OT Technical from Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 50th Anniversary Atmos mix in 2023!

[artwwweb]

Mostly incorrect. The RIAA curve is irrelevant to the sound of any CD. The RIAA curve is applied during lacquer cutting, not to a vinyl cutting master. And certainly not to a CD…ever. If the RIAA curve was applied to a CD, it would sound ridiculously thin and tinny.

It is true that some (but not many) early CDs used pre-emphasis (sort of, kind of like RIAA or noise reduction) - which if your player or playback mechanism is unable to read the pre-emphasis flag, it will sound somewhat thin and tinny. But that isn’t near what an unreversed RIAA curve sounds like. And was purely a CD/digital thing regardless.

Sorry, I thought the equalisation was applied to the production master. My mistake.

(The specific example I was thinking of was The Simon & Garfunkel Collection from the early 80s. It was one of the earliest CDs in the UK. I read a couple of times in later years that it had been perceived as having poor sound but that was because it used the vinyl master. I have a feeling that that one does have pre-emphasis which certainly might account for some problems but I think it was mentioned that it was because the sound had been compressed in order to fit a lot of music onto vinyl. So that's what I was remembering: the vinyl mastering making the CD sound bad.)

 

[Sal1950]

The best case analog vinyl might have an edge on dynamic range vs a 16 bit CD for VERY dynamic music. Classical or artsy style mixes.

???
Vinyl records have a typical maximum dynamic range of around 70 dB.
CDs have a typical dynamic range of 90 to 93 dB, though 16-bit digital audio has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB.
Anything less on the CD is due to poor mastering decisions.

 

[jimfisheye]

???
Vinyl records have a typical maximum dynamic range of around 70 dB.
CDs have a typical dynamic range of 90 to 93 dB, though 16-bit digital audio has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB.
Anything less on the CD is due to poor mastering decisions.

The bottom few bits alone are more analogous to the noise floor than part of the usable dynamic range. If we really want to compare dynamic range of the analog system to the digital system, I'll suggest calling the bottom 8 bits the "digital resolution floor". 16 bit offers about 48db usable dynamic range. The boutique vinyl system with 70db can top that.

For contrast, an average DJ turntable setup would be around 30db dynamic range with truncated high frequency response. Some home consumer stuff is significantly worse. Those lowly CDs were a stunning upgrade for a lot of people. Assuming you found CDs that weren't recordings of volume war mastered program! Garbage in, garbage out.

And of course 24 bits gives you 96db dynamic range above a resolution floor of 8 bits. Bulletproof! You could deliver a recording of Shotgun Symphony with real life dynamics.

 

[Sal1950]

The bottom few bits alone are more analogous to the noise floor than part of the usable dynamic range. If we really want to compare dynamic range of the analog system to the digital system, I'll suggest calling the bottom 8 bits the "digital resolution floor". 16 bit offers about 48db usable dynamic range. The boutique vinyl system with 70db can top that.

Call it what you like, but in this case you'd be in error.

 

[jimfisheye]

I’d love to know which ones!

King Crimson - Larks Tongues in Aspic and Yes - The Yes Album
Both Steve Wilson mixes.

Yes, more old stuff! Admittedly material that really lends itself to playing with extreme dynamics too. Especially the KC. (Like obviously I'm not singling out the solo live acoustic guitar piece Clap for the 12 channel system demo!)

I've heard a lot of really great 12 channel mixes now. These two stood out as something that genuinely requires a 12 channel system to listen to and really take things to an extreme level.

I was OK with the Animals remix being a little wonky. It still has some moments. This Dark Side remix only disappoints.

 

[jimfisheye]

Call it what you like, but in this case you'd be in error.

I consider the unclarified 96db dynamic range claim for 16 bit to be apples & oranges to analog numbers. Fair to say unorthodox vs how dynamic range is traditionally noted for digital systems. What I'm trying to say is stating it this way lines it up more with analog systems.

The digital system has a quantized dynamic range down to zero.
Analog goes down to wherever we decide to call the noise floor. I'm saying analog signals next to the noise floor are more resolved than 2 - 4 bit digital. The digital zero doesn't line up with the analog noise floor point. It's down into it a ways.

 

[DuncanS]

Sort of true, but meaningless since it’s all reversed by your phono stage.

Not necessarily, the RIAA compensation assists but doesn't solve all the issues

https://www.furnacemfg.com/vinyl-record-audio-preparation/
For example:

 

[marcb]

Not necessarily, the RIAA compensation assists but doesn't solve all the issues

https://www.furnacemfg.com/vinyl-record-audio-preparation/
For example:

View attachment 101057
View attachment 101058

Yeah, so? Nothing is perfect in sound reproduction. If it was, a $29 phono stage would be the same as $5,000 phono stage, no?

Man, if there was ever a thread where a little knowledge is dangerous, this is exhibit A.

 

[Bill B]

This comment is not directed at anyone but is my observation and opinion when these topics and conversations occur, which is often....

I am beginning to think that no one has the complete knowledge and understanding of this topic (analog vs digital, cd vs vinyl, technical limitations, etc,,).

Every time I read these conversations and think I am getting an understanding someone else says something that contradicts something someone else said. And everyone sounds like they really know what they are talking about.

It's almost like each person is trying to describe a house when they are standing 1 inch away from any point around the house. One person can only see the glass on the window, another can only see a brick, someone else can only see a door knob, another person is looking at a roof shingle.

