• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008 edited
    Just because the subject matter is too interesting and lots of points were made that would be a shame if they eventually got lost into the Hans Zimmer thread and just because the subject matter is TOO GOOD for the Zimmer thread ( wink ) here's a summary of the most basic points of the thread.

    Please feel free to ask and continue in the same vein, if interested!


    Cheers!

    ---------

    Timmer wrote
    Martijn wrote
    I've read about this new fad of starting to release vinyl again.
    Anyone any background on why that is?

    Don't get me wrong, I love vinyl, but I can't see much point in it?


    With the right equipment IT SOUNDS BETTER!


    * Timmer explained he was playing Devil's advocate and that is not his own personal opinion wink

    Christodoulides wrote
    Indeed.

    IT doesn't sound better. It's all in your mind.

    No ear can tell the difference between a clean (i.e. without scratching) LP and a CD of the same material without pre-knowing which one is which('cause that alters your perception the way you want it to be; it's psychoacoustics, it's everywhere, it's the new hot topic in the music / academic - acoustics fields, research and industry) it's what my bachelor thesis is about (not lp vs cds, but perception of music in general and stereophony vs surround vs 3dsound).

    Reason? Very simple. There's NO difference to be heard for the human ear as both are UNCOMPRESSED sound formats, only difference being CDs tick at a two-channel 16-bit PCM encoding at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate per channel while LP's are completely raw. No ear can tell the difference 'cause both are UNCOMPRESSED.

    And to avoid any possible confusion, LP vs CD is nothing like audio cd versus mp3 or any other compressed audio techniques and if anyone wants me to explain that, i would be very glad to.


    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Demetris, perhaps you can tell me whether or not this is true: I've always thought that the trjth behind this stubborn urban legend was that in the very early days of CD, the recording actually *was* clipped (not compressed, mind, but actually clipped) at a certain amount of hertz at the top and the bottom for space purposes.

    Now obviously while this wasn't audible, there isa certain resonance in non-clipped audio that affects the bone structure to vibrate sympathetically (especially when using cans). This resulted in many finer-attuned people to complain of the "cold" sound of CDs.

    However this clipping has been abandoned very early.
    The legend remains though.

    This is how it was explained to me by a friend in the music/recording business, but I've never found anything yet in literature to confirm or disprove that.

    Any thoughts on that?


    It's never been proved, just a myth like the myriads of others humans like to spread.

    Here's how it goes:

    Supposedly, LP's (because they were direct 'scratchings' / markings of the actual sound waves on the vinyl's surface which were later reproduced exactly by the needle (head) in an analog way instead of the binary digital form of the audio cd and the reproduction by laser beam in digital instead of analog) could descend a bit below the lower minimum auditory limit of the 20 hz for the human hearing * (the lower limit varies between human being though, some (very, very few though) descend to 16 or even 10 hz but nothing's actually 'heard' below 20hz, you just MAY feel it, never hear it) and that, while not audible it is said to have attributed the particular "warmth" and "depth" to sound which LP lovers accuse CDs to lack.

    Now, lower frequency ranges in the sound are indeed partly - but not solely - responsible for the warmth and depth of a sound (whilst high ones are responsible for clarity) but the whole thing is nothing but a myth, for 3 main reasons:

    1) Nobody got into the laboratory / studio and actually had his hearing frequency scientifically measured.
    2) People who carry these claims always know in advance what they are listening to and that filters their perception tremendously (see below for more)
    3) As psychoacoustics and academics of sound / sound engineers will tell you, the whole theme it's subjective up to a very large degree as our hearing system which functions on sensations and not clear-cut events, is possibly the most advanced and deeply complex thing we have in our bodies and it has - and never will - never functioned in the simple way the LP lovers put it to be, i.e. IT IS THAT AND NOT THIS. It takes experiments and researches you'd never thought possible and still, nobody would ever be sure, at least with today's scientific standards.

    It's SO VERY complex. To put it very roughly for everyone to understand - you only need to take into account that sound waves (ups and downs of air pressure) enter your ear, are filtered and amplified via the movement of 3 inter-connected bones which form a marvellously functioning, united system and which themselves vibrate the ear drum which then passes them to the cochlea and the sound nerves which transform mechanical energy to electrical (electrical signals) which are - and this is where things get very complicated - passed to the brain as electrical signals and as such the auditory events are analyzed and rendered as acoustical / musical sensations. That's what Psychoacoustics study, an area which is very premature and preliminary itself and i think you realize now that listening to stuff in your very own house to stuff you control and you know about in advance (something which - as i told you before - is very crucial as to how unbiased and 'real' your acoustical perception is, and that is proven) and actually CLAIMING that you KNOW what you're listening to, is - at least - ridiculous.

