-
I got my first digital masters back on Betamax in about '86, pre-DAT... Digital is fine but I miss the harmonics you get at the top of the spectrum from a true analogue recording... Isn't it true that the higher frequencies (which are inaudible to humans) are just lopped off to save on data? You'd think that'd be fine but there is a subtle difference when those frequencies are removed as the recording loses its full harmonic range... I can hear the difference anyway.... Everything's been mastered digitally for so long now that it probably makes very little difference to modern pressings/recordings...
I've done plenty of A-B tests and vinyl always wins... It's the audiophile RLJ/helmet thread, innit? ;]This is a huge bone of contention between audiophiles as to whether it really makes a difference to the listening experience. HOwever, what you have stated is not really true. One, the microphones used to record the record will most probably have had a fequency response up to 20kHz and two, the speakers you are using to listen to the playback will have a very similar freq. response so no higher frequencies will have been recorded and even if they were your speakers probably wouldn't be able to reproduce them,
-
However, my mum who is what can be considered an Audiophile is a member of B&W's Society of Sound (http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/display.aspx?infid=777) and recieves a variety of music via their download service and is very impressed by the quality.
She has well over 30'000 records and has spent a small fortune on her equipment and is now debating whether to downsize and go fully digital. I found an interesting method (http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/staggs2737_highres.pdf) which I am going to try when I go back home next month.
-
Tusk by Fleetwood Mac. The pinnacle of 70's analogue recording and mixing. Before punk ruined it all...
-
This is a huge bone of contention between audiophiles as to whether it really makes a difference to the listening experience. HOwever, what you have stated is not really true. One, the microphones used to record the record will most probably have had a fequency response up to 20kHz and two, the speakers you are using to listen to the playback will have a very similar freq. response so no higher frequencies will have been recorded and even if they were your speakers probably wouldn't be able to reproduce them,
yes, but the argument goes that the much higher inaudible frequencies produce harmonic interaction lower down the spectrum, and if truncated something sounds 'missing'.
i don't particularly buy into that myself though.
i've also heard Pro-tools HD advocates swear blind that bass sounds much richer and fuller at 192khz ( about 4.5 times the resolution of CD audio), but i don't really buy into that either.
-
However, my mum who is what can be considered an Audiophile is a member of B&W's Society of Sound (http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/display.aspx?infid=777) and recieves a variety of music via their download service and is very impressed by the quality.
She has well over 30'000 records and has spent a small fortune on her equipment and is now debating whether to downsize and go fully digital. I found an interesting method (http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/staggs2737_highres.pdf) which I am going to try when I go back home next month.
that's very interesting, it's also very unusual to hear of a female hi-fi buff, it always seems to be geeky blokes.
-
Everything.
Nice, heavy pressed vinyl still gives the best, most intimate sound quality.
Lot's of nice doom sounds beautiful on vinyl. Electric Wizard sounds fucking deep and booming and beautiful on vinyl.
+1 to all of that
180gm vinyl is beautiful stuff. All the Shellac albums sound superb on 180gm. Awaiting delivery of Sleep's Dopesmoker on vinyl at the minute, oh yes!
-
yes, but the argument goes that the much higher inaudible frequencies produce harmonic interaction lower down the spectrum, and if truncated something sounds 'missing'.
i don't particularly buy into that myself though.
Me neither but I accept there might be something in it
i've also heard Pro-tools HD advocates swear blind that bass sounds much richer and fuller at 192khz ( about 4.5 times the resolution of CD audio), but i don't really buy into that either.
I don't know about bass but I've listened to a recording of a Tibetan singing bowl recorded and played back at both 44.1 and 192 and the difference was very clear. The 192 recording was much more sonically rich and the sound was much more 'present'.I'm quite cynical about most audiophile claims, I'm still yet to find someone who can tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a .wav file in a blind test even though everyone claims 'loss of frequencies, flat bass, blah blah blah', so I was quite surprised at the difference I heard.
-
that's very interesting, it's also very unusual to hear of a female hi-fi buff, it always seems to be geeky blokes.
Yeah it is pretty rare. She has always been fanatical about music and amassing the top end equipment she has today is a dream realised. Its also good for me because I have been given all her 'old' equipment (Meridian/Linn/B&W goodies)
Festerban
nuknow
Hobo
hurricane_run
nimhbus
RckStdy
Prole.-
Post a reply
About
Records that sound better when played on vinyl
Posted by
@mattty
It made my ears bleed