"High Definition Vinyl" Coming as Early As Next Year

Delicieuxz said:
There's some weird stuff going on in this thread.

Vinyl is analog, and "lossless". To say that CD, which is 16-bit / 44.1 Khz, sounds better than vinyl, or that it is "HD Vinyl", is arguing that 16-bit 44.1 Khz sounds better than 24-bit / 96 Khz, or any higher digital format.

If any of you worked in music or sound production, you'd surely know that 16-bit / 44.1 Khz is SHIT quality compared to 24-bit / 96 Khz and higher. It's basically like listening to a 128 or 160 kbps MP3 compared to a 256 kpbs MP3, or listening to a 256 or 320 kbps MP3 compared to 16-bit / 44.1 Khz CD audio.


Listen to an album that's available in both CD format, and in 24-bit WAV format, and you'll hear the difference, if you have ears for sound. There is much less clarity in CD format than in 24-bit format, or analog format - despite some reduced min-max dynamic range in vinyl compared to digital. But if you can't tell the difference between 16-bit CD audio and 24-bit audio or analog, then you aren't going to notice the difference in dynamic range, anyway.
Click to expand...

You have far more patience for this never-ending argument than I do. Kudos.
 
Delicieuxz said:
There's some weird stuff going on in this thread.

Vinyl is analog, and "lossless". To say that CD, which is 16-bit / 44.1 Khz, sounds better than vinyl, or that it is "HD Vinyl", is arguing that 16-bit 44.1 Khz sounds better than 24-bit / 96 Khz, or any higher digital format.

If any of you worked in music or sound production, you'd surely know that 16-bit / 44.1 Khz is SHIT quality compared to 24-bit / 96 Khz and higher. It's basically like listening to a 128 kbps MP3 compared to a 256 kpbs MP3, or listening to a 256 kbps MP3 compared to 16-bit / 44.1 Khz CD audio.


Listen to an album that's available in both CD format, and in 24-bit WAV format, and you'll hear the difference, if you have ears for sound. There is much less clarity in CD format than in 24-bit format, or analog format - despite some reduced min-max dynamic range in vinyl compared to digital. But if you can't tell the difference between 16-bit CD audio and 24-bit audio or analog, then you aren't going to notice the difference in dynamic range, anyway. Also, 16-bit / 44.1 Khz CD audio kills dynamics compared to
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of all this, but the basic problem that all vinyl has with no exceptions is that irritating crackle and pop. Sorry I don't consider that an "improvement" any more than I consider the artifacts in cellulose film an improvement to movie watching. Obviously lossless digital is the overwhelmingly best format. I'll still take a CD over vinyl any day because the trade off in quality is worth eliminating that noise.

I've also heard the whole "well you gotta consider pressing and the right turntable and blah blah blah excuse excuse". I've listened to the best pressing on excellent equipment..still sounds like noisy crap. Just more nonsense pushed by tin eared audiophiles who think they can hear a mouse fart 2 miles away in a hurricane. I have an excellent ear for music, I spent years in orchestra and was one of the few who could tune numerous instruments by ear without a tuner and be dead on 95% of the time. It is probably because of this that I find distracting noise so grating.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I'm well aware of all this, but the basic problem that all vinyl has with no exceptions is that irritating crackle and pop. Sorry I don't consider that an "improvement" any more than I consider the artifacts in cellulose film an improvement to movie watching. Obviously lossless digital is the overwhelmingly best format. I'll still take a CD over vinyl any day because the trade off in quality is worth eliminating that noise.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest point that I can sympathize with. Eliminating all the mechanical imperfections in a vinyl setup can be maddening - and sometimes impossible on few albums. Most of my records play dead quiet though - the tradeoff is proper cleaning of the records, cleaning the needle, and eliminating static. If you are willing to put in the time, you can get rid of all unwanted noises. But it's an investment, to be sure. I wouldn't recommend this hobby to anyone who is put off by this.
 
matt167 said:
In the later 1990's CD's got louder, and sound like a muddy mess.. I have a re release of Meat Loaf- Bat Out Of Hell, my dad has an original CD from the later 80's or early 1990's.. Putting those 2 side by side, the older copy is much clearer. We did that test on some older high end equipment that he had. I also have the same album on vinyl since my dad gave it to me and it's also much clearer.