    You'd never believe (and believe me, I've been there) what specially designed audio experiments on perception in a sterile environments (specially formed studios) in situations TOTALLY UNCONTROLLED by you would do to your standards on what you thought you were listening to all this time, up to that point. You'll be shocked, amazed and never listen in the same way you did before;

    Or at least never claim you actually know exactly how you listen, even again wink

    Here's a paragraph from a Time's article i always held dear to my beliefs wink



    "Every advance in recording has been accompanied by the cries of those whom technology has left behind. In 1949 a British critic complained, "I ask readers if they want to feel that their collections of records are obsolete, if they really want to spend money on buying discs that will save them the trouble of getting up to change them, and if they really want to wait years for a repertory as good as what is now available to them." He was defending 78s against the encroachments of the new long-playing records in much the same terms that LP defenders cast their arguments today. And no doubt there were those who bemoaned the loss of their Edison cylinders when shellac came in."

    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    D., am I correct in deducing then that the whole bone resonance story is a myth as well?
    At least I can imagine that, even though there might be a measurable frequency at which bone startes to resonate, this too would be completely dependent on other factors like -to keep to the human biology alone for the moment- thickness of the skull, blood pressure, cavities, et cetera?

    If so, it obviously doesn't matter what frequency at what time was clipped to whatever level, as it would be experienced subjectively and differently every single time.

    If NOT though, I 'd still like to find out if there was at one point a time where music for CD was *indeed* clipped.

    Even though you go to great and coherent lengths at explaining the subjectivity of the whole experience (and you're quite right too, and thanks for taking the effort to explain it so fully), I still am looking for any kind of objective data that might be used to convince the non-believers.


    Martijn wrote
    BINGO!

    Combining a couple of articles I managed to find (with some difficulty! It's like nobody ever thought about this issue in other terms than personal preferences! slant ) :



    In the beginning of digital media compact discs were often perceived as "thin"-sounding, with sharp—distorting sounds on the high end.

    There are two explanations for this:
    1) in the early daysrecord companies issued CDs produced from master recordings that were compressed and equalized for vinyl.
    2) early consumer compact disc players may have contained 14-bit digital-to-analog converters, instead of the correct 16-bit type, as a cost-cutting measure.
    Some players were even only linear to 10 or 12 bits.
    Modern anti-aliasing filters and oversampling systems used in digital recordings have reduced both these problems.

    Like Demetris eloquently stated, differences between digital and analogue audio are generally inaudible to normal human hearing, and the lack of clicks, hiss and pops from analog recordings greatly improved sound fidelity.

    The "warmer" sound of analog records is generally believed on both sides of the argument to be an artifact of harmonic distortion*) and signal compression**). This phenomenon of a preference for the sound of a beloved lower-fidelity technology is not new; a 1963 review of RCA Dynagroove recordings notes that "some listeners object to the ultra-smooth sound as ... sterile ... such distortion-forming sounds as those produced by loud brasses are eliminated at the expense of fidelity. They prefer for a climactic fortissimo to blast their machines ..."

    The theory that vinyl records can audibly represent lower frequencies that compact discs cannot (making the recording sound "warmer") is largely a myth.
    According to Red Book specifications, a CD has a frequency response of 20 Hz to 22.05 kHz, while our hearing is sensitive to frequencies from 20 Hz to a maximum of around 20,000 Hz.

    This means that any frequencies that a vinyl record can represent that a compact disc cannot would be *inaudible* and thus completely subliminal.

    However,the lower frequency limit of human hearing can vary per person, and interference caused by sound in the lower inaudible spectrum can still influence audible sound (the already discussed sympathetic vibration of, for instance, bone). So it's possible that low frequency sources from an LP could affect audible frequency ranges!

    *) Spurious harmonics produced by the sound system or the medium itself. Usually not quite as objectionable as intermodulation distortion because harmonics occur naturally in music. Even though good amplicfiers and speakers will minimize this type of distortion, apparently LPs are more prone to this particular type of distortion then CDs.

    **) Compression of the dynamic range. The dynamic range is the difference between the lowest and highest perceivable non-distorted sound. CDs have a greater dynamic range, so should sound cleaner...or, as some would put it, more sterile. With LPs, a really good mastering engineer, whose job it was actually to cut the master disk, would develop a reputation for the ability to take a master tape and translate that into the best compromise the physics of an LP would permit. Sometimes that would mean using a "compressor" to reduce the dynamic range, bringing down the loudest peaks and raising the volume of softer passages.


    Anthony wrote
    I guess it's a similar case of when you hear something live as well. There's that ''sonic rumble'' you get which can never be picked up on a recording.


    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn,

    Yeap, i.e. what i told you before smile It was the transition from one format to another that created some initially dodgy CDs, not the medium as a fully developed whole, as we have it today.


