Ableton/Final Scratch....

I have no scientific results about the quality of sound.


Simply one day I tried the same tune on serato, vinyl & cd.

With vinyl I had to turn down low freqs

Cant remember exactly what happened with cd, I think it had no Db on it & had a brighter sound.

One thing Im sure, in serato mid & high freqs where muddy.

Ill try it again to give a full review.


...just my ears anyway

this type of test is extremely subjective. do yourself a favor and download some simple ABX software when your ready to compare the 2 next time. the placebo effect in these types of sound quality tests is something you will be amazed at. ABX testing removes the placebo effect and leaves with the real answers when attempting to compare audio sources

list of some ABX software:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ind ... entry74066

Give me your most technical description on why vinyl sounds "better".

The 'richness' in the playback of vinyl is the result of higher order harmonics (a form of distortion, really) added the audio that are not present in the playback of digital media. Most likely, depending on the quality of the converters, most or all of these harmonics are lost when the analog signal is then fed through a digital playback system. This is why audiophiles try to use end-to-end analog equipment for listening. You are not only losing some of your analog waveform during the conversion to digital, but also the higher order haronics that add warmth and richenss to the sound.

sound engineers will argue that the second order of harmonics you speak of are more euphonic than anything and not a accurate reproduction of the original sound. basically just a form of distortion that is pleasing to the ears

the theory behind vinyl sounding better than digital is steeped in the fact that vinyl is basically uncompressed audio (such as a WAV or AIFF file) versus lets say an MP3 which is a form of compressed audio. the waters start getting murky when comparing your higher bit rate (192Kbps>) forms of compressed audio (lossy) to lossless (WAV, AIFF).

Could a panel of pro DJs and industry professionals tell the difference between the different compressed audio formats of mp3, AAC, WMA, and Vorbis? DJmag put five experts to the test through the infamous system at London club Fabric
in short:
only two of the five experts could spot the 320Kbps MP3 vs uncompressed
only one of the five experts could spot the 192Kbps WMA vs uncompressed
finally at 128Kbps we see a consistent audible difference
"After collating the test data, the results are a clear triumph for compressed audio. The experts, who between them have some of the best ears in the business, could not consistently tell the difference between the original and the lossy."

experts have been saying for a long time that the average person cannot tell the difference between even a 192Kbps mp3 and a lossless, or even a 320Kbps file. its really not even disputed in the scientific community. anyone can do a simple double-blind ABX listening test and see for themselves. obviously if your average person cannot differentiate between a lossless form of audio and a mp3 encoded at 192Kbps it doesn't lend much credibility to the vinyl side of the argument

here is a rather informal blind ABX listening test between vinyl and digital
"so it's a failure whatever way we interpret the results"

Richie Hawtin November '07 Mixmag - "The quality of digital is as good if not better than vinyl."

Richie Hawtin November '07 Mixmag - "The quality of digital is as good if not better than vinyl."

Sold!

there we go, 30 pages of the same shit...

[Ryan]

there we go, 30 pages of the same shit...

Actually no, this thread was significantly different this time than any of the other twice-per-year "vinyl vs digital" forum topics. This time people in general are way more open to the new tools than ever before.

experts have been saying for a long time that the average person cannot tell the difference between even a 192Kbps mp3 and a lossless, or even a 320Kbps file.

That is why it is called "Transparent" CD quality audio at even slightly less than 192. It really doesn't matter.

Give me your most technical description on why vinyl sounds "better".

The 'richness' in the playback of vinyl is the result of higher order harmonics (a form of distortion, really) added the audio that are not present in the playback of digital media. Most likely, depending on the quality of the converters, most or all of these harmonics are lost when the analog signal is then fed through a digital playback system. This is why audiophiles try to use end-to-end analog equipment for listening. You are not only losing some of your analog waveform during the conversion to digital, but also the higher order haronics that add warmth and richenss to the sound.

sound engineers will argue that the second order of harmonics you speak of are more euphonic than anything and not a accurate reproduction of the original sound. basically just a form of distortion that is pleasing to the ears

the theory behind vinyl sounding better than digital is steeped in the fact that vinyl is basically uncompressed audio (such as a WAV or AIFF file) versus lets say an MP3 which is a form of compressed audio. the waters start getting murky when comparing your higher bit rate (192Kbps>) forms of compressed audio (lossy) to lossless (WAV, AIFF).