New vinyl is pressed from the same newer muddy loud sounding master.. It's not 'bad', it's ok for car audio or whatever, but put with decent equipment and side by side it's noticeably crap
Click to expand...

I know what you're talking about... in the low-mid 90's there was this effort that "louder is better" and we got a lot of stuff that was over boosted, over EQ'd... made to sound "better" on shitty equipment but sounded like ass on good gear. Super bass boosting etc. I was really into rock and metal when I was younger, and it's very noticable now. Metallica's Justice and the Black album were pretty famous for it's "super shitty bass" EQ sound.
 
I get it, Vinyl is Analog and the sample rate goes to Infinity. But when your S/N is 20 to 25dB higher, you have dust contamination affecting the playback, it doesn't matter. The format is trash. From there, it is subjective and dependent how how good you can hear. You are just sampling at a different digital rate essentially. One of our Proofs that typically showed up on Signals and Systems Class was tests was to calculate that the sampling rate of a real signal needs to be greater than twice the signal bandwidth aka known as "Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem". So for the human ear.. 20kHz. x 2 approx. = 44.1 kHz.

Some people can hear better than that some can't - but that is why the base rate of sampling is 44.1 kHz.

Maybe I have low expectations being from the LP age but I really can't tell the difference beyond cd quality. The quality jump from LP was just amazing. So no, I'm not worried I can't upgrade my Nakamichi DACs from 48k.
Used to use the OPPO 96K DVD DACs but it took a crap. Why use the 96k's? Because they were there. Flip between Nak and Oppo DACs - no difference - TO ME.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I've yet to see a study show better than guessing when it comes to comparing sound. Most studies result with more study needed or something must be wrong with the study that one didn't prevail over two. But in all, it just really seems like human hearing sucks and people don't want to admit it :D.

https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio/analog-vs-digital-results said:
https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio/results.jpg/image
Click to expand...
http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm said:
The results showed:

38 persons participated on this test
14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one
10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one
14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.
Click to expand...
https://archimago.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html?m=1 said:
In a naturalistic survey of 140 respondents using high quality musical samples sourced from high-resolution 24/96 digital audio collected over 2 months, there was no evidence that 24-bit audio could be appreciably differentiated from the same music dithered down to 16-bits using a basic algorithm (Adobe Audition 3, flat triangular dither, 0.5 bits).
Click to expand...
 
None of it matters worth a damn unless you have a mastering engineer who does his fucking job instead of just using max compression.
 
I have a record collection that sits in storage with my turntables. It was cool in highschool (the 90s) to listen to WAR, Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, and other musical icons on vinyl in the basement on our families huge ass stereo, but times changed. Everything I listen to now I download in lossless audio quality and play off a pc or similar digital device. If I want a better experience I invest in better quality speakers (you can blow a ton of money if you're an audiofile) or better cans (also priced to the moon for taste). The absolute last thing I want in my life, is something taking up more space and storage necessity. One thing I would love though, is if more bands started using more positional audio in recordings, to take advantage of increased speaker placements on high end setups. I know it's a niche, but god damn does it sound nice to hear the band playing around you. I have a tendency to dial in to single instruments on repeat listening to analyze the type of equipment being used, the style/technique of the musician, and expression. Anything that delivers that experience in a more palatable way is what I'm most looking for in my experience.

However, don't get me wrong. Nothing will ever compare to the first time I put the needle on Voodoo Child in the basement and heard it in beautiful Stereo sound for the first time. Hearing the screaming guitar shifting virtuously between speakers had more of a wow factor / impact than anything I've ever heard since. Stereo alone gives dramatic presence and range to music, and everything since has just been icing on the cake.
 
Modern Music is just not like Beethoven's 5th - Most of the Artists nowadays don't even know the meaning of "quiet part" et la classical - ppp. Just full blast through the whole deal What's the point? "These amps go to 11". The artist and Engineer prefer Max. So that's what we get. I like the quiet parts, like in "beyond the realms of death". One of my favorites to play, and yes it has a high dynamic quality especially for the Genre.
 
