Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 15:18:25 GMT
I despise all this streaming poop.
I love my Compact Disc Player and my Record Player.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Jul 3, 2018 16:00:07 GMT
I despise all this streaming poop. Have you heard an of the poop, just interested? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 16:49:26 GMT
Yes Pauld, nasty nasty stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Jul 3, 2018 17:06:08 GMT
What have you heard?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 17:35:51 GMT
I'm sorry pauld but I cant discuss for fear of a relapse - the whole experience left me traumatized and I am currently attending counselling.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Jul 3, 2018 17:57:52 GMT
Oh I am sorry to hear that, maybe you should look at buying some power cables, as they always seem to have a positive effect on people’s emotional state.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 5, 2018 12:13:01 GMT
I'm a big fan of streaming. It has the potential for better sound quality, increased convenience and much wider access to more music.
Spotify and Qobuz, buy the 24 bit download (or vinyl) of the stuff I really like, control it all with app on my android phone.
It can be a pain when it 'jams' but this is very, very rare and usually very easy to sort. It's much more 'plug and play' than it used to be. You couldn't pay me to use a CD player, now.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 14:56:19 GMT
No technical reason why streaming should have potentially better sound quality and there is no benefit to be had from a 24 bit download over a 16 bit download.
The easy access to loads of music, no need for all the 'clutter', yeah, I get all that. But the claims for intrinsically better sound quality have no foundations whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 5, 2018 15:08:08 GMT
No technical reason why streaming should have potentially better sound quality and there is no benefit to be had from a 24 bit download over a 16 bit download. Hi Macca, Could you explain why? Warm regards, Paul |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 15:08:57 GMT
My eyes are streaming. Touch of hayfever I think.  |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 5, 2018 15:18:26 GMT
FM radio was 13 bit for decades and probably still is and when the BBC were still doing a great consistent job, nobody ever complained. 24 bit is for professionals to edit, tweak and level match and so on well below typical playback noise and distortion levels - I'm told by mastering engineers and other audio professionals.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 5, 2018 15:21:43 GMT
FM radio was 13 bit for decades and probably still is. 24 bit is for professionals to edit, tweak and level match and so on well below typical playback noise and distortion levels - I'm told by mastering engineers and other audio professionals. OK. So, if I (think) I hear a difference between a 16bit and 24 bit download of the same track then it is either differences in the mastering, mix, or processing, or my expectation bias or a combination of any of these? |
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Jul 5, 2018 15:24:17 GMT
No technical reason why streaming should have potentially better sound quality and there is no benefit to be had from a 24 bit download over a 16 bit download. The easy access to loads of music, no need for all the 'clutter', yeah, I get all that. But the claims for intrinsically better sound quality have no foundations whatsoever. Based on what? I have heard streaming systems bettering CD Players worth a lot more. Although, granted, I’ve also heard it the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 15:24:32 GMT
No technical reason why streaming should have potentially better sound quality and there is no benefit to be had from a 24 bit download over a 16 bit download. Hi Macca, Could you explain why? Warm regards, Paul Streaming you are reading a file and putting that info through a DAC. CD you are dong the same, the file is a different format but it is still just a file, the DAC is built into the cd player but it is still just a DAC.
24 bit gives you an enormous dynamic range but so does 16 bit. Even if you can find a recording that has a dynamic range so large that it needs 16 bits to encode it you won't be able to play it back at enough volume to make use of that range anyway (unless you have a PA system) and the peaks will give you hearing damage.
In short 16 bits is already overkill for playback purposes. I mean if 24 bit is the same price as 16 bit then get 24 bit, it won't be any worse, but paying extra for it makes no sense unless it is also a different mastering and you want the different mastering.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 15:28:22 GMT
No technical reason why streaming should have potentially better sound quality and there is no benefit to be had from a 24 bit download over a 16 bit download. The easy access to loads of music, no need for all the 'clutter', yeah, I get all that. But the claims for intrinsically better sound quality have no foundations whatsoever. Based on what? I have heard streaming systems bettering CD Players worth a lot more. Although, granted, I’ve also heard it the other way around. Based on how it works. I'm sure there are some great streaming systems that will better a lot of cd players and vice-versa but this has nothing to do with them being cd players or streamers and everything to do with the specific implementation. |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 5, 2018 15:31:07 GMT
Hi Macca, Could you explain why? Warm regards, Paul Streaming you are reading a file and putting that info through a DAC. CD you are dong the same, the file is a different format but it is still just a file, the DAC is built into the cd player but it is still just a DAC.
