2331 replies to this topic

[teddyboy]

Just wondering whether anyone has compared high res with vinyl and what people think.
Apologies if this thread already exists. Please provide a link, if this is so.

[datafone]

Are you asking for personal preferences here?

Just a little hard to link such a thing...

[teddyboy]

Are you asking for personal preferences here?

Just a little hard to link such a thing...

Sorry, I should have been clearer. By "link" I meant "hyperlink" to the appropriate thread.
Yes, I'm just looking for personal preferences. Interested to see if other peoples finding s are similar to my own

[datafone]

OK, I prefer vinyl, but I do use digital for convenience if I'm up and about constantly and not critically listening (getting into the groove).

I don't bother with hi-res though.

No links, just my preference

[teddyboy]

Thanks 'fone.
Wondering of anyone else has any experience they want to share specifically relating to High Res (rather than CD)?
The reason I ask is I have recently got into downloading albums from HD tracks. I was fairly sure that these would sound better, or get close to vinyl. This evening I have been comparing Rumours on High Res compared to the remastered vinyl Rumours (33.3). To my surprise, vinyl still rules the roost to my ears and in my system.
It's no that high res is bad, it's just so different (on this particular recording. I plan to try others)

Edited by teddyboy, 04 November 2011 - 10:00 PM.

[wolster]

I think the Linn experience is educational. They provide both, turntables plus digital streaming of high res. but no CD players.
If you read through the Linn forum you will find that many members have both and enjoy both.

[teddyboy]

many members have both and enjoy both.

Well said. I certainly enjoy both, but I'm amazed at how different they sound

[datafone]

Re:Hi-res

I did do some up-sampling of redbook files to 64bit float/382Hz or what ever the max with Wavelab 6 is, and while many albums showed little or no difference (some sounded worse).

One that did get better and better with higher encoding, and that was Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" this album was very special after re-encoding.

I didn't try Rumors.

I'm not surprised with your findings teddyboy, for myself the vinyl sound has some qualities that are just not apparent with digital of any form, from my experience.

[teddyboy]

Re:Hi-res

I did do some up-sampling of redbook files to 64bit float/382Hz or what ever the max with Wavelab 6 is, and while many albums showed little or no difference (some sounded worse).

One that did get better and better with higher encoding, and that was Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" this album was very special after re-encoding.

I didn't try Rumors.

I'm not surprised with your findings teddyboy, for myself the vinyl sound has some qualities that are just not apparent with digital of any form, from my experience.

Most of the high res files I have downloaded are 24 bit/96 kHz. (I have no idea what that actually means, but thought it might be useful for the purposes of this discussion).
These have been ripped to DVD. MAX was used to convert to Wav.
The DVD has then been played in my PerfectWave transport

[datafone]

I will admit that in 64bit float/384Hz, files were a little on the large size.

A pain for storage even these days.
Yes they were that big

[LogicprObe]

Bah!
I told you not to respond to those emails!

[datafone]

Huh? what emails?

[LogicprObe]

Huh? what emails?

The ones about making things huge...........unbelievably huge............

[datafone]

*snort*

I never answer those after the last.....eer, ummm......email.

[hired goon]

G'day,

Just wondering whether anyone has compared high res with vinyl and what people think.

I've posted this before, but Doug Sax, who has engineered and mastered lots of records including Pink Floyd and direct-to-disc Sheffield Labs LPs, mentioned the following in an interview recently:

Beyond the LP what do you see?
The other thing I hope takes off is high-resolution music on Blu-ray. You can put non-compressed 24-bit/192kHz audio surround or two channel on it, and I’m hoping that’s where it goes. Even though the LP is a technology I’m conversant and feel totally comfortable with, it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP—an artifact from the 1960s. For me, if I could go home and listen to a disc in 192kHz the way I hear it in the studio, you could keep your LPs.

See this interview [warning: link to 25Mb PDF file].

Normally I would not get into vinyl-vs-digital debates but when someone like Doug Sax with 40+ years of vinyl experience starts preferring hi-res digital then I get interested.

--Geoff

[LogicprObe]

Got SACD HG?

[hired goon]

G'day,

Got SACD HG?

Got some hybrid SACDs (and some more on the way) but no way to play the SACD layer, unfortunately. But I'm hoping that one day I will have a decent player, or find a way to rip 'em.

--Geoff

[LogicprObe]

Just get one of these to tide you over.

http://www.sony.com....roduct/BDP-S370

Plays videos as well!

[warrengday]

After hearing classical musicians play and rehearse all morning once, I then went home and listened to vinyl and high res recordings; I find vinyl moves me emotionally almost as much as live and digital sounds more like the instruments do in real life. Thus I prefer vinyl.

One of the reasons I got a Linn DS was to explore high res recordings. For me the best way to describe them is as a completely different source, much closer to vinyl in calibre than CD.

Upsampling a CD to high resolution won't make any difference, it is like taking a 20 megapixel picture of a chess board, you still end up with an 8x8 image. Detail lost is detail lost.

What does 24bit/96kHz mean. The khz is the frequency of the sampling done, how many times a second you take the analogue sound and take a sample at one point in time to be remembered as a part of the digital recording, the higher khz the better. The bit number is how detailed the number is, 16 bit means the voltage is remembered as a number between 0 and 65,000 whereas 24 bit is 50% more detailed, the sound is remembered as a number between 0 and 16,000,000.

[bhobba]

Upsampling a CD to high resolution won't make any difference, it is like taking a 20 megapixel picture of a chess board, you still end up with an 8x8 image. Detail lost is detail lost.

I have compared standard 44.1 to 192 upsampled many times on many DAC's and can hear clear and beneficial differences even between different upsamplers. A guy I know got a hold of some gear that does upsampling to 384 and he thinks it sounds a good deal better again. Chord have investigated this and believe gains can be made upsampling into the MHz region:
http://www.chordelec...-technology.asp

There are technical reasons for this eg in a NOS DAC you are moving digital hash from conversion to way outside the audio band which can cause inter-modulation effects even though you can not hear that high. In DACs that do over-sampling (a non sophisticated form of up-sampling) you get the benefit of the better up-sampling algorithms.

Its not magic or anything like that its just that the technicalities of this are quite subtle which is why IMHO it is wise to base views on listening rather than simplistic technical analysis.

As for High-Res vs Vinyl I have not done that comparison for ages but what people I trust who have done it tell me is - yes Vinyl is better - but not the el cheapo variety - you have to spend a substantial sum - well over $10K - one guy mentioned they did the comparison with a $100K rig. Also I recently had a quick listen to a good vinyl rig about the same price as my DAC (around 4K) and I would say my DAC is better but the sound was different enough for me to also say it is probably a personal preference sort of thing.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 13 November 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[bhobba]

I've posted this before, but Doug Sax, who has engineered and mastered lots of records including Pink Floyd and direct-to-disc Sheffield Labs LPs, mentioned the following in an interview recently:

Beyond the LP what do you see?
The other thing I hope takes off is high-resolution music on Blu-ray. You can put non-compressed 24-bit/192kHz audio surround or two channel on it, and I’m hoping that’s where it goes. Even though the LP is a technology I’m conversant and feel totally comfortable with, it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP—an artifact from the 1960s. For me, if I could go home and listen to a disc in 192kHz the way I hear it in the studio, you could keep your LPs.

See this interview [warning: link to 25Mb PDF file].

Interesting view. I believe the future is very bright for hi res recordings at 386 or even 764 in the 'cloud' via subscription services. Problem is audiophiles are a diminishing minority and it is doubtful anyone will have the financial incentive to bring that about any time soon. You average yobbo on the street cant even hear the difference between high bit rate MP3 and lossless. Actually while I can on my gear it is no give me - on occasion I actually prefer the MP3.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 13 November 2011 - 06:09 PM.

[warrengday]

I have compared standard 44.1 to 192 upsampled many times on many DAC's and can hear clear and beneficial differences even between different upsamplers.

Definitely. My Linn DS has got better over the years as the upsampling algorithms have been refined. However, what I was trying (and previously failing) to get at is that a CD upscaled to higher resolution is only upscaled and sounds smoother - it is not now magically a high res recording, just a better smoother sounding redbook CD.

[bhobba]

Definitely. My Linn DS has got better over the years as the upsampling algorithms have been refined. However, what I was trying (and previously failing) to get at is that a CD upscaled to higher resolution is only upscaled and sounds smoother - it is not now magically a high res recording, just a better smoother sounding redbook CD.

On that basis abso-friggen-lutely.

Thanks
Bill

[Craigandkim]

However, what I was trying (and previously failing) to get at is that a CD upscaled to higher resolution is only upscaled and sounds smoother - it is not now magically a high res recording, just a better smoother sounding redbook CD.

Exactly, up-sampling is not hi-res.....

Hi-res these days is something like a DXD recording...recorded at 32bit/352.8khz for example.

Edited by Craigandkim, 13 November 2011 - 03:05 PM.
bold

[Whatmore]

Just get one of these to tide you over.

http://www.sony.com....roduct/BDP-S370

Plays videos as well!

Where do you put the cassettes in?

[Whatmore]

Thanks 'fone.
Wondering of anyone else has any experience they want to share specifically relating to High Res (rather than CD)?
The reason I ask is I have recently got into downloading albums from HD tracks. I was fairly sure that these would sound better, or get close to vinyl. This evening I have been comparing Rumours on High Res compared to the remastered vinyl Rumours (33.3). To my surprise, vinyl still rules the roost to my ears and in my system.
It's no that high res is bad, it's just so different (on this particular recording. I plan to try others)

Just to be clear, was the High Res also the remastered version?

[soundfan]

As for High-Res vs Vinyl I have not done that comparison for ages but what people I trust who have done it tell me is - yes Vinyl is better - but not the el cheapo variety - you have to spend a substantial sum - well over $10K - one guy mentioned they did the comparison with a $100K rig. Thanks
Bill

Bill, it seems that most of you're posts refer to opinions of other people that you trust. Can't we just have your opinions? Please? Most fplk here tell us what they think, not others.

And as for having to spend 10k up to have a vinyl rig that would compete with or better Hi Res. I say bollocks to that, and think that statement is rather naive.
Admittedly, putting together a decent turntable rig requires a bit more work than plonking money down on a ready to go unit, but I confidently think that a rig at around $1500.00 up if carefully put together would more than compete.
Heck... I'm not into "mine is bigger than yours" type thinking, each and every one of us has opinions that swing one way or another, but feel I can't let comments like the ones you make go unchallenged.

cheers

Chris

[Drizt]

Well recordered / mastered digital (of pretty much any format) over vinyl for me. The vinyl flaws greatly reduce my music enjoyment / immersion. I have heard a great number of high end vinyl set ups but have never walked away feeling the need to get one for myself. Maybe in the future I'll get at TT but it is not high on my list of priorities.

[Drizt]

Thanks for highlighting that quote hg. Very interesting reading.

G'day,



I've posted this before, but Doug Sax, who has engineered and mastered lots of records including Pink Floyd and direct-to-disc Sheffield Labs LPs, mentioned the following in an interview recently:

Beyond the LP what do you see?
The other thing I hope takes off is high-resolution music on Blu-ray. You can put non-compressed 24-bit/192kHz audio surround or two channel on it, and I’m hoping that’s where it goes. Even though the LP is a technology I’m conversant and feel totally comfortable with, it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP—an artifact from the 1960s. For me, if I could go home and listen to a disc in 192kHz the way I hear it in the studio, you could keep your LPs.

See this interview [warning: link to 25Mb PDF file].

Normally I would not get into vinyl-vs-digital debates but when someone like Doug Sax with 40+ years of vinyl experience starts preferring hi-res digital then I get interested.

--Geoff

[LogicprObe]

Where do you put the cassettes in?

I mainly use a USB drive.

[bhobba]

Deleted post

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 13 November 2011 - 06:36 PM.

[LogicprObe]

Where do you put the cassettes in?

Speaking of cassettes...........I use one of these for digital transfers.

http://www.anyware.c...-USBTAPE01.aspx

[:) al]

I dont tend to get my nickers in a knot, or get so polarised in my thinking as some here on formats. Probably because I dont see it as a format thing. but more using a means of replay for the various forms of media have in my collection or available. be it disc (cd/dvd/dvda/sacd/LP), or stored/accessed digitally.

for the forms of media in the kind of music I listen too. theres realistically only two means of hi-res accessible. sacd or dvda. reality is for me is there is more chance I can realistically find something on vinyl than sacd/dvda. DVDa is just bout dead as format, and sacd though wonderfull is mostly back catalog, with very rare new releases in the kind of music that interests me.

so easily won to vinyl on that count even.

as to people arguing on which sounds better. I'd take SACD on convenience (if it is a good recording - as a lot of the releases on that format as supposed hi-res are a little questionable in my opinion). On formats alone I'd take vinyl. not just in use but in sound ...I just love it

[LogicprObe]

Sure vinyl sounds better but I find using it very annoying.

[Drizt]

Sure vinyl sounds better but I find using it very annoying.

This surprises me. If I thought vinyl sounded better I would definitely use it. I greatly prefer the sound quality of digital over TT's which makes the convenience factor (given I'm a streaming fan) a complete bonus.

[LogicprObe]

This surprises me. If I thought vinyl sounded better I would definitely use it. I greatly prefer the sound quality of digital over TT's which makes the convenience factor (given I'm a streaming fan) a complete bonus.

Yeah, well..........if I ever start to doubt it, I just get my original copy of Back in Black out and give it a spin.
(I have a CD remaster that is good too..........but it ain't that good!)

[emesbee]

People keep on making blanket statements about one format sounding better than the other. Surely, it has a lot to do with the particular recording. I have done some subjective comparisons between recordings I have in both CD and LP formats played on my system. In some cases, yes, I thought the vinyl copy sounded better, but in others I much preferred the CD version. In at least one case they sounded equivalent to my ears. In all cases, though, I found that surface noise marred my listening enjoyment with the vinyl copy. Its not that my LPs are especially noisy, but there is always the odd pop or crackle when you least expect it, and that spoils it for me.

[wolster]

"Where do you put the cassettes in?"

They go in sideways, Whatmore. Best to wash them first, even new ones.

[RockandorRoll]

I remember back a couple years ago, before i joined the Dark Side i asked about the snaps crackles and pops. Some smart **** simply said - if you have good quality vinyl you shouldn't have that problem. With that i 100% agree. I expect that if i pay $5 for a Who album from the local garage sale that i will sound **** and look like someone ice skated all over it.With new purcahses i dont have that problem

I dont think we are comparing apples to apples here. A TT will sound different to a High Res track purely because sources generally do sound different to each other. Why wouldnt it? As to which sounds better, well wouldnt that just depend on where you've invested your money and would differ between everyone on here?

[Orpheus]

I use J-River on my laptop into a dCS u-clock, into a dCS Puccini as a DAC. I also listen to SACD through the dCS Puccini.

A very well recorded CD of relatively simple music sounds better than a poorly recorded SACD. In fact, it is hard to criticise it. The computer audio is slightly behind the disc player, and slightly annoying, as I have not set it up perfectly to find things, and there are software glitches.

I also have a Garrard 401, now set up in a thick, slate plinth (thanks, Michael B!), with an SME IV arm and Dynavector Karat 17D3.

The record player on a good recording beats any of the above combinations for micro-dynamics, harmonics, recording of rate of decay. It handles instruments like the piano far better.

