Live data from Hacker News

A Phoenix record store owner set the audiophile world on fire

washingtonpost.com

141–150 of 367 posts

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

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[ 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 sever…

You're right, and I'm wrong.

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

#142
post #130
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time people will argue that vinyl has "warmth" and this makes it subjectively better. This is true, but it's actually because of the pleasing distortion record players add to the music. Being distortion, even if it improves your listening experience (and this depends on genre, though it generally does), it is certainly objectively worse in terms of accurate reproduction.

YES! The article says this: > But a few specialty houses (...) have long advocated for the warmth of analog. “Not that you can’t make good records with digital, but it just isn’t as natural as when you use the original tape,” says Bernie Grundman which is absurd. "Warmth" is a kind of distortion, and if a signal is distorted then it's less accurate or "natural"! They can't claim "fidelity" and "warmth" at the same ti…

But if analog is what you knew, that wasn't "distortion". That was "natural", because it was what you grew up with. That was the way things were supposed to be.

So "fidelity" means "fidelity to the way I remember" (and like).

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

#143
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nothing has ever been recorded and released using only DSD. Why not? Most fundamentally because you can't edit DSD data, it has to be converted to PCM format first. This means it can only be used for live takes, with nothing done except topping & tailing the recording. There are are few "ultra-audiophile" recordings that have been made this way, but so few of them that the question of whether it's better or au…

> Almost nothing has ever been recorded and released using only DSD. I don’t understand; I was talking about an album without DSD. Why are you referring to albums produced with only DSD?

My point was tha an album with DSD (only) is so rare that asking about a comparison to album without DSD is a little strange. Almost all albums are produced with digital technology that is not DSD, even the ones that include DSD.

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

#144
post #47
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On recording, you cut the bass and jack up the treble. On playback, you boost the bass and reduce the treble. Sounds like if you combine the two steps you end up with the identity operator :)

That’s the point!

Parent was trying to show that

> It's absolutely not possible to accurately record every digital recording onto vinyl.

Outlining an idempotent process of recording and playback does not help there.

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

#145

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.…

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."…

Is this not the experience in every human community?

For the record, I like your approach to music enjoyment.

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

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The encoders of today create really good mp3 even at 192kbps (at 128kbps not so much which is a shame as a lot of internet radios use that). Do you have a favorite rock track we can do an ABX test with?

Not the person you replied to, but Hotel California’s Hell Freezes Over version is generally very well regarded in mastering. If I’m not mistaken one of those A/B/X test websites also tested that, and while I was using a very simple pair of headphones, the difference was noticeable.

Why not.

https://abx.funkybits.fr/test/the-eagles-hell-freezes-over-h...

(obviously there's a bug on the tracks display after round 1)

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

#147
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory. In practice, if I give you a random analog box, transforming it into an accurate DSP algorithm it's an extremely difficult problem. Which is why people instead of doing that, they recreate the "idea" (reverb, delay, ...) digitally, but it's not a copy.

Although for some reasons 2021 was a great year for distortion/saturation plugins.

Any recommendations?

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

#148

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.

You're not wrong in the general "audiophile" world where fools and their money are parted over snake oil magical cables claiming benefits only those with the most golden of ears can enjoy.

Where you're getting pushback is that this thread is talking about vinyl records and tube amps, things where the noise and distortions introduced by their operation are well known, well documented, audible to anyone with normally functional ears, and regularly utilized artistically. These are not the inventions of grifters with a product to sell, it's just an older technology that is less precise in a certain predictable way which some people find pleasant.

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

#149
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the point!

Parent was trying to show that > It's absolutely not possible to accurately record every digital recording onto vinyl. Outlining an idempotent process of recording and playback does not help there.

If they were idempotent, yes. But they're not. Analog processing can't be perfect, and amplification is an inherently noisy process. The RIAA curve first cuts the signal on the bass end of the spectrum, throwing away information in the process (because vinyl doesn't have infinite resolution). Then it amplifies that degraded signal.

You can simulate this pretty well with computer speakers. Turn down your audio outputs so that it's barely audible, then turn up the speakers as load as they'll go. Noisy, isn't it? In theory that should be the same as turning the outputs to their maximum clean level and turning your speakers way down, but in practice it's absolutely not. Well, every vinyl record made does exactly that to the bass.

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

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only can you not tell the difference between analogue and digital, you also cannot tell the difference between lossless and properly transcoded MP3. Most audiophile mania is poorly informed at best and astrology at worst. http://abx.digitalfeed.net/

> you also cannot tell the difference between lossless and properly transcoded MP3 I'm not sure what you mean by "properly transcoded," as though there's a scourge of bad encoders out there and everyone has nutty encoding practices, but I really, really bet you can. Listen to an mp3 of a rock/pop track. Try to focus on the cymbals. See if you can isolate them aurally from the rest of the music. Can you hear how mp3 e…

Many mp3 encoders cut off really high frequency stuff - somewhere between 16khz and 20khz depending on the encoder. Often this isn't changed by any of the quality settings, e.g. on lame it's still enabled on the "insane" preset without manually disabling it.

While that's on the very top-end of human hearing - most by middle age can't detect anything above 14-16khz, but it's certainly possible (especially for those younger) to have frequencies all the way up to 20khz as audible.

So it is possible for some people to hear a difference with some mp3 encoders, no matter the bitrate or quality settings.

And the psychoacoustic model is going to focus on the "average" listener, so it's perfectly possible that an lower bitrate encoding is transparent (IE: Completely indistinguishable) to one person, while another may be able to notice higher frequencies that have been cut off to provide more quality in the more noticeable parts of the spectrum. Or even the same person at different ages. This is completely physical difference, and no amount of training or harder listening would be able to bridge the gap.

And I find many of the higher frequencies that are hit by such things are often not particularly noticeable unless you're actively looking for them, being able to tell there's a difference and knowing what to specifically look far isn't the same as saying the recording is somehow less enjoyable due to quality differences.

Post reply on HN