NAXDON said:
Imma whip out my HD glasses while I'm at it.
Click to expand...

It'd be much cooler if you whipped out your Red-Blue cardboard 3-D glasses. ;-)

Oh, and the HD Vinyl guys forgot that if you use a green marker and coat the edge of the record with it, the sound quality goes up exponentially
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/49381-6-green-tweak

I have no doubt that the HD Vinyl process will ensure that the freshly mastered HD Vinyl discs will have much more detail, but if they don't change the actual vinyl that makes up the record, after a few plays, all that extra detail will be worn off by the diamond stylus and it'll sound the same as a normal non-HD record.
.
 
Delicieuxz said:
There's some weird stuff going on in this thread.

Vinyl is analog, and "lossless". To say that CD, which is 16-bit / 44.1 Khz, sounds better than vinyl, or that it is "HD Vinyl", is arguing that 16-bit 44.1 Khz sounds better than 24-bit / 96 Khz, or any higher digital format.
Click to expand...

There is nothing lossless about vinyl. Never has been, never will be. In fact, it is one of the highest loss music distribution mediums out there. And no, both 16b 44.1khz and 24b 96khz sound effectively the same as 16-44 captures both the dynamic range required along with the frequency response required.

About the only analog medium at all comparable to CD is large format reel to reel aka studio audio master tape.
 
Mega6 said:
I get it, Vinyl is Analog and the sample rate goes to Infinity. But when your S/N is 20 to 25dB higher, you have dust contamination affecting the playback, it doesn't matter. The format is trash. From there, it is subjective and dependent how how good you can hear. You are just sampling at a different digital rate essentially. One of our Proofs that typically showed up on Signals and Systems Class was tests was to calculate that the sampling rate of a real signal needs to be greater than twice the signal bandwidth aka known as "Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem". So for the human ear.. 20kHz. x 2 approx. = 44.1 kHz.
Click to expand...

Actually Vinyl has a rather limited effective sample rate due to the mechanical nature.
 
aaronspink said:
There is nothing lossless about vinyl. Never has been, never will be. In fact, it is one of the highest loss music distribution mediums out there. And no, both 16b 44.1khz and 24b 96khz sound effectively the same as 16-44 captures both the dynamic range required along with the frequency response required.

About the only analog medium at all comparable to CD is large format reel to reel aka studio audio master tape.
Click to expand...

There is too much ridiculous in that post. Why not just admit that you don't have honed ears, instead of making stuff up?
 
aaronspink said:
Actually Vinyl has a rather limited effective sample rate due to the mechanical nature.
Click to expand...
As an electrical engineer, I can ignore this due to filtering at multiple points in the system before processing the signal. Unless I am part of the filtering team of course.
 
Delicieuxz said:
There is too much ridiculous in that post. Why not just admit that you don't have honed ears, instead of making stuff up?
Click to expand...

"Honed ears". Lol. If you think vinyl is lossless you understand nothing about actual vinyl, sound, mechanical systems, or physics.

As far as 16-44 vs 24-96, every test shows that people cannot tell the difference and medical research says that besides a few 5 year old outliers, no one can. First, even perfect ears cannot hear much beyond 20khz. No one in junior high or beyond has perfect ears. And 16b resolution is sufficient that we don't have speakers that can reliably reproduce it.

Mega6 said:
As an electrical engineer, I can ignore this due to filtering at multiple points in the system before processing the signal. Unless I am part of the filtering team of course.
Click to expand...

Think of it in the context of film vs digital. While analog technologies in theory have infinite sample rate, the mechanical and chemical properties severely limit this in reality. In the case of vinyl, there are severe restrictions in place on the peaks and valleys of the recordings that if not followed result in hops, cuts, and jumps. This limits the frequency response and hence the effective sample rate of the medium.
 
But you'll still have inner groove distortion, your media degrades with use, and channel imbalances.

If you care about high definition, considering a Chord Mojo and some IEMs from Alclair.
 