24 bit gives you an enormous dynamic range but so does 16 bit. Even if you can find a recording that has a dynamic range so large that it needs 16 bits to encode it you won't be able to play it back at enough volume to make use of that range anyway (unless you have a PA system) and the peaks will give you hearing damage.
In short 16 bits is already overkill for playback purposes. I mean if 24 bit is the same price as 16 bit then get 24 bit, it won't be any worse, but paying extra for it makes no sense unless it is also a different mastering and you want the different mastering.
Thanks, Macca, Is there any truth in the theory that hard drive files created using e.g. Exact Audio Copy can sound superior in playback because of reduced errors versus a CD player that is reading the disc in 'real time'? |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 15:36:57 GMT
No, because of error correction.
Your less likely to get skips or drop outs with file based, in fact you shouldn't get any at all, and in that respect file based is superior.
But assuming the cd is not marked or damaged beyond the capability of the correction circuitry to interpolate then the wave form will be reproduced exactly with no drop in sound quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 5, 2018 15:39:19 GMT
FM radio was 13 bit for decades and probably still is. 24 bit is for professionals to edit, tweak and level match and so on well below typical playback noise and distortion levels - I'm told by mastering engineers and other audio professionals. OK. So, if I (think) I hear a difference between a 16bit and 24 bit download of the same track then it is either differences in the mastering, mix, or processing, or my expectation bias or a combination of any of these? There is factual evidence as tested by Martin Colloms that say, SA-CD re-issues have had eq jobs done to them over the original CD masterings. Decca did behind the scenes tweaking of many of their CD issues without telling anyone (I know because one of their former mastering engineers is a lifelong friend of mine and he told me a lot of what went on) and this was beneficial to the release and NEVER then to do with the loudness wars which came later! It wouldn't surprise me that so called 24 bit versions have been 'beauty shopped' a bit to spice up the sonics. I've heard CD's that are absolutely identical to the master, so I believe the 16 bit red book CD is just fine. there have been arguments put forward that 24 bit may well be worse if listened to compared to the final 16 bit 'CD' version, but I can't remember who put this forward (with arguments).
No point EVER in doing a 24 bit issue of old analogue material as even the best analogue systems aren't as quiet (well maybe the finest Dolby SR pro system, but certainly not Dolby A or 30IPS on half inch tape with no noise reduction)
I continually bemoan the fact I can't demonstrate this to anyone, but what we regard as 'inner detail' is often little more that 20db down on the mean average signal. On very old CD players, going from 14 bit to16 bit playback - and dithering added in the preparation of music CD's, usually just meant that tape hiss in an analogue original recording was reproduced a bit more cleanly. One disc I bought in 1985 which sounds better than ever now is the original CD issue of Genesis' Trick Of The Tail', where the final second or two of a long fade out sounded better as time went on than when played on an early period machine (Meridian MCD-Pro, which was 'airier' sounding than a Sony CDP-101 in direct comparison and I suspect very muted today if there are any surviving examples - they (the Philips bits) failed electrically rather than the mechs). This is regardless of the remasters done later on, where substantial eq was done on the early to mid noughties Genesis remasters I recall and the latest ones were remixed I believe...
The thing is, many old recordings need some work doing to get the sound as best as possible (remember the Beatles stuff, where the first four albums came out on CD as played 'raw' I gather with nothing done and everyone complained how thin they sounded? - not on large speakers they didn't but I digress..). Some edits, eq and fading is better done digitally and this is where the extra 24 bit headroom is advantageous I gather. Back in 83 or 84, I did hear a Sony Pro 1610 A-D/D-A professional processor wired into an amp tape loop (analogue record - out to the A-D board, looped internally to the D-A board and back into the tape playback sockets. We desperately wanted to hear a difference, ANYTHING to show how 'digital' sucked and I have to confess the sound was exactly the same with the A-D-D-A in circuit. We were left with the feeling that domestic CD players (and the systems we then used) were too heavily compromised...
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 5, 2018 15:51:14 GMT
Hi Macca, Could you explain why? Warm regards, Paul
24 bit gives you an enormous dynamic range but so does 16 bit. Even if you can find a recording that has a dynamic range so large that it needs 16 bits to encode it you won't be able to play it back at enough volume to make use of that range anyway (unless you have a PA system) and the peaks will give you hearing damage.
In short 16 bits is already overkill for playback purposes. I mean if 24 bit is the same price as 16 bit then get 24 bit, it won't be any worse, but paying extra for it makes no sense unless it is also a different mastering and you want the different mastering.
So, if I (think) I hear a difference between a 16bit and 24 bit download of the same track then it is either differences in the mastering, mix, or processing, or my expectation bias or a combination of any of these? |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 5, 2018 16:03:39 GMT
Not expectation bias but tweaking in the 'remaster' i suspect. Most recordings have been dubbed to 24 bit for nearly thirty years I think now inany case. The EDITING SUITES did improve dramatically since the late 80's though, but whether you can really hear this over other things that may have been done.
One final comparison before I shut up - The album 'Green' by Steve Hillage. The vinyl varied with noise imperfections if you were unlucky but the first CD from the late 80's or so? had distortion on peaks (nasty) not there originally. the remastered one from thirteen or so years ago was in a different sonic world with no distortion and you could hear more deeply into the mix too (the mastering engineer was a colleague of my pal working out of the old Decca building I gather) and in an interview, was praising the then latest Yamaha DAW he had upgraded to - in all the areas 'we' appreciate in the music.
Macca's right about computers saving, checking and reading data repeatedly compared to CD's which only have one stab at it. Basic 'error correction' is inaudible and EXACTLY re-creates the waveform apparently. 'Interpolation' doesn't and involves guesswork. I reckon that some disc manufacturers twenty years or so ago were letting out sub-standard CD discs and this could become an issue when new generation players wouldn't play them in the early noughties. Apparently, Linn had to make a statement (they weren't alone here) that all their players would play proper 'Red Book' discs, but they wouldn't play out-of-spec CD's..
Sorry for the lecture and essays. All this is best chatted over a pint or three, but can't do that. Is it any help?I go back and re-read the Sh#t I type and try to be as factual and non-confrontational as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Jul 5, 2018 16:06:19 GMT
Based on what? I have heard streaming systems bettering CD Players worth a lot more. Although, granted, I’ve also heard it the other way around. Based on how it works. I'm sure there are some great streaming systems that will better a lot of cd players and vice-versa but this has nothing to do with them being cd players or streamers and everything to do with the specific implementation. Oh I agree with that completely. |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 5, 2018 16:07:13 GMT
Not expectation bias but tweaking in the 'remaster' i suspect. Most recordings have been dubbed to 24 bit for nearly thirty years I think now inany case. The EDITING SUITES did improve dramatically since the late 80's though, but whether you can really hear this over other things that may have been done. One final comparison before I shut up - The album 'Green' by Steve Hillage. The vinyl varied with noise imperfections if you were unlucky but the first CD from the late 80's or so? had distortion on peaks (nasty) not there originally. the remastered one from thirteen or so years ago was in a different sonic world with no distortion and you could hear more deeply into the mix too (the mastering engineer was a colleague of my pal working out of the old Decca building I gather) and in an interview, was praising the then latest Yamaha DAW he had upgraded to - in all the areas 'we' appreciate in the music. Macca's right about computers saving, checking and reading data repeatedly compared to CD's which only have one stab at it. Basic 'error correction' is inaudible and EXACTLY re-creates the waveform apparently. 'Interpolation' doesn't and involves guesswork. I reckon that some disc manufacturers twenty years or so ago were letting out sub-standard CD discs and this could become an issue when new generation players wouldn't play them in the early noughties. Apparently, Linn had to make a statement (they weren't alone here) that all their players would play proper 'Red Book' discs, but they wouldn't play out-of-spec CD's.. Sorry for the lecture and essays. All this is best chatted over a pint or three, but can't do that. Is it any help?I go back and re-read the Sh#t I type and try to be as factual and non-confrontational as possible. Yes, interesting. Cheers! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 16:34:45 GMT
6 and half dozen.
But I enjoy the physical input of diging out a cd or record etc
Wanna see my collection of flac files....Eh no thanks !!
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 16:45:12 GMT
A cd collection is still nothing in my mind. Only a collection of vinyl and original quarter-inch tapes are worth showing anyone. Cds were never cool and they never will be cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 16:48:14 GMT
Cds are cool n your a fool.
😁
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 16:51:27 GMT
Nah, even though I only use CD now I'm keeping all my records and a turntable. Vinyl records are like sacred objects - unless they are a re-issue, they don't count. Got to be the original from the 1960s or 1970s.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Jul 5, 2018 16:51:29 GMT
A cd collection is still nothing in my mind. Only a collection of vinyl and original quarter-inch tapes are worth showing anyone. Cds were never cool and they never will be cool. In your opinion, which I believe to be very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 5, 2018 16:55:29 GMT
Well yeah obviously it's just my opinion. I mean I should be the world's sole arbiter of cool but I'm not. It's the world's loss |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jul 5, 2018 17:43:35 GMT
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,401
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jul 5, 2018 17:46:52 GMT
Brillaint. The guys still a hero of mine said what he believed and didn’t let fear of being ridiculed get in the way, I’ve had some great experiences thanks to the kit he recommended. |
|