I assume everyone else knows more about these technical attributes than me. It's fun reading but I'm not sure if I've actually learned anything. LOL

 

[jimfisheye]

A phono cartridge has a lower output than most microphones. It's a tiny signal. That leads to needing an accurately built preamp to keep it linear and avoid noise. That leads to more hand selected parts and hand calibrated. And that's more expensive and why it's accurate (even if not nice) to say cheap versions don't even work. It's kind of stunning that we got vinyl working to the audiophile levels that we did!

 

[Sal1950]

Yeah, so? Nothing is perfect in sound reproduction. If it was, a $29 phono stage would be the same as $5,000 phono stage, no?

True but it's no where's near necessary to spend $5k to get TOTL performance, they are basically a simply engineered device in todays world.
A $350 Cambridge Audio Duo will get you perfect RIAA response, ultra low distortion and noise.
Only thing really much missing is load switching, more critical for MM than MC users.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-audio-duo-phono-stage-review-updated.46659/

 

[jimfisheye]

...

I am beginning to think that no one has the complete knowledge and understanding of this topic (analog vs digital, cd vs vinyl, technical limitations, etc,,).
...

It's a deeper well than first appears. And someone DID hear something!

I'll talk about what I have experience with and mastering is interesting to me. All the different mastered versions of an album that can come about is wild to me. It's intuitive to speculate about the ability of the format to influence the sound of the different mastering. But it's more the hand of the mastering engineer.

Vinyl production involved artful engineering prowess. Even 16 bit CD format sounds right just clicking it on record. A little finesse in the right places and it can sound great. It can sound really poor with the wrong mistakes as well. 24 bit sounds perfect 99.99% of the time no matter what you do.

Were we talking about Dark Side Of The Moon? I tried to set up a volume matched A/B between the MFSL vinyl and the 24/96 bluray when it came out. They sounded eerily the same. The bluray master was maybe just slightly brighter. A lot of modern digital masters sound better than even the MFSL pressings but these matched.

I like the original stereo mix better than this new remix too.

 

[marcb]

A phono cartridge has a lower output than most microphones. It's a tiny signal. That leads to needing an accurately built preamp to keep it linear and avoid noise. That leads to more hand selected parts and hand calibrated. And that's more expensive and why it's accurate (even if not nice) to say cheap versions don't even work. It's kind of stunning that we got vinyl working to the audiophile levels that we did!

Amplifying the signal is only part of what a phono stage does - and arguably the easiest part.

And it’s not a particularly complicated or a difficult to implement the technology within fairly reasonable tolerances. The basic principles date back 100 years. Most people would be - and have been - perfectly satisfied with a fairly rudimentary phono stage. What is hard to do is to get to the Nth degree of precision and musicality - which, even in the best of eqpt, is in the ear of the beholder. And that is a big part of what vinyl lovers either wittingly or unwittingly argue is the difference between vinyl and digital.

 

[Sal1950]

What is hard to do is to get to the Nth degree of precision and musicality - which, even in the best of eqpt, is in the ear of the beholder.

Or imagination of the beholder.

 

[Nyad]

This is turning into a "how long is a piece of string?" question, there are as many variables as answers, and all very subjective. Maths is great but doesn't account for taste. Absolutes are fine but what floats your boat maybe something else altogether. (Like tubes or valves vs JFETS, layers of harmonics etc etc). I like it when I'm listening to the music & forgetting about the format or equipment, and my foot is tapping or I'm lost adrift in a soundscape.

 

[jimfisheye]

Oh, open season to geek out a little more without feeling guilty about too much digression. Nice!

I'm often struck by the juxtaposition. I'm usually not arguing that someone heard something. Just what their conclusion of the cause was.

Many of these formats, including high end vinyl, can hit the 98% perfect mark. Adjust your volume control. Anything you hear is from the mastering or in the mix itself.

The mix moves are everything. Pull the vocal all the way down in a spot. Put reverb on it. Pan the guitar rear left. These are not 1% discussions!

I mean juxtaposition like describing big changes in sound or mix and speculating they came about from a format choice that has been shown to be identical in quality in the past.

Mastering... If some eq or compression move you made changed the mix that much... OK, really crude brutal brick wall compression moves can actually change the sound "that much". It takes someone going 'Hulk smash!' with the controls like that. These formats aren't an issue. CD doesn't squash the sound and turn up the treble. SACD doesn't boost the treble. The recordings put to them had that done upstream.

There sure isn't anything wrong or limiting with Atmos! You have 12 or more full audio channels to deliver a mix in. You can hit absolute perfection now no matter what. The mastering sounds on point for this. I just don't like the new mix. I think the original stereo mix is the most dialed in. The quad (especially side 2) is the best version I've ever heard by a lot.

 

[barfle]

This comment is not directed at anyone but is my observation and opinion when these topics and conversations occur, which is often....

I am beginning to think that no one has the complete knowledge and understanding of this topic (analog vs digital, cd vs vinyl, technical limitations, etc,,).

Every time I read these conversations and think I am getting an understanding someone else says something that contradicts something someone else said. And everyone sounds like they really know what they are talking about.

It's almost like each person is trying to describe a house when they are standing 1 inch away from any point around the house. One person can only see the glass on the window, another can only see a brick, someone else can only see a door knob, another person is looking at a roof shingle.

I assume everyone else knows more about these technical attributes than me. It's fun reading but I'm not sure if I've actually learned anything. LOL

I’m reminded of “discussions” about religion. Lots of noise, not much signal.