Clip clip,
who's there?
Shitty remastered loud noisy audio on your media!
Oh ffs, fuck off, that's why we gave up cd's and mp3's, to go back to properly mastered music.
 
omg, stahp.

In terms of vinyl, HD can only mean mediocre + 30%. Don't forget that vinyl was an industry compromise to appeal to the largest market slice of consumers.

Just because it's analog doesn't mean it is lossless. Vinyl sourced sound is in fact quirky when compared to source media (reel or digital). When pumped through reference-grade equipment those quirky characteristics shine through; and are very charming and satisfying (no hate from me). However, don't take the vinyl discussion into "lossless" territory. It's irrelevant since Vinyl is absolutely incapable of retaining a reference-like source signal even remotely near to that of a proper mix on reel or a 24/96+ digital encoding.

Besides, most albums are cheaply recorded and poorly mastered -- boosted and condensed -- so all this becomes irrelevant... hence those "good enough" industry standard compromises we know so well as vinyl or 16/44.1.
 
Article says the audio source is DIGITALLY converted. So in other words, it's still essentially a digital music format?

Are there even music masters still archived in analog format?
 
Vinyl is an eye-rolling affectation like wearing clear non-prescription glasses.
 
rigurat said:
Article says the audio source is DIGITALLY converted. So in other words, it's still essentially a digital music format?

Are there even music masters still archived in analog format?
Click to expand...
Lots of studios still do archive in multitrack analog, but there isn't much point considering the level digital has achieved at a fraction of the price. And you don't have to worry about losses during post processing since it remains bit-perfect every mixdown.
 
It's all about the mastering, the end.

I actually don't mind vinyl, but what I like it for is old Rhythm & Blues and basically music that was created, and mastered for it.

So much is down to the interpretation of the sound engineer, but the way things are done these days is horrific. Louder sounds 'better', v shaped sound is pleasing to many people. Mastering has reflected that. It's actually weird when you hear neutral playback these days. In the same way vinyl can sound more pleasing to people *because* of it's flaws.

The zealots do make me laugh though, I've got a friend who swears that the device he bought to clean his vinyl is his best ever purchase.

Get a high quality recording for sure but for love of jehovah just put your money into your transducers and be happy. Amps, cables, even playback to a lesser degree, it's mostly bollocks and your preferred coloration after a comparatively low price point.
 
https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

School yourself before you go off the deep end on how horrible the 44.1KHz 16b Redbook standard is.

Used to get those ignorant arguments all the time about the stairstepping, and the only way I could try and refute it was with the math that gave me migraines even back when I was in class. Monty M. does a great job of bringing it down a dozen notches, so when I hear dumbass arguments about digital and Redbook, I just send them a link to Vid #2 here.
 
leezard said:
you kids and your fancy records, 8 track is where its at
Click to expand...
I remember around 20-30 years ago me and my nephew were cleaning out some boxes in storage at my parents house. He came across a box of 8-tracks and asked 'where's the instructions?" I looked at him bewildered, then he said 'you know, how to play, what games are these?". He thought they were some kind of Nintendo at the time. I laughed and felt old at the same time and I was in my early twenties at the time.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Listen to an album that's available in both CD format, and in 24-bit WAV format, and you'll hear the difference, if you have ears for sound. There is much less clarity in CD format than in 24-bit format, or analog format - despite some reduced min-max dynamic range in vinyl compared to digital. But if you can't tell the difference between 16-bit CD audio and 24-bit audio or analog, then you aren't going to notice the difference in dynamic range, anyway.
Click to expand...

In many if not most cases the CD and the hi-res recordings are from different masters so you hear the master and loudness differences of the medias. If there's a 'wow clear as day' difference between a CD and hi-res - you're listening to different masters. Sorry but this is a fact.
 
Sycraft said:
Something to look at to try and avoid that is to see if music you are interested in is available on one of the "HD" music services. Things like HDTracks, some iTunes stuff, DVD-A and so on. The reason is not because you need the extra resolution, you really don't you can't hear the difference, but because they tend to be better mastered since the people who buy that stuff are audio heads. For example the HD version of Daft Punk's Random Access Memories just has amazing mastering and sounds great for it.