    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn wrote
    D., am I correct in deducing then that the whole bone resonance story is a myth as well?
    At least I can imagine that, even though there might be a measurable frequency at which bone starts to resonate, this too would be completely dependent on other factors like -to keep to the human biology alone for the moment- thickness of the skull, blood pressure, cavities, et cetera?

    If so, it obviously doesn't matter what frequency at what time was clipped to whatever level, as it would be experienced subjectively and differently every single time.

    If NOT though, I 'd still like to find out if there was at one point a time where music for CD was *indeed* clipped.

    Even though you go to great and coherent lengths at explaining the subjectivity of the whole experience (and you're quite right too, and thanks for taking the effort to explain it so fully), I still am looking for any kind of objective data that might be used to convince the non-believers.


    Yes, yes and yes.

    Every material (including human tissues, bones, muscles and everything) have a basic frequency that when matched by a vibrating sound of the same basic frequency, the amplitude of the oscillation of the material (in this case ,the bones) is at maximum. Think of a plane passing very close over your house, the windows' grinding is due to resonance between the very low (and loud) frequencies of the plane's engines and your windows' basic frequencies.

    Now, when put into a human being, just because our body is SO heavily complex and with SO many different materials (tissues, liquids of all kinds, blood, bones, everything) i think everybody understands how all those basic frequencies of the different materials are interweaved into a mixup soup since we have more than one material and most importantly - as everything touches and influences each other and also blood and liquid passes through them further changing and mixing the acoustics of the body. To find basic frequencies to which certain bones resonate, is beyond logical levels.

    And even if they did, you wouldn't even feel them at the sound levels music is being reproduced at home.


    Now, if you go into a club and have your stomach and bowels resonating and co-oscillating for 2 hours with the tremendous amounts of deep loud bass, now THAT IS RESONATING YOU CAN FEEL AND TELL and which eventually make you either deaf or sick or both and comparing that 60-80 dB of pure bass that shakes your whole system with the incomparably smaller sound levels - 99% not even discernible dB that MIGHT be there in SOME LP recordings that the human ear won't even hear or be able to discern due to its structural limits, yes, that's subject for stubborn tech-haters with too much time on their hands.

    If only they devoted that time to actually study acoustics, psychoacoustics and how we hear.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
    Nice one!
    I'd even make this a sticky as I can see us referring to this well into the future!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2008
    As well as I can possibly remember I think that some of the original mono Mercury Living Presence recordings were some of the finest I've ever heard. Now keep in mind my Dad had an old Heathkit tube amp and we listened on a single 5 way speaker system which had paper cones. I don't think the frequency was 20-20000 either, more like 30-14000 so the speaker enhanced the midrange/tweeter area over the woofer range. From what I understand and you experts can properly fill me in if I'm wrong, they were recorded with a single mike.
    Tom
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorNautilus
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2008
    MP3 rules! beer
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2008
    Nautilus wrote
    MP3 rules! beer


    Actually, AAC is better. wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemonStar
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2008
    Nautilus wrote
    MP3 rules! beer


    ...only on the MP3 player wink For archival, I only use lossless formats like APE or FLAC.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbartley
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2008
    Well, nothing beats a live preformance. At least, in my opinion.
    wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2008
    bartley wrote
    Well, nothing beats a live preformance. At least, in my opinion.
    wink


    Conducting your own piece of music with a full orchestra has to be one of the greatest feelings on the planet. I would love to do it one day, but I can almost garentuee it will never happen.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbartley
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2008
    Steven wrote
    bartley wrote
    Well, nothing beats a live preformance. At least, in my opinion.
    wink


    Conducting your own piece of music with a full orchestra has to be one of the greatest feelings on the planet. I would love to do it one day, but I can almost garentuee it will never happen.


    Exactly. Premieres are especially excellent.
    Why don't you think you'll be able to do it? Yeah, it's tough, but I am sure you could do such a thing, given the right time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemonStar
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2008
    Steven wrote
    bartley wrote
    Well, nothing beats a live preformance. At least, in my opinion.
    wink


    Conducting your own piece of music with a full orchestra has to be one of the greatest feelings on the planet. I would love to do it one day, but I can almost garentuee it will never happen.


    Agreed. Hundred. Percent! beer

    I've even composed a few pieces and recorded them on FL Studio, and wish if I'll ever get a chance to hear them played live. You never know anyway wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2008
    smile If I can read between the lines a bit I see a lot of generation going on!

    Tom
    listen to more classical music!
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2008
    Steven wrote
    bartley wrote
    Well, nothing beats a live preformance. At least, in my opinion.
    wink


    Conducting your own piece of music with a full orchestra has to be one of the greatest feelings on the planet. I would love to do it one day, but I can almost garentuee it will never happen.



