5 ms·

What is interesting about this to me is that 99.9% of music mastered and produced in 2021 has a digital step somewhere along the chain i.e. whatever perceived t

by gpcr1949 5y ago

What is interesting about this to me is that 99.9% of music mastered and produced in 2021 has a digital step somewhere along the chain i.e. whatever perceived technical advantage the physical medium has in terms of sound fidelity is actually not really there and in any case limited by digital to analog conversion and vice versa. Vinyl as a music format has certain limitations [0] which will mean that even a perfect digital master may have some problems that need to be addressed to not cause problems when pressing to vinyl. I certainly understand the appeal of a nice physical package, though I project that sometime soon, the humble cdr might make a comeback and satisfy that need too. From my acquaintances involved with releasing stuff on vinyl I know that for a few years there have been huge queues and delays at all common pressing plants, which seems to match with the data reported in the tweet. [0] https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/mastering-for-vinyl-tips-for-digital-mastering-engineers.html https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/mastering-for-vinyl-tips-fo...

LeoPanthera 5y ago
Most professionally recorded music is recorded and mastered at 24-bit resolution, which has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144.49 dB. Fresh virgin vinyl has an SNR of 70 dB, which reduces each time it is played. Even 16-bit audio (96.33 dB) exceeds the SNR of vinyl recording.
- gpcr1949 5y ago
  To be clear, I'm not arguing vinyl is a superior format, personally I strongly believe a humble (and typical) 16bit 44.1 KHz "consumer cd" type ready for delivery digital file is for 99.9% of listener use cases completely fine, and in any case far superior over any practical analog medium including vinyl. This is why I added "perceived" to the supposed technical advantages of vinyl. From the audio quality point of view, to me there is no point to using vinyl even if the chain is fully analog. It's just a funny thought to me that whatever claims of analog superiority (however fake or misguided they may be) are undone anyway by the digital part of the chain.
- zepolen 5y ago
  Vinyl is analog, this means it has infinity SNR, the audio store salesman assured me this before I purchased a $20,000+ pickup. You do not understand music, my hdmi cables cost $1,000, so as you can see, I understand music.
  - dfghjs 5y ago
    ~Gold~ plated HDMI cables?
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      I only accept gold plated optical cables...
      - unfocused 5y ago
        Don’t forget the $10,000 silver power cable! https://liquidsound.ca/product/nordost-valhalla-2-power-cord/ https://liquidsound.ca/product/nordost-valhalla-2-power-cord... Yes, that’s a real product. "Unlike conventional power cables, which have propagation speeds that are less than 50% the speed of light, the Valhalla 2 Reference Power Cord has a speed of 91% the speed of light."
        LeoPanthera 5y ago
        That's nothing compared to the Japanese audiophiles having their own personal power poles installed. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-have-it-all-a-personal-utility-pole-1471189463 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-hav...
        kingcharles 5y ago
        I've always wanted to ask. Wouldn't putting a standard UPS between the outlet and the equipment solve the problem by powering the device from a battery?
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  You see the same stupid "analog is better" shit among photographers, even today. Digital SLRs (even APS-frame-size ones) surpassed the best 35mm film money could buy (retail or even "professional") in the mid 2000's in terms of resolution at a given ISO, dynamic range, and even focus (a digital sensor can be flatter than a piece of film ever could be, thus ensuring consistent focus across the entire film plane.) I'm sure the boys at the CIA and whatnot had much fancier film for their cameras, but even they went digital a long, long time ago. Even back in the mid 2000's retail-available sensors were starting to approach theoretical quantum limits in efficiency of