No guarantee, of course, they can use too much compression and limiting on 24-bit 96kHz audio just as easy as they can 16-bit 44.1kHz audio, but it seems like there is a better chance that they don't, and they give it a proper mastering job with proper dynamic range. You can also look at the Dynamic Range Database. They measure the dynamic range of albums and publish it on the site. Now you can't take it as gospel because they are overly zealous about dynamic range being the be-all, end-all and plenty of what they consider "bad" can be just fine and they also don't rate the overall mastering quality, which is very important, but you can give it a look. If something has very low numbers, it is likely to be the ear shattering mess you dislike. If the numbers are higher, probably not.
Click to expand...

That's a handy DB. I was expecting better numbers from the Star Wars CDs. They were always my go-to for testing speakers.
 
I grew up around audiophiles. From tube amps/album>reel to reel>dat etc. I got into CD's initially because of portability and really got tired of tape hiss, chewed up/misaligned issues, pop/hums etc. Doesn't mean I could hear their limitiations, then or even now with better compression techniques. I do still, however, have a Technics 1978 quartz direct drive with the original gold stylus/needle and gold contacts on the RCA plugs. Haven't played it in years but happy to still have.

Moving on. I started learning about 10-20 years ago about the advantages of more affordable digital amplifiers/receivers vs. equalizers-noise filters-and god knows all the other post processing equipment I used to use(my friends called it the Christmas tree because of all the leds). These days really happy with our Onkyo and it's 32bit/384hkz chip. Makes Pandora sound great and 24/96 or 24/192 sound amazing. Having said that 'hd albums' are just a bad joke that's totally unnecessary.
 
Tekara said:
Eh, I've yet to see a study show better than guessing when it comes to comparing sound. Most studies result with more study needed or something must be wrong with the study that one didn't prevail over two. But in all, it just really seems like human hearing sucks and people don't want to admit it :D.
Click to expand...

The truth is that the speakers are the true limiting factor in most cases. Many people fine tune their front end and go to insane levels with power conditioners and whatnot and then listen through a pair of racketing tin cans. The media is in reality the least of our problems. Recording, mastering and speaker room are the true limiting factors.
 
How does one go about making vinyl "HD"? Sounds like another gimmick to get people to spend money.
 
SomeoneElse said:
How does one go about making vinyl "HD"? Sounds like another gimmick to get people to spend money.
Click to expand...
Higher dynamic range and s/n through the 30% higher volume (amplitude).
Better materials to create the masters and for the moulds that press the record, and better materials to make the records with.
This will allow finer detail to be captured.

It is another way of getting people to spend money but it might be worth it for high end equipment.
And it should reduce the loudness of crackles/pops because you will be using a lower volume level to get the same spl.
The 30% higher amplitude might trip up some cartridges or pre-amps though.
 
I still have my 1981 Rotel turntable and several hundred albums to play on it. I still occasionally play vinyl records as I really like some of those old albums (which still sound great as I've taken care of them).... BUT it should be noted that I haven't bought any newer music on vinyl since the mid 80s. While some recordings do sound better (to me) on vinyl, most don't. I see no reason to buy cd's of my old albums though as the vinyl still plays great. The convenience of CD's, combined with not having to constantly pamper/clean them, make that format a no brainer for me now.
 
My father-in-law spent his career as an engineer for Thorne/EMI, then owned his own company. The guy's garage, much to the dismay of my mother-in-law, is a veritable audiophile museum. I spent a good part of my last weekend with him digging through boxes at an audio-fest looking for very specific ferrograph parts.

His stance is, in a 1:1 comparison, while vinyl is certainly the better, more natural sounding media, the many other advantages of CDs (and other digital media) far outweighs the fidelity (that some people can't hear anyways).
 
Delicieuxz said:
There's some weird stuff going on in this thread.

Vinyl is analog, and "lossless". To say that CD, which is 16-bit / 44.1 Khz, sounds better than vinyl, or that it is "HD Vinyl", is arguing that 16-bit 44.1 Khz sounds better than 24-bit / 96 Khz, or any higher digital format.

