Best audio format

[TLS Guy]

I would let it go, TLS. He is just an internet bully. Best to ignore him and let him believe or disbelieve what he likes. In the grand scheme of things what he thinks doesn't matter a whit.

Good advice.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think everyone is missing the point here - Vinyl is a technically inferior format to the new digital [lossless] ones by its own nature, the analog system simply cannot do what digital can..

Well, when one loves something, it is hard to change your feelings when the facts are presented. The excuses start coming forth.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Everyone keeps commenting on vinyl having a larger dynamic range than CD's. .

Not really. Only the less informed do that

 

[mtrycrafts]

There were MORE vinyls sold in the past 3 years than the 10 years before that.

And that is an indication of what, exactly? That vinyl will return to its glory days any day now? Or, that the previous 10 years the sales tanked and there is a blip on the radar, an anomaly?

As far as fidelity is concerned, I would rank formats accordingly.
1. vinyl
2. DVD-Audio and SACD
3. CD

But of course you would rate it this way You have a preference to vinyl.

By the way, a demo over the past year or so with many listeners could not tell audible differences between the no 2 and 3 spots, in case you missed that bit. Yes, it was published in a Journal

 

[Gasman]

I would let it go, TLS. He is just an internet bully. Best to ignore him and let him believe or disbelieve what he likes. In the grand scheme of things what he thinks doesn't matter a whit.

100% agreed, actually I think this is one of the best posts in this thread. (other than this one)

Not really. Only the less informed do that

Wow, the new fellow is thick-headed, and one-track minded.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The thing with most people that listen to vinyl is that all the measurements and statistics mean nothing.

Of course not, why would it. Reality is not what it is about but personal perception is and even when that perception is in the imaginary real.

As a vinyl listener I don't care about useable dynamic range and where vinyl does't stack up. I don't care about frequency rseponse as vinyl has proven it more than holds its own in that category. All that matters to me is the fidelity it offers over CD. I hear things in a vinyl recording that I've NEVER heard in the CD counterpart. Nucances are more evident in vinyl than on CD. I listen with my ears, NOT instruments or gauge readings. Bottom line is vinyl just absolutely sounds BETTER to my ears. PERIOD !!

The above was a rant. My opinion and should be treated as such.

Yes, it was a rant

While the vinyl may be able to cut at ultrasonic frequency, one should also ask at what level? Is it usable? Can it be heard? How many playbacks before it is off the record?

As to some of the other areas, nuances, perhaps there is differences the vinyl imparts that is not in the original recording that one can enjoy and think it is more realistic that a CD when it is not?
But, in the end, your preferences is what matters to you and no one else.

 

[adam71]

Wow !!

You guys are really something else. I was merely trying to express my opinion and nothing else. I was misinterpreted. I was accused of calling someone a liar when I did NOT. You guys are all looking at this from a technical standpoint while I was just stating what sounded best to me. Now it seems like everyone wants to "dogpile on the rabbit". I would really like to know what I've done to deserve that. I'm NOT thick headed. How can someone be thick headed when stating their opinion. I never denied ANY facts. I only stated what sounded best to MY EARS.

I am a music lover, PERIOD. I don't really care what format I listen to music on as long as I can get into the music. Did I mention I like CDs too? I have more than 600 Cds in my library compared to less than 1/3 as many vinyls. About 15 DVD-Audios and around 10 SACDs.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what else to say at this point so I think I'll go to bed now.

 

[no. 5]

Regarding Best audio format

Live performince... or was that not an option?

 

[timetohunt]

8 track for me. Sometimes I like to hear 2 songs at once in case I can't make up my mind. And when that click turns over to the next track I feel alive.

In truth, actually, I have a radio shack 8 tack in good condition hooked up to my receiver. And do play it. Believe it or not, some rebuilt higher end 8 track stuff stills brings good money on ebay. Not kidding. I have seen some players in the $400 range. Nuts.

But to answer the post, I would say some of the finest overall recordings I am hearing lately are live downloads from bands that offer soundboard recordings. Not the independant taper recording, but soundboard recordings owned by the bands. I go the FLAC route, convert to WAV and then to CD. I kid you not, some of these are the clearest, seemingly highest resolute stuff out there. I have noticed more than a few of these seem the blow the doors off commercially available recordings, even those by the same band !?!.

 

[krabapple]

You are correct. The LP has less dynamic range than CD. Prior to noise reduction systems analog tape had a usable dynamic range of 60db. So that limited the LP prior to Dolby A and dbx1 to 60 db. Analog tape with noise reduction has a dynamic range of 95 to 100db with good master tape at 30 ips. 90 to 95 at 15 ips. That is assuming a track width of 1/8 inch or greater.

After the advent of noise reduction the LP could manage a dynamic range of 70db. The CD has a usable dynamic range of around 96 db, some would say 90db in practice.

More than that, with dither and noise shaping.

The CD can go from 1 to 20KHz. 20 KHz is the absolute upper limit of the CD.

Closer to 22 kHz. The sample rate is 44.1. However, flat response drops off approaching 22 kHz.

