These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

About that Harmonic Orchestra recording...

First post First post
Author
Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#1 - 2013-08-19 18:43:22 UTC
Well, I'm getting a copy of it on CD in what I assume is a 144Kbps format. Is there any chance of maybe getting an imprint in Vinyl done from the original recording? I'm guessing there's more than a few audiophiles willing to check if Eve has sound or not?

Simple question, Dev answers get double chocolate chip cookies Blink

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#2 - 2013-08-19 18:54:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Kirjava wrote:
Well, I'm getting a copy of it on CD in what I assume is a 144Kbps format. Is there any chance of maybe getting an imprint in Vinyl done from the original recording? I'm guessing there's more than a few audiophiles willing to check if Eve has sound or not?

Simple question, Dev answers get double chocolate chip cookies Blink


You do realize that (for audiophile purposes) the recording would need to have been created originally using analog recording equipment for a Vinyl copy to be worth having?

Not too many places do that any more (its a huge PITA), making it unlikely it was used in this case.

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#3 - 2013-08-19 18:56:30 UTC
I assumed they would have recorded it in either analogue or a very high fidelity digital for editing from the original recording.

I'm kinda new to this side of audio to be honest Oops

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]

brinelan
#4 - 2013-08-19 19:02:33 UTC
Do records really sound better? I hear that every now and then but I haven't used a record player since I had a fisher price one as a kid and 5 year olds generally don't care about sound quality.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#5 - 2013-08-19 19:06:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Kirjava wrote:
I assumed they would have recorded it in either analogue or a very high fidelity digital for editing from the original recording.

I'm kinda new to this side of audio to be honest Oops


Recording in all analog is still done, just not very often. Once a recording has been in digital form however, copies taken from that lose all the "good stuff" that having an analog copy preserves.

Drums are often recorded via analog methods, and then the tracks are bounced to digital copies for mixing/editing/mastering with the other instrument and/or vocal tracks. Some guitar purists will only record playing through tube amps and tube microphones (for analog warmth) but the recording of that is still done digitally.


brinelan wrote:
Do records really sound better? I hear that every now and then but I haven't used a record player since I had a fisher price one as a kid and 5 year olds generally don't care about sound quality.


If you can really tell the difference (using good quality playback gear and recordings) you might just be an audiophile. Most people can't, and after we all get to be about 30, we have lost a lot of our high frequency hearing above 14Khz anyway.

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#6 - 2013-08-19 19:13:16 UTC
Vinyl records sound radically different from CDs and other digital formats.

Mostly it has to do with ambient artifacts, like the subliminal hums of the turntable and the needle itself dragging across the medium. And the pops and clicks of course.

But all that contributes to a warmth in the sound that is utterly missing from digital.

I remember the first song I ever heard on CD, MJ's "Billie Jean" (when the players cost about US$1000), and it sounded slower. I guess it was all the more audio information coming in for the brain to process or something.

This doesn't make difference when it comes to rock, pop, and electronic music, but for classical and other acoustic instrument strong genres, we have definitely lost something.

Classical should only be heard on vinyl, like this particular recording. Digital classical is truly sub-par.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#7 - 2013-08-19 19:30:02 UTC
As well as that, from a technical standpoint, a digital recording is essentially a framed recording. There's only a certain amount of data you can store and only x times per second. So what you lose is what is in the gaps. Pretty much the same as the difference between a photograph on a film, and a photograph from a digital camera. But yeah, as Krixtal says above, it's mainly about the warm and natural feeling of the sound over the straight technical ability of digital.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#8 - 2013-08-19 19:38:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Classical should only be heard on vinyl, like this particular recording.


If the original (master recording) in question was recorded via analog means, and you have the right analog home audio gear to reproduce the sound, you are 100% correct. Otherwise vinyl made from digital masters retain none of the desirable tonal and frequency range qualities they would have if the master was also analog.

Classical and instrumental music are definitely best enjoyed when both the original recording and playback use high-quality analog methods, but contemporary Pro digital recording gear has made doing so virtually obsolete and cost prohibitive.

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Spurty
#9 - 2013-08-19 19:41:38 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Vinyl records sound radically different from CDs and other digital formats.

Mostly it has to do with ambient artifacts, like the subliminal hums of the turntable and the needle itself dragging across the medium. And the pops and clicks of course.

But all that contributes to a warmth in the sound that is utterly missing from digital.

I remember the first song I ever heard on CD, MJ's "Billie Jean" (when the players cost about US$1000), and it sounded slower. I guess it was all the more audio information coming in for the brain to process or something.

This doesn't make difference when it comes to rock, pop, and electronic music, but for classical and other acoustic instrument strong genres, we have definitely lost something.

Classical should only be heard on vinyl, like this particular recording. Digital classical is truly sub-par.


RPMs on turn tables (cheap ones especially) were rarely correct.

Do miss cheap giggles playing queen tunes at 72rpm when made for 33.333333

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#10 - 2013-08-19 19:42:40 UTC
Thanks. I didn't want my post to become rant-length. Smile

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#11 - 2013-08-19 19:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Spurty wrote:

RPMs on turn tables (cheap ones especially) were rarely correct.
Do miss cheap giggles playing queen tunes at 72rpm when made for 33.333333


Welp, you weren't there then and don't know.

After about 1978 it was standard for turntables to have speed adjustment wheels so yes they were 100% accurate.....as accurate as you are wrong.

