CD player. Since you seem to be firmly convinced about the superiority of vinyl why did you opt for the Audio Aero Capitole Reference as a source? How did this CDP compare with the turntables which you have auditioned?

The second question in your post has been answered in my previous post.

To answer your first question, like most audiophiles in India I never had exposure to high quality analogue playback enough to make that call. I did not dismiss analogue to prove the superiority of my digital playback system. I just did not have the bandwidth to do both. Also, I was scared that I may not like digital after I listen to good analogue for a extended period. Then where do you go ? Basically I did not have the bandwidth to experiment, both mentally and financially. I took the safe route and chose to be deliberately ignorant. I knew I will do it someday but I wanted to wait for the right time so that I do it comfortably.

 

[thatguy]

but criticizing someone else experience and assuming that it is flawed is rather arrogant.

Go back and read my words again. I was not criticizing anyone's experience. I was criticizing the experiment. And I still stand by my words. The experiment is bogus.

..it's pretty ok to be happy with what you believe in,

I don't *believe* in anything. If you got facts, I would be interested. What puts me off is presenting half baked experiments to *prove* stuff.

..refuting what one has heard with information read of the internet is not going to widen ones own perspective in this hobby..

I hope that outburst was not directed towards me. I didn't (and usually don't) post internet links. In fact, I was the one who was telling Hiten not to trust random stuff found on the internet.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Go back and read my words again. I was not criticizing anyone's experience. I was criticizing the experiment. And I still stand by my words. The experiment is bogus.



I don't *believe* in anything. If you got facts, I would be interested. What puts me off is presenting half baked experiments to *prove* stuff.

In this thread there are numerous youtube videos posted. None of them are "full baked" experiments or anything of that sort. They are just casual indications of what different people have tried in this direction. It is not expected to change someone's perception. Do you think if you present a video which has a flawless experiment, that will change someone's preference/perception? It is only to initiate a thought process so that people try out the various mediums of music reproduction. This is not a PHD thesis.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Go back and read my words again. I was not criticizing anyone's experience. I was criticizing the experiment. And I still stand by my words. The experiment is bogus.

It is more than bogus, it is complete and utter rubbish. I don't think the guy even has a clue what he is talking about --- but it would be just too tedious to listen to it again to quote examples!

Dr.Bass... How did all that stuff about MP3 come into this at all? Yes, the idea behind lossy compression is that the information removed is not apparent. The idea, in different implementations and at different bitrates is more or less successful. I have never heard it claimed by anyone who has any interest at all in sound quality or fidelity that low-bit-rate mp3 sounds as good as CD. Show me a person who says this, and I'll show you their Rs.50 earphones.

Anyway, it is easy to compare the same music at different bitrates. We all have computers: we can all do it, and. probably, many of us have.

(I seem to remember somebody posting about this, sometime back, attaching spectrum pics showing how they change. That was the last time I did any experiment of my own. Since then ... disk space is ample for FLAC or even WAV, and I convert to MP3 for travel, the portable ...and the Rs.50 earphones :lol

We have drifted from speaker cable, to analogue vs digital --- to lossy compression :sad:

 

[Dr.Bass]

Dr.Bass... How did all that stuff about MP3 come into this at all? Yes, the idea behind lossy compression is that the information removed is not apparent. The idea, in different implementations and at different bitrates is more or less successful. I have never heard it claimed by anyone who has any interest at all in sound quality or fidelity that low-bit-rate mp3 sounds as good as CD. Show me a person who says this, and I'll show you their Rs.50 earphones.

Anyway, it is easy to compare the same music at different bitrates. We all have computers: we can all do it, and. probably, many of us have.

(I seem to remember somebody posting about this, sometime back, attaching spectrum pics showing how they change. That was the last time I did any experiment of my own. Since then ... disk space is ample for FLAC or even WAV, and I convert to MP3 for travel, the portable ...and the Rs.50 earphones :lol

We have drifted from speaker cable, to analogue vs digital --- to lossy compression :sad:

Oh I was just saying that if we dont want to get into real auditioning and just try proving things theoretically then even mp3 advocates have a point to match the CDs. I am yet to see a post in this thread where someone has truly compared (sonically) good digital and good analogue of similar league and preferred digital. What does that indicate ?