    Pretty pale compared with being some "axe" weilding rock idol with tens of thousands of fans screaming for you!
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2008 edited
    Tim "i listen to film music but i'd SO prefer if that was Rock and i had a thousand groupies instead" Timmer biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2008
    Christodoulides wrote
    Tim "i listen to film music but i'd SO prefer if that was Rock and i had a thousand groupies instead" Timmer biggrin



    biggrin punk cheesy
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2008 edited
    Here's a quote from GROVE MUSIC ONLINE http://www.grovemusic.com (one of the 2 most trusted academic authorities when it comes to everything music along with jstor.com, both members-only) on the subject matter of LPs VS CDs that i also implemented in my bachelor thesis in the first chapter (Brief History of Recordings) and that should shut a few LP-lovers / CD-haters mouths wink


    "In the early 1980s a medium based entirely on digital recording and playback technology *(including the Long-Playing Vinyl Discs)* – the compact disc – was introduced. The fidelity of discs recorded by analogue methods is affected by the inability of the medium to reproduce the sound signal in its entirety with sufficient accuracy at the extremes of the frequency range, and by the surface noise produced in playback by the physical contact between the stylus and the disc. Digital methods of recording and playback aimed to solve both these difficulties. A digital recorder “samples” the sound signal 44,100 times per second, and assigns each sample a binary number, thus creating multimillion-character streams of numbers. This digital representation of the sound is encoded by a process known as pulse-code manipulation (PCM) and recorded optically as a sequence of microscopic pits in the surface of a plastic disc (approximately eight billion pits are needed to record the hour or so of music that can be carried by the 4¾-inch disc). The stored signal never loses its original quality and can be copied many times with no audible change. A small semiconductor laser is used to play back the recording from the disc so that there is no loss of definition in the sound and no surface noise;"


    * added be me to let you know what the extract is talking about 'cause it's a part of a larger text.


    I leave the comments to you.


    And a bit of sneak-peak on the future, ladies and gents wink



    "In 1999 two new formats emerged, both endeavoring to supplant the CD and thus generate another boom in sales. Following on the success of the digital video disc (which aimed to supersede home videotape), DVD audio utilizes the technology of compact discs, including the same maximum playing time, but offers a sampling rate as high as 192,000 times per second and the capacity for disseminating a six-channel signal (“surround sound”). Its competitor, Super Audio CD, utilizes a faster and simplified type of sampling which more closely approximates an analogue soundwave, and offers a playing time of up to 110 minutes; early models produced stereophonic, not multi-channel sound."
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2008
    I have a hard time taking comments like "the success of the digital video disc" seriously...
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2008 edited
    You mean the success of the DVD? confused
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2008
    Hmmm, there may be some confusion: DVD as far as I know means Digital Versatile Disk.
    What I gathered was meant by Digital Video Disk was Laser Disks...but I'm not sure if that was a digital medium at all now.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2008
    No, they mean the DVD which is also known as "Digital Versatile Disc" or "Digital Video Disc".
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2008
    Ah. OK, my bad. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2008
    Milan is still going forward with the vinyl albiet the first batch was defective. I received a second set in the mail last week and am looking forward to a nice listen/evaluation.
    Tom smile
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008
    The Dark Knight [Vinyl] [SOUNDTRACK]

    http://www.amazon.com/Knight-Vinyl-Zimm … mp;s=music


    shocked
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008
    Christodoulides wrote
    The Dark Knight [Vinyl] [SOUNDTRACK]

    http://www.amazon.com/Knight-Vinyl-Zimm … mp;s=music


    shocked


    Did you not know that special edition vinyl was available for many new releases?

    Wake up D, this is the 21st Century wink
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008
    Tempting if just for the artwork, I could put it up in my new flat in September. cool (Last time I tried to bid on a vinyl on eBay was when that bastard Anthony outbid me and he ended up getting the Raiders vinyl. I hate him, I really do. angry )
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008
    Steven wrote
    Tempting if just for the artwork, I could put it up in my new flat in September. cool (Last time I tried to bid on a vinyl on eBay was when that bastard Anthony outbid me and he ended up getting the Raiders vinyl. I hate him, I really do. angry )


    I have it!

    How much do you want it is the question? wink
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008
    Quite a lot. Have I got enough money is another question. So many debts and bills and whatnot to be payed. sad
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008
    Steven wrote
    Quite a lot. Have I got enough money is another question. So many debts and bills and whatnot to be payed. sad


    It's the original I bought way back in 1982, as it's going to a good home it's yours for free.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008 edited
    Steven, I know of a place that has the vinyl Raiders for sale for 12 pounds.
    Is that reasonable enough?
    (It IS second-hand, obviously)
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2008
    Oh.
    Timmer's offer is BY FAR more reasonable than the one I found. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn