Live data from Hacker News

A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

washingtonpost.com

101–110 of 367 posts

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#101
post #93
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can tell by listening to the shimmer of a cymbal, or a plucked string fading to silence. I don't think this is true. A long time ago I was involved in the headphone audiophile community and people were always using the shimmer of a cymbal as how they could tell the difference between MP3s and Lossless, Analog vs Digital, CD vs SACD or whatever. Then they'd do a blind test using Foobar2000 and start saying the w…

I'm a recording engineer, and I can tell you that there definitely is such a thing as high quality audio. Certainly there are people who believe in snake oil and like to parade their ignorance as though it were knowledge. But if you bother to study the science of audio, read trade magazines, or hang out with engineers and studio owners, you will find that just quoting frequency range or dynamic range, or even noise f…

The reasons for higher quality audio (24/32-bit data, higher frequency, etc) have value in the mastering process. For recording, yes there is value in it. It gives you freedom to adjust your recording without running out of headroom.

For listening, no. Find me a double-blind test where 16-bit 48 or 44.1 kHz audio compares poorly to 24-bit 192 kHz audio. You won't find it. You'll find PLENTY of people claiming they can tell a difference, but it's just unfounded claims.

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#102

This is so funny. Company touts no digital, then goes on record saying yeah we used digital, completely ruining their reputation. Meanwhile I'm over here still mourning OiNK.

Don't worry, its legacy lives on. Other sites have taken up the mantle (hmu). OiNK is gone, but not forgotten.

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#103
post #2

"The fallout of the MoFi revelation has thrown the audiophile community into something of an existential crisis. The quality of digitized music has long been criticized because of how much data was stripped out of files so MP3s could fit on mobile devices. But these days, with the right equipment, digital recordings can be so good they can fool even the best ears. Many of MoFi’s now-exposed records were on Fremer and…

That whole line of thinking just blows me away. It's possible to accurately sample and reproduce any vinyl recording in the digital realm. It's absolutely not possible to accurately record every digital recording onto vinyl. For instance, it's not hard at all to make bass so loud that it causes the needle to leap out of the track, or treble so high that the needle can't accurately track the high frequency vibrations.…

I absolutely despise most of the vinyl community. Don't get me wrong, I love my records. I have hundreds of them and I play them regularly. For some reason, almost everyone I come by has this delusion that vinyl is objectively better than a good digital recording. Anyone who dissents from that narrative gets gaslit:

"oh what kind of turntable do you have? oh that's not good enough, there's your problem right there."

"what speakers do you have? what about your phono + power amps? oh that's not good enough, there's your problem right there."

"how did you place your speakers? oh, you should have them at 45 degrees, not 60."

"is it a re-pressing? from whom? oh, there's your problem right there."

The end result is a bunch of nerds ruining their credit scores because someone told them they need gold-plated hydraulic bearings in their tonearm to properly listen to their mom's copy of Led Zeppelin IV.

Does it sound different? Yes. Does it sound better? If you're really trying to get the most out of the music itself, no. Warm ⊄ good.

Vinyl is great because you aren't just listening to music. The medium demands something from you. It's tactile. The album artwork is a complete ensemble, rather than a little icon on your phone. In my case, I had to put in effort to restore the equipment I play my records on, so there's a bit of pride in it. It's a more intimate experience.

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That whole line of thinking just blows me away. It's possible to accurately sample and reproduce any vinyl recording in the digital realm. It's absolutely not possible to accurately record every digital recording onto vinyl. For instance, it's not hard at all to make bass so loud that it causes the needle to leap out of the track, or treble so high that the needle can't accurately track the high frequency vibrations.…

> it's not hard at all to make bass so loud that it causes the needle to leap out of the track Reminds me of the LP my band teacher in high school had. It was the 1812 overture, and the groves for the cannon shots at the end were easily distinguishable with just a casual examination. Based on what you're saying, I suspect that recording was pushing the limits of vinyl.

I'm imagining a recording of a nuclear blast with sufficiently deep grooves to accurately reproduce the shock wave.

With the satisfying full warm tone vinyl is known for.

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; it's really fine - same with tube amps etc. It's OK to have a subjective preference for some kinds of distortion. It's not OK to say it's "truer to the original sound", which is where this usually comes off the rails.

Sure, if the artifact you prefer actually exists and you can confirm it in a double blind test.

“I prefer bit of oregano on my pasta.”

“Not without a double-blind test you don't!”

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#106
Nyquist Theorem - learn it, love it, live it. I'm a musician and my mates and I have been going round and round on this issue for years. They swear analog is "warm" and "captures the whole wave." It's all BS. It's always been BS.

What the vinyl lovers never stop to realize is the audio signal has to be modified to record on vinyl - you're not listening to the music as recorded on the master tape, you're listening to an altered copy of it. Why is that? Because of limitations of the playback mechanism - you can't impart too much kinetic energy into the needle. So, the bass gets rolled off, pop filters and transient filters are employed, and high hats get dialed back. All to keep that stupid needle in its groove. Bottom line - the music is altered, the dynamics have been diminished, and it all sounds muddier, i.e. "warm", as a result.

The problem is a couple of generations grew up listening to this and thinking it was what music sounded like. The musicians making the music always complained that it never sounded right, but had to accept the limitations of the playback medium. I grew up in a musical family. All my friends played music. We always knew, and thought everybody else knew, that the music on records didn't sound right, it sounded muddy and compressed.

Then CD Audio came out in the 80's and what a difference! The bass was punchy instead of muddy, the high-hats and riding cymbals rang, the dynamic range was breathtaking and the stereo separation was unreal! I was elated the first time I heard an audio CD.

Then the critics came. It sounds "harsh" or "cold", it lost that "warmth", computers can't capture the actual analog waveform. That's when I began to realize that these audiophiles and critics didn't know what they were talking about. They obviously weren't musicians.

Fast forward 30 years and the only people still debating this topic are the rock & metal guys. The Jazz and Classical musicians quickly recognized the superiority of digital audio. But the masses don't listen to Jazz and Classical music, they listen to rock and metal (and pop - but the pop world doesn't seem to care one way or the other). I don't even know what to say to the rock and metal guys anymore (full disclosure - I'm a guitarist primarily playing rock, metal, prog and folk - they're pretty much all in the same camp on this issue). Rare is the guitarist that isn't using a pedal board. Extremely rare is the guitarist using an all-analog pedal board. Many guitarists are using SS (solid-state) amps now. They're recording into a DAW (digital audio workstation). Then they claim that somehow distributing the end result of vinyl is somehow pure? It's nuts, it's simply nuts. Add to that almost none of us are playing our amps clean and pristine, so what - you think it matters how accurately you capture our harmonic distortion?

Yet I see people lining up paying $40-$50 to get these albums thinking they're getting something different. Which I guess they are, they're getting an altered recording. This only reinforces what I've been saying for decades - vinyl is a scam and these people are laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm hoping now we can finally put this issue to rest and get everyone on board with digital audio. Now if we can talk to the recording engineers about these stupid "loudness wars"...

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#107
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's been many years since I looked at this stuff, but the reason for higher sample rate isn't to do with humans being able to hear over 20khz. If you sample at 44khz you need a high pass filter at 22khz to avoid aliasing. Since that's pretty close to 20khz, it needs a pretty sharp drop off. Having a filter with a sharp drop off can introduce artifacts. With 96khz sampling rate, you don't need as a sharp drop off…

[ EDIT: contents of this post were factually incorrect. What Kazinator wrote in response is correct, and I don't want to leave incorrect ideas floating around. ]

If the goal is audio capture and reproduction, the filter used when sampling at 96 kHz still starts rolling off at around 20 kHz. The wrap-around aliasing artifacts do not begin until around half of 96 kHz, or around 48 kHz. So the filter only has to be steep enough to hit a large attenuation at 48 kHz: full signal to virtually nothing over the space of 28 kHz.

If you're sampling at 48 kHz, the signal has to be severely attenuated already; it has to go from 20 kHz to deep cutoff in just the space of a few kHz.

At 96 kHz can achieve the effect as if you were sampling at 48 kHz, with a steep filter. You sample at 96 kHz with a milder filter, and then purely in the digital realm, you down-sample to 48 kHz. There is an overall filter consisting of the original analog one plus the digital processing.

That is cheaper and more reliable than doing it all in analog.

An analog filter with a steep cut off will be challenging in mass production because of the strict component tolerances.

Sure, you could use a steep filter with 96 kHz also. Say, a steep filter that starts cutting off at 30 kHz. It would still be a less demanding filtering application because of the margin that you have in the frequency domain. The multiple poles of the filter don't have to be lined up as well. E.g. if the first pole starts rolling off at around 30 kHz, and then next ones at 31, and the third one at 28, ... it doesn't matter because you're still hitting the absolute target of there being next to nothing at 48 kHz, and nearly the full signal at 20 kHz.

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nyquist isn't about such assumptions at all. It is an information theoretic value, based on the provable claim that there is zero information present in the original analog waveform that is not represented in the digital version. Yes, your filters, DAC and speaker wire could still create a less than ideal listening situation, but the fundamental aspect of the Nyquist frequency is not concerned with any of that.

There is zero information present in a waveform that is not contained in the digital version, if that original waveform is confined below the Nyquist limit. Either it is that way already, or else is derived from an original-original waveform that isn't, by low-pass filtering.

That's an excellent coda/qualification of what I said. Put into a more listener centric context: there's no audible information in a waveform that is not captured by sampling it at 44.1khz.

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#109
post #45

People who claim CDs have more dynamic range than analog are missing the point. Think of it in terms of graphics. 8 bit graphics can represent totally black, or totally white. That's a complete dynamic range. But it's the in-between shades that require more bits to specify. It's the same with audio. It's not how soft or how loud a recording can get. It's the subtle shades of variation. 16 bits is pretty good, but not…

1 bit color encoding is black and white (represented by 0 or 1). 8 bits can encode 256 colors (2^8).

Re: A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That whole line of thinking just blows me away. It's possible to accurately sample and reproduce any vinyl recording in the digital realm. It's absolutely not possible to accurately record every digital recording onto vinyl. For instance, it's not hard at all to make bass so loud that it causes the needle to leap out of the track, or treble so high that the needle can't accurately track the high frequency vibrations.…

That's the main reason I really like vinyl. Physics prevents the mastering engineers from going overly crazy. Vinyl often sounds more carefully mastered, even though nothing would technically prevent you from releasing the same thing in digital form. The other thing I like is that it really takes more effort to put on a record than start a track on Spotify. I really only do it when I can take the time to do so. Pick…

That's why I like to download vinyl rips.

But some vinyls actually come from a digital master anyway.

Post reply on HN