turning photons into a state change on the sensor well they strike. These days some cameras are just stunning with what they can do with the tiniest amount of available light. Digital is cheaper past a fairly low number of photos, has no per-shot expenditure, you can store tens of thousands of photos on something the size of a thumbnail, you get instant review of things like exposure and "did anyone blink", you can instantly back up the photo to multiple sources (most mid to high level digital SLRs have provisions for mirroring photos to a second card), you can do focus stacking and HDR and panoramas so easily many cameras can do it internally, you can instantly transmit the photos around the world as many cameras have wifi built-in and apps for smartphones that work with it, film and print development is slow, cumbersome, very difficult to do consistently and usually involves pretty toxic chemicals and fair amount of dedicated space. And yet there are still assholes, fifteen years after film was eclipsed, who will stroke their goatee and tell you why their Pentax K1000 with insert film you've never heard of is "better." I can make the stuff coming out of my digital camera look just like the shit coming out of their camera, only in a fraction of the time, for less cost.
  - yariik 5y ago
    Go away with your useless new technology and let people (aka "assholes", as you called them) use what they like.
  - david38 5y ago
    Wow. That’s just laughable. There are some benefits to film, but digital can mimic them all. With film you have to think about your pictures a little more because you can shoot 400 shots per role. Trivial to use a tiny memory card. With film, you can put your negatives in a box and never lose them, compared to the hell of always managing digital storage. Surely you can get slides made from digital files. With film, each type has its own characteristics, all of which are copyable in software.
- digitalslr 5y ago
  It's worth noting that these numbers aren't great indicators of sound quality. A 70 dB SNR is perfectly fine for listening to music. Listening and recording environments often have a worse acoustic SNR than that. Instruments are often recorded with converters and digital/analog effects that have a < 100 dB SNR, and they're often further compressed/distorted. Still, I agree that vinyl is nowhere close to ideal in terms of sound quality. I enjoy it in spite of that.
  - TylerE 5y ago
    Yes, it's a garbage number, especially for recreational listening. The typical home will have enough background noise (HVAC, traffic, wind, etc) that the noise floor isn't especially relevant, but things like a rich midrange and good dynamics certainly will be. Also, "degrades on each play" is a real overbid these days. Maybe 50 years ago when people used crappy stylii with non-counterwighted tonearms, that was a problem... but a decent turntable with a good cartridge is quite safe. It would take hundreds of plays for noticeable degredation to occur. I might draw a parallel to home users worrying about SSD write cycles - it's much more of a theoretical issue than a practical one.
    - kalleboo 5y ago
      I mean these days aren't people listening on crappy Crosley record players?
- nikau 5y ago
  And all that goes out the window when the dynamic range compression dial is turned to 11 at the final mastering step.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  With dithering 16-bit improves to 112dB. No golden ear can hear that.
13415 5y ago
I've often heard the claim that these limitations are the reason why some older record sound better than CD. During the loudness wars CDs were so aggressively limited, all while the bass content was driven up, that these would make a needle jump out of the track. A vinyl master requires more subtle preparation, controlled bass and stereo image, less dynamic compression.
- nikau 5y ago
  Bingo - record vinyl onto a CD and then do a double blind test to see which is better and you wont be able to tell. Its the mastering not the medium.
- keeglin 5y ago
  Your first claim I think is better stated that older CDs cut in their time from original sources sound better than similar music with modern processes. For pop, especially. I seek out early 80's - early 90's CD (with sprinklings in pop to the early 00's).