Could a panel of pro DJs and industry professionals tell the difference between the different compressed audio formats of mp3, AAC, WMA, and Vorbis? DJmag put five experts to the test through the infamous system at London club Fabric
in short:
only two of the five experts could spot the 320Kbps MP3 vs uncompressed
only one of the five experts could spot the 192Kbps WMA vs uncompressed
finally at 128Kbps we see a consistent audible difference
"After collating the test data, the results are a clear triumph for compressed audio. The experts, who between them have some of the best ears in the business, could not consistently tell the difference between the original and the lossy."

experts have been saying for a long time that the average person cannot tell the difference between even a 192Kbps mp3 and a lossless, or even a 320Kbps file. its really not even disputed in the scientific community. anyone can do a simple double-blind ABX listening test and see for themselves. obviously if your average person cannot differentiate between a lossless form of audio and a mp3 encoded at 192Kbps it doesn't lend much credibility to the vinyl side of the argument

here is a rather informal blind ABX listening test between vinyl and digital
"so it's a failure whatever way we interpret the results"

Richie Hawtin November '07 Mixmag - "The quality of digital is as good if not better than vinyl."

While I find this test interesting, there is nothing earth shattering here. I'm suspecting I could spot the 128Kbps mp3 out of the three (as the experts did), and likely have little success distinguishing between 192, 320, and perhaps even CD/wav quality. I also suspect this could be variable depending on what is being listened to. Can we try filter sweeps from 1Hz to 20Khz+ to really listen at the audible boundaries?

I've seen Richie's comments on this before as well, and I think much of what he is commenting on is the reliability, durability, and reproducibility of digital audio, vs vinyl which wears and has other factors regarding quality of playback, like cartridges, needles, etc. Don't quote me on that though...

I think the following quote (taken from the first test above) says a lot about digital audio.


But the results probably say more about individual perception then codec technology.

The fact that four out of the five judges thought Vorbis and AAC sounded better than the original WAV at 128Kbps is a curious thing indeed.

It's worth noting lossy's underlying technology is founded on perceptual coding, which is based around a psycho-acoustic model of human hearing.

In plain English, the bits of audio that are messed with in a compressed audio file are based on an opinion of how humans hear, rather than on any fundamental laws of maths or physics.

In the case of MP3, a group of scientists in Germany (The Franhofer Institute) decided amongst themselves what to chuck out and what to keep, so it's probable the sound will be coloured to a degree and therefore may actually sound better than the original to some people.

[Ryan]

I think the following quote (taken from the first test above) says a lot about digital audio.

The fact that four out of the five judges thought Vorbis and AAC sounded better than the original WAV at 128Kbps is a curious thing indeed.

That is indeed pretty funny.

They call that a test? No mention of signal path, relative gain, processing, et cetera? There are a lot of factors that could've skewed the results. Without knowing those details, the results are meaningless.

And if we're going to start quoting DJs to argue analog vs. digital (or uncompressed digital vs. compressed digital), then I offer this comment from Francois K:

No matter what style of music is played, inferior and lossy audio formats contribute to an overall mediocrity and degrade what so many of us have worked so hard to attain, especially when the alternative is readily available, and prevent us from fully enjoying music the way it was meant to be heard by its creators on large sound systems.

I think that those who limit themselves to playing a format that was designed for portability and convenience are breaking a covenant that always existed between performers and their audiences, where the performer is always bringing 110% to the stage, rather than being concerned about saving a few $$ on storage space. Either that or they have no respect for the audience's ears.

source

They call that a test? No mention of signal path, relative gain, processing, et cetera? There are a lot of factors that could've skewed the results. Without knowing those details, the results are meaningless.

it's a DJ Mag article, not Edmund Scientific... they were working with Sanj Bhardwaj, a very respected sound engineer. somehow i think they got it right

And if we're going to start quoting DJs to argue analog vs. digital (or uncompressed digital vs. compressed digital), then I offer this comment from Francois K:

No matter what style of music is played, inferior and lossy audio formats contribute to an overall mediocrity and degrade what so many of us have worked so hard to attain, especially when the alternative is readily available, and prevent us from fully enjoying music the way it was meant to be heard by its creators on large sound systems.

I think that those who limit themselves to playing a format that was designed for portability and convenience are breaking a covenant that always existed between performers and their audiences, where the performer is always bringing 110% to the stage, rather than being concerned about saving a few $$ on storage space. Either that or they have no respect for the audience's ears.

source

Francois would have a point if people would be able to tell the difference. fact is very few people can in even a studio setting can. not to mention a big noisy club

Francois plays at a club called Cielo on Monday. one of the best club sound systems in the world - im sure you've heard... here is what the owner of Cielo had to say on the subject...

"I think MP3 has been very revolutionary. I’m a vinyl enthusiast and collector of vinyl for over 20 years. Nowadays, I’m not going to the record store anymore and I’m downloading all my music online, MP3 format, as long as its 320bps quality, even on Cielo’s sound system, it sounds perfect. We’ve don’t some testing with engineers on Cielo’s sound system between MP3 at 320 and Wave and the engineers couldn’t tell the difference. I’m a big fan and believer in the highest quality of mp3, nothing lower."

http://www.bouncefm.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=50

i guess Francois didn't get the memo...