I am a late convert to this view, as I have not had a really good, well set-up turntable until now.

The difference is not, IMO, subtle.

The only one drawback is that no vinyl playback system is going to be 100% pitch stable, and this will be apparent to a trained ear from time to time. The Garrard is surprisingly good, given its age, on this measure.

[jaspert]

Hi Cameron,

Time for you to show off your turbtable in " Show us your turntable " thread....

[Orpheus]

Agreed, Jasper, will do.

[Arg]

Just wondering whether anyone has compared high res with vinyl and what people think.
Apologies if this thread already exists. Please provide a link, if this is so.

Hi teddyboy, compared in what manner? If you mean casual listening comparisons then it is largely a case of mind over matter and thus opinions will be all over the shop. Your opinion will just be another dot on the map.

If you mean comparison of analogue output waveforms with the input, then the digital will be screamingly close to the original if you restrict the bandwidth to the audible spectrum. This applies to CD quality digital too. The LP will be not too bad but not in the same league of accuracy.

The topic has definitely been covered on other forums: I would have to search just like you to find links. It is hardly worth the bother because all you find is two camps snarling at one another.

I see you are in the LP camp. A lot of people in the LP camp think the reason they prefer LP is that CD doesn't have high enough bits and/or sampling rate. They hope that when digital audio gets high enough in resolution it will approach or 'even' surpass LP. This is a vast misunderstanding. CD quality audio is already well advanced beyond LP in accurate reproduction of the master signal. The reason a lot of people don't appreciate this in their listening experience is twofold: (1) The studio work and mastering for CD is not often as focused on the audiophile home listening environment as LP, (2) The high priests of audio in either ignorance or malice have promulgated a misinformation campaign against digital and especially CD, which has gotten into audiophiles' heads to the extent that they (we) are not listening in an unbiased manner and it has become a case of mind over matter.

The net result of 1 and 2 has been an unnecessarily difficult passage into audiophiles' homes for CD in particular and digital in general, and the biggest losers have been us.

[Orpheus]

Hi teddyboy, compared in what manner? If you mean casual listening comparisons then it is largely a case of mind over matter and thus opinions will be all over the shop. Your opinion will just be another dot on the map.

If you mean comparison of analogue output waveforms with the input, then the digital will be screamingly close to the original if you restrict the bandwidth to the audible spectrum. This applies to CD quality digital too. The LP will be not too bad but not in the same league of accuracy.

The topic has definitely been covered on other forums: I would have to search just like you to find links. It is hardly worth the bother because all you find is two camps snarling at one another.

I see you are in the LP camp. A lot of people in the LP camp think the reason they prefer LP is that CD doesn't have high enough bits and/or sampling rate. They hope that when digital audio gets high enough in resolution it will approach or 'even' surpass LP. This is a vast misunderstanding. CD quality audio is already well advanced beyond LP in accurate reproduction of the master signal. The reason a lot of people don't appreciate this in their listening experience is twofold: (1) The studio work and mastering for CD is not often as focused on the audiophile home listening environment as LP, (2) The high priests of audio in either ignorance or malice have promulgated a misinformation campaign against digital and especially CD, which has gotten into audiophiles' heads to the extent that they (we) are not listening in an unbiased manner and it has become a case of mind over matter.

The net result of 1 and 2 has been an unnecessarily difficult passage into audiophiles' homes for CD in particular and digital in general, and the biggest losers have been us.

OK, Arg, when you are in Sydney, come and listen to my turntable (see two posts up) and then listen to CDs, SACDs, anything you care to bring. The digital equipment I have, you will see, is well regarded, and very expensive.

I challenge you to use your ears and decide for yourself.

That is what I did. I couldn't give a toss about what is theoretically good and theoretically bad, and I don't really care why records sound better. But there is something that digital is missing, because they do sound better.

I don't know why, but harmonics are a critical part of it.

[LogicprObe]

It's more than harmonics.
Vinyl always sounds more dynamic to me.