LeoPanthera 5y ago

Most professionally recorded music is recorded and mastered at 24-bit resolution, which has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144.49 dB. Fresh virgin vinyl has an SNR of 70 dB, which reduces each time it is played. Even 16-bit audio (96.33 dB) exceeds the SNR of vinyl recording.

gpcr1949 5y ago
To be clear, I'm not arguing vinyl is a superior format, personally I strongly believe a humble (and typical) 16bit 44.1 KHz "consumer cd" type ready for delivery digital file is for 99.9% of listener use cases completely fine, and in any case far superior over any practical analog medium including vinyl. This is why I added "perceived" to the supposed technical advantages of vinyl. From the audio quality point of view, to me there is no point to using vinyl even if the chain is fully analog. It's just a funny thought to me that whatever claims of analog superiority (however fake or misguided they may be) are undone anyway by the digital part of the chain.
zepolen 5y ago
Vinyl is analog, this means it has infinity SNR, the audio store salesman assured me this before I purchased a $20,000+ pickup. You do not understand music, my hdmi cables cost $1,000, so as you can see, I understand music.
- dfghjs 5y ago
  ~Gold~ plated HDMI cables?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I only accept gold plated optical cables...
    - unfocused 5y ago
      Don’t forget the $10,000 silver power cable! https://liquidsound.ca/product/nordost-valhalla-2-power-cord/ https://liquidsound.ca/product/nordost-valhalla-2-power-cord... Yes, that’s a real product. "Unlike conventional power cables, which have propagation speeds that are less than 50% the speed of light, the Valhalla 2 Reference Power Cord has a speed of 91% the speed of light."
      - LeoPanthera 5y ago
        That's nothing compared to the Japanese audiophiles having their own personal power poles installed. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-have-it-all-a-personal-utility-pole-1471189463 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-hav...
        kingcharles 5y ago
        I've always wanted to ask. Wouldn't putting a standard UPS between the outlet and the equipment solve the problem by powering the device from a battery?
KennyBlanken 5y ago
You see the same stupid "analog is better" shit among photographers, even today. Digital SLRs (even APS-frame-size ones) surpassed the best 35mm film money could buy (retail or even "professional") in the mid 2000's in terms of resolution at a given ISO, dynamic range, and even focus (a digital sensor can be flatter than a piece of film ever could be, thus ensuring consistent focus across the entire film plane.) I'm sure the boys at the CIA and whatnot had much fancier film for their cameras, but even they went digital a long, long time ago. Even back in the mid 2000's retail-available sensors were starting to approach theoretical quantum limits in efficiency of turning photons into a state change on the sensor well they strike. These days some cameras are just stunning with what they can do with the tiniest amount of available light. Digital is cheaper past a fairly low number of photos, has no per-shot expenditure, you can store tens of thousands of photos on something the size of a thumbnail, you get instant review of things like exposure and "did anyone blink", you can instantly back up the photo to multiple sources (most mid to high level digital SLRs have provisions for mirroring photos to a second card), you can do focus stacking and HDR and panoramas so easily many cameras can do it internally, you can instantly transmit the photos around the world as many cameras have wifi built-in and apps for smartphones that work with it, film and print development is slow, cumbersome, very difficult to do consistently and usually involves pretty toxic chemicals and fair amount of dedicated space. And yet there are still assholes, fifteen years after film was eclipsed, who will stroke their goatee and tell you why their Pentax K1000 with insert film you've never heard of is "better." I can make the stuff coming out of my digital camera look just like the shit coming out of their camera, only in a fraction of the time, for less cost.
- yariik 5y ago
  Go away with your useless new technology and let people (aka "assholes", as you called them) use what they like.
- david38 5y ago
  Wow. That’s just laughable. There are some benefits to film, but digital can mimic them all. With film you have to think about your pictures a little more because you can shoot 400 shots per role. Trivial to use a tiny memory card. With film, you can put your negatives in a box and never lose them, compared to the hell of always managing digital storage. Surely you can get slides made from digital files. With film, each type has its own characteristics, all of which are copyable in software.
digitalslr 5y ago
It's worth noting that these numbers aren't great indicators of sound quality. A 70 dB SNR is perfectly fine for listening to music. Listening and recording environments often have a worse acoustic SNR than that. Instruments are often recorded with converters and digital/analog effects that have a < 100 dB SNR, and they're often further compressed/distorted. Still, I agree that vinyl is nowhere close to ideal in terms of sound quality. I enjoy it in spite of that.
- TylerE 5y ago
  Yes, it's a garbage number, especially for recreational listening. The typical home will have enough background noise (HVAC, traffic, wind, etc) that the noise floor isn't especially relevant, but things like a rich midrange and good dynamics certainly will be. Also, "degrades on each play" is a real overbid these days. Maybe 50 years ago when people used crappy stylii with non-counterwighted tonearms, that was a problem... but a decent turntable with a good cartridge is quite safe. It would take hundreds of plays for noticeable degredation to occur. I might draw a parallel to home users worrying about SSD write cycles - it's much more of a theoretical issue than a practical one.
  - kalleboo 5y ago
    I mean these days aren't people listening on crappy Crosley record players?
nikau 5y ago
And all that goes out the window when the dynamic range compression dial is turned to 11 at the final mastering step.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
With dithering 16-bit improves to 112dB. No golden ear can hear that.

13415 5y ago

I've often heard the claim that these limitations are the reason why some older record sound better than CD. During the loudness wars CDs were so aggressively limited, all while the bass content was driven up, that these would make a needle jump out of the track. A vinyl master requires more subtle preparation, controlled bass and stereo image, less dynamic compression.

nikau 5y ago
Bingo - record vinyl onto a CD and then do a double blind test to see which is better and you wont be able to tell. Its the mastering not the medium.
keeglin 5y ago
Your first claim I think is better stated that older CDs cut in their time from original sources sound better than similar music with modern processes. For pop, especially. I seek out early 80's - early 90's CD (with sprinklings in pop to the early 00's).