Also, make that 78 RPM and I may believe you are over 30 yo.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#12 - 2013-08-19 20:19:40 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
After about 1978 it was standard for turntables to have speed adjustment wheels so yes they were 100% accurate.....as accurate as you are wrong..


Most consumer turntables were belt driven and thus could hardly be expected to be accurate in terms of RPM and that is why they had a "pitch control" knob or slider for making minor RPM adjustments +/- . This adjustment existed in the 60's and still does today even on the superior direct drive models but now it's used more for "beatmatching" than correcting the RPM speed.


There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Whitehound
#13 - 2013-08-19 21:10:19 UTC
I bet most of the so called audiophile people only believe in vinyl, because they have bought their first stereo with their very first hard-earned money and during a time where this was basically the only electric device for recreational purposes available to consumers, which allowed one to listen to whatever one wanted and thereby felt a new, unknown independence. You would not create sentimental feelings for your first washing machine or your first car. Having a car back then was still a luxury. Radios meant listening to someone else's music and the TV was owned by the entire family if not the entire house. Of course will vinyl stay forever in the memories of these people and have a special place in their hearts. This is why I think vinyl sounds the way it sounds. I am not saying crackling sounds and random, unharmonious shifts in frequencies sounds bad. It just needs to have the right mind for it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#14 - 2013-08-19 22:05:52 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
I bet most of the so called audiophile people only believe in vinyl, because they have bought their first stereo with their very first hard-earned money and during a time where this was basically the only electric device for recreational purposes available to consumer.



lol.

You so fu---nny.

The people you are describing here are in their 80s and 90s.

You are saying that nobody under the age of 60 could possible understand the sound of a vinyl album.

Yes. It's what you have stated most indeed.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#15 - 2013-08-19 22:16:26 UTC
I still have my Half Speed Master and Japanese pressings of many classical rock albums.

I can hear that David Gilmore had a dry mouth in one of the songs off Wish You Were Here. I defy anyone to tell me that digital can get anywhere near that kind of subtlety in its sound quality. I pity those of you that have grown up without vinyl.

Mr Epeen Cool
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#16 - 2013-08-19 22:17:19 UTC
When CDs first came out, I could definitely hear the 'digitalness,' compared to vinyl. My friend had really good turntable and all-around excellent audio system. We compared U2 "Unforgettable Fire" on vinyl and CD, and to me the vinyl sounded much smoother and richer.
Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#17 - 2013-08-19 22:22:57 UTC
I got my mums old Record player working again (new needle, go me) and loved the quality of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds coming off. Looking into getting one for myself and, realising that CCP were releasing the album I was hoping to make it a part of my soon to be (hopefully) budding collection.

22 for the record, sounds better than Youtube and MP3's. Blink

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#18 - 2013-08-19 22:36:30 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
When CDs first came out, I could definitely hear the 'digitalness,' compared to vinyl. My friend had really good turntable and all-around excellent audio system. We compared U2 "Unforgettable Fire" on vinyl and CD, and to me the vinyl sounded much smoother and richer.


And much more like producer Brian Eno wanted.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

mechtech
Ice Liberation Army
#19 - 2013-08-19 22:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: mechtech
Technically, 95%+ of people won't be able to A/B test 256kbps MP3 vs FLAC. Only extremely trained ears with hi-fi equipment will have any success A/B testing 320kbps vs FLAC.

44.1/48khz vs 96/192khz recording is another difference virtually nobody can A/B test.

What is important is how the music was mastered. If it was mastered for vinyl and you have a digital version, you might not be getting the experience that the producer intended. This is no different than film, where say, a Kubrick film with particular written instructions for the projectionist simply won't have the same experience if remastered into higher quality digital.

But these days, assuming you're not listening to music recorded by a retro studio with 1970s era equipment, you're getting a perfect audio experience listening to CD quality digital.

That's not to say that some people don't like a bit of coloration to their sound. I'm one of them. I have neutral reference headphones (DT880), and I like the warmth and body that a tube amp adds. I certainly won't say it's improving that quality though, the analog component is just degrading the signal in a way that I happen to enjoy.

The only "digital sucks" argument that really has any credence is basic bitrates. On high end equipment, anything less than 320kbps will have a noticeable reduction in bass quality (and high end, if you have good ears). It's a shame that 128kbps is the standard, because it has obvious shortcomings even on midrange equipment.



As for the OP, the CD comes with 144kbps tracks? CD standard is LPCM 44100 Hz 16 bits == 1411 kbps (generic .wav file you get from a CD rip). It would be a shame if the original recording was done low bitrate :/
Whitehound
#20 - 2013-08-19 22:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
You are saying that nobody under the age of 60 could possible understand the sound of a vinyl album.

No. I have explained where the cult of vinyl started from. It is more than just an audio storage. It used to be a symbol of freedom for entire generations.

The perceived quality difference of CDs and vinyls that some now use as evidence of a superiority of vinyl just shows a lack of objectivity, because many older CDs at best only contain a digitally processed copy of a vinyl master and therefore will never be able to sound any better. You rather should ask yourself why you need a belief in superiority of vinyl to enjoy music in the first place.

What is funny, since you mentioned it, is that many people believe in hearing things in analogue recordings that are not really there, because nothing is stopping their imagination from believing it like for instance a sample rate and a bit number. Theoretically can an analogue recording contain an infinite amount of information and the moment you tell this to people will they start listening to it and try to hear something new. Just like some people even listened to records backwards to make sure they get everything and then were rewarded with mysterious messages from the beyond. Lol

This is the power of belief. How well you can hear is a different matter.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

123Next pageLast page