 

[krabapple]

I have to ask this. Why would a vinyl album be more compressed than it's CD counterpart?? I find this extremely hard to believe. That would be like a vinyl made at "mobile fidelity" sounding worse than the same album done at "mobile fidelity" in the CD format. Not saying you're necessarily wrong but I am just finding that VERY hard to swallow.

Because *as was already explained* classical music often has a dynamic range that can't be easily captured on LP, that's why. In those cases, the LP is usually more compressed (in dynamic range) than the CD. THis was one of the reasons CD was so hotly anticipated in the classical music recording and listening communities, in the early 80's.

I also find it VERY hard to believe that you recorded a vinyl to CD and then ripped it to mp3 and still sounded like the LP. No way I will believe this. No offense but that doesn't even seem possible what so ever.

Well, maybe you need to abandon your misconceptions, or try it yourself. MP3 can sound very close -- to many, indistinguishable -- from source, and if the source is a good digital capture of the output of an LP/TT setup, then there's no reason FMW's claim can't be true.

 

[krabapple]

Again, it doesn't matter why they can sound better. Truth is they DO sound better in a most cases.

That's not a 'truth' about LP. It's a truth about your preference, is all.

 

[davidtwotrees]

By the way, a demo over the past year or so with many listeners could not tell audible differences between the no 2 and 3 spots, in case you missed that bit. Yes, it was published in a Journal

Excepting of course when the DVDA and SACD were played in multi channel against redbook cd. Then it was almost universally agreeed that the first two formats were better by far...........this was the last thing mentioned by the author's of the article.......

 

[Johnd]

Excepting of course when the DVDA and SACD were played in multi channel against redbook cd. Then it was almost universally agreeed that the first two formats were better by far...........this was the last thing mentioned by the author's of the article.......

Also note that it was auditioned by "many listeners." Not audiophiles. While I understand that many cannot discern am radio from a htib to an sacd masterpiece on a nice system...I certainly can, as I trust most here at Audioholics can as well.

 

[mr-ben]

Click here to hear the track http://www.foodieforums.com/otherimages/illwind.mp3

Thanks for the track - I've been listening to it over and over.....

I would like to know who made the decision that SACD was superior to DVD-Audio.??
....
Anyone have any input on this subject??

I don't think either format is really any better than the other as far as sound quality is concerned. There are minor differences someone could argue, but nothing significant. It would have been better if the industry could have agreed on a single format though, perhaps it would have been more popular. Personally I do prefer the SACD format over the DVD-Audio format for two reasons: I don't need a TV, and I like the hybrid discs. With some of my DVD-Audio discs, I need the TV to select 2-channel or multi-channel, while with SACD it's a button on the player. Maybe this is just my player, but it's annoying to turn the TV on and off again. The hybrid discs are nice to listen to on headphones in the office. Some DVD-Audio discs are dual-discs, which is similar, but it's not nearly as common, and some people seem to hate dual-discs.

 

[adam71]

I don't think either format is really any better than the other as far as sound quality is concerned. There are minor differences someone could argue, but nothing significant. It would have been better if the industry could have agreed on a single format though, perhaps it would have been more popular.

Yeah, that was truly a shame. Just think, we could have had a universal hi-res format that could have been better than the 2 we have now. And it may have gotten a lot more consumer acceptance. But I guess that is gone now. It looks like the Hi-def video formats will probably suffer the same fate. It's a shame how corporate suits have made us (the consumer) go without.

Some DVD-Audio discs are dual-discs, which is similar, but it's not nearly as common, and some people seem to hate dual-discs.

Yeah, I never really understood that either. I think they're ok.

 

[fmw]

Thanks for the track - I've been listening to it over and over.....

You're welcome, Ben. They did OK 50 years ago, didn't they?

 

[mtrycrafts]

... I was merely trying to express my opinion and nothing else. I was misinterpreted. I was accused of calling someone a liar when I did NOT. You guys are all looking at this from a technical standpoint while I was just stating what sounded best to me.

Without re-reading all the threads, I think there may have been some technial
claims on top of a preference? Then it becomes a technical discussion, right?

Now it seems like everyone wants to "dogpile on the rabbit". .

Good thing you are among friends.

 

[3db]

In most cases I do prefer the sound of vinyl over CD because more care has gone into producing the LP verses the CD.

Todays CD seem flat and loud. They actually pale in comparison to the realism of vinyl. This is not the fault of the CD medium but the fault of the production engineer.

Although CD is technically superior to vinyl, the recording engineers DO NOT take advantage of its capabilities except for maybe classical and jazz recordings.

So does vinyl sound better than CD? In most cases, definately!!!

 

[davidtwotrees]

Some DVD-Audio discs are dual-discs, which is similar, but it's not nearly as common, and some people seem to hate dual-discs.

I purchased a dual disc some while back. Upon placing it in my Denon 3910, the whole unit began to shimmy and shake something fierce. The unit became very warm. I can't remember exactly but I think an error message came up. I took the disc back and returned it for another. Same thing. Come to find out Denon would not include the dualdisc in it's list of playable discs for it players.

As to playability, the DVDa's certainly weren't user friendly. But I thought the disc medium could hold so much more musical info that it was considered superior........ah, well, it's all moot now......although I think sacd hybrids are doing fine and becoming the norm in the Classical world.