
![]() |
2nd Light Forums | ![]() |
|
join :
help :
calendar :
home
|
||
|
Latest News:
|
latest topics : statistics | |


|
Topic Title: DIY Audio Topic Summary: the "chimpamp" Created On: 03/25/2012 07:49 PM Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
|
Topic Tools
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/...-better-than-cd-or-not
------------------------- Learn something. Anything. Please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^Good stuff T. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd always heard that Neil Young was a big skeptic of CDs. Now that terabyte storage is no big deal, looks like he's going for a new larger format. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-trademarks-new-audio-format-20120403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the guy with the audio room and the high end hifi will appreciate the difference. But does that guy exist anymore?
------------------------- Learn something. Anything. Please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't take a room full of high-end stuff to appreciate the difference between CD and a typical MP3, except that we have a whole generation of people now whose ears are "trained" with MP3 as the reference.
That training is one reason certain audiophiles are so fond of tube amps, and others of LP vinyl. I don't know why Sir Neil would be skeptical of CDs though. They pretty much preserve all the fidelity you need. They seem to have solved the harsh filtering problem with upsampling DACs and faster SACD sampling. The real issue is for portable music (storable on solid-state semiconductor media, as in Ipods) and streamable music (on low-bandwidth network connections); you trade compression and file size for fidelity. And there is a lot of room for improvement in that department. I'd be interested in seeing what kind of compression technology Neil is pushing. Anyone have details? ------------------------- That boy's got somethin' wrong with his medulla oblongata. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article makes it seem like compression wasn't a goal, but I think you're right, we've been trading quality for quantity (price, convenience, portability). And, my 17yo earbud trained ipodder loves to show his friends the difference between CD and mp3 on our livingroom full of low $, questionable equipment I've put together. There is hope
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not related to original topic, but maybe of interest to readers of this thread, regarding monster cables:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/1...ol-in-store-customers/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...able-and-coat-hangers/ ------------------------- That boy's got somethin' wrong with his medulla oblongata. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. There are no studies that show improvement over CD that I am aware of.
I still wonder why they don't let you "master" your own music though. Vinyl and tube gives a certain EQ and transient response (dynamic audio compression) that people like. Why can't they leave the CD lightly mastered and let you make those choices with your digital amp or computer? One thing about CDs though. It's a stream-only format...that why they are "ripped" to your computer rather than copied, i.e., they are streamed and converted. It would be better if they used a file you can copy (such as a WAV) for setting up your computer. It's probably not a big deal, but it does annoy me that I don't get the exact original. ------------------------- Learn something. Anything. Please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That would be cool to be master your own domain (musically) but the producers might be afraid of people doing it poorly and giving them a bad name. I guess they want (or at least, historically wanted) it to go out as the artist intended.
As for the stream/rip process, what's on a CD includes error correction info to play thru scratches and smudges. The error correction bits are interwoven with every few bytes of music data, so at least that much has to be stripped out before a .wav player knows what to do with it. What you get out of the ripping process should be (afaik) exactly what was recorded, if .wav = CD minus error correction bits. ------------------------- That boy's got somethin' wrong with his medulla oblongata. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt any artist intends the amount of dynamic range compression their tracks receive nowadays.
------------------------- Learn something. Anything. Please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing records and comparing them to CDs, I'm beginning to understand dynamic range compression and can see the trade offs. And on a side note, there's a tube, reel to reel recorder on Craigslist right now for $50. http://orlando.craigslist.org/ele/2948410066.html Hmmmm.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have one of your favorite trax as a computer file, get Audacity and read it in. Then apply some compression. You can hear the difference. It'll sound more like it does on the radio...they use a lot of compression because the dynamic range of radio is limited.
You can also expand a track that is over compressed. CDs of older material shouldn't have heavy compression if they are faithful to the original mastering. I use compression when I do home recording for three things. 1. Tame a track that has unwanted volume variations. 2. Soften the peaks on spiky guitar (fast attack, high ratio, high threshold, large knee). 3. Moderate overall compression (-15 dB threshold, 2:1) for a more cohesive sounding mix (this is very common). ------------------------- Learn something. Anything. Please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love how standards for volume on commercials are set at a limit, but the national ones are always way louder!!!
Analog all the way! Pure sound no sampling, but Blueray is getting close these days! ------------------------- nasl fans seo boca raton seo backlinks |
|
|
|
|
2nd Light Forums
» NPNR
»
DIY Audio
|
Topic Tools |
FuseTalk Basic Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.
dust.resin.water...... Get your copy from http://dustresinwater.com/