If any of you worked in music or sound production, you'd surely know that 16-bit / 44.1 Khz is SHIT quality compared to 24-bit / 96 Khz and higher. It's basically like listening to a 128 or 160 kbps MP3 compared to a 256 kpbs MP3, or listening to a 256 or 320 kbps MP3 compared to 16-bit / 44.1 Khz CD audio.


Listen to an album that's available in both CD format, and in 24-bit WAV format, and you'll hear the difference, if you have ears for sound. There is much less clarity in CD format than in 24-bit format, or analog format - despite some reduced min-max dynamic range in vinyl compared to digital. But if you can't tell the difference between 16-bit CD audio and 24-bit audio or analog, then you aren't going to notice the difference in dynamic range, anyway.
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with this post. Electrical engineers around the world cringe as they read it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
It's all about your equipment. Compare vinyl to CDs on the absolute best equipment for each, and then you can make a statement about which one has the best potential sound, and even then it'll come down to personal preference.

Thirty years ago, I had the opportunity to compare them side by side because I didn't believe a salesman that vinyl sounded better. He sat me in a room with 6' electrostatic speakers and two 350W Class A amplifiers (Krells), and he set up a $7,000 (in 1988 $s) turntable ($4K of which was for the needle & toner arm) versus a $2,000 CD turntable and a $3,500 DAC, with everything wired with solid silver cabling. He pulled the same recording of Dvořák's Syphony 9 on virgin vinyl and CD, synched them, and switched back & forth and asked me which sounded more appealing to me. I learned two things that day: First, the vinyl sounded better to me. And second, I'll never own a system good enough that will showcase the full potential of vinyl.

Now granted, I don't know fully how technology on both the recording and listening ends have advanced in the last 30 years, but I'd venture to guess they're producing HD vinyl because vinyl can still hold its own if you have the money for it.
 
PhaseII said:
It's all about your equipment. Compare vinyl to CDs on the absolute best equipment for each, and then you can make a statement about which one has the best potential sound, and even then it'll come down to personal preference.

Thirty years ago, I had the opportunity to compare them side by side because I didn't believe a salesman that vinyl sounded better. He sat me in a room with 6' electrostatic speakers and two 350W Class A amplifiers (Krells), and he set up a $7,000 (in 1988 $s) turntable ($4K of which was for the needle & toner arm) versus a $2,000 CD turntable and a $3,500 DAC, with everything wired with solid silver cabling. He pulled the same recording of Dvořák's Syphony 9 on virgin vinyl and CD, synched them, and switched back & forth and asked me which sounded more appealing to me. I learned two things that day: First, the vinyl sounded better to me. And second, I'll never own a system good enough that will showcase the full potential of vinyl.

Now granted, I don't know fully how technology on both the recording and listening ends have advanced in the last 30 years, but I'd venture to guess they're producing HD vinyl because vinyl can still hold its own if you have the money for it.
Click to expand...

If the electrostatics were not active (that is notch corrected for the ESL response curve) then the vinyl with its toned down highs would sound much better with them ;)
 
Mega6 said:
Ok, this retro vinyl crap has gone too far. Records suck compared to CDs. I remember, apparently some people don't or just get a hard on for old archaic crap and can't let go. Oh wait, can't you hear the warmth of the analog sound with a 70 dB noise floor? Scratch, hiss, pop. They are pretty loose and vague on specs.
Click to expand...
The problem is you're assuming what is mastered is what the producer & musician expected it to sound like when played. Those were two different things. What is mastered and how is sounded when played on Most Players is two different things. Good Bands would make sure the master made the album play correctly. So a lot of these masters sound wrong or off when they were digitally re-mastered.
The second problem is when a lot of these were digitally remastered, the producer wanted to get some degree of artistic credit so instead of a faithful reproduction of what was recorded or what was intended on playback, they put their own twist on it and fucked it up.

Long story short, if you want to guarantee the original sound, you need a vinyl player with a vinyl album pressed from an original cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top