These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

About that Harmonic Orchestra recording...

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#21 - 2013-08-20 00:06:54 UTC
I'm wondering the sample rate or whatever is better with digital these than in the early days. I don't really notice that digital sound anymore-- kind of like sharp, crisp, flat layers. Then again I haven't heard vinyl in years, nothing to compare too.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#22 - 2013-08-20 00:14:08 UTC
mechtech wrote:
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.



Thank You for knowing your Kubrick History. Maybe there is hope after all.

"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
#23 - 2013-08-20 03:18:54 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
I'm wondering the sample rate or whatever is better with digital these than in the early days. I don't really notice that digital sound anymore-- kind of like sharp, crisp, flat layers. Then again I haven't heard vinyl in years, nothing to compare too.


Yes, sampling rates have, and are still improving, and the A/D and D/A converters available now are a lot better. The quality of a signal converter is a key factor, and you can spend some serious dosh on 24-bit exotic A/D that can only really achieve 21-22 bit performance, but the specs on such devices are nonetheless far better than humans can hear or perceive.

Most consumer sound cards, and personal electronics use cheap D/A converters, cheap output filters, and inadequate (even non-existent) pre-amps, so it does not really matter how good the original digital recording was if the output device cannot reproduce it fully or cleanly prior to amplification. This combined with lossy MP3 compression are enough to make anyone cringe who has heard what a really good vinyl recording or AMPEX reel played back through proper equipment sounds like.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Lady Areola Fappington
#24 - 2013-08-20 04:32:45 UTC
Note to self:

Take down names in this thread, prepare to sell authentic Pear audio cables.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
CCP Falcon
#25 - 2013-08-20 09:13:16 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Falcon
Without a doubt the difference between vinyl and digital is there.

Regardless, I don't think anything will beat having heard this live in Eldborg, Harpa's main concert hall. It was an unbelievably moving trip down memory lane for veteran EVE players that left quite a few of them (and a few developers too!) close to tears.

I don't think we've even considered releasing it on vinyl given the production costs and limited demand for it.

I'll speak with our marketing guys, and see if they have any plans to release it via any other medium.

Big smile

Edit :

After speaking with CCP Doom, I can tell you guys that there are plans in the works to release the recording via other mediums in future, however right now we can't put out any details regarding how and when this will be happening.

Unfortunately, there won't be a vinyl version, but there'll be other options eventually Smile

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#26 - 2013-08-20 09:49:06 UTC
A pity about no Vinyl, but it sounds like maybe a FLAC version by your wording Big smile

*Throws the promised Cookies from the rooftops of Iceland*

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#27 - 2013-08-20 11:49:40 UTC
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.

No.

Many (many, many) tests have been done and there's never been a properly conducted experiment where vinyl was found to beat out digital.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

If you want fidelity in your recording (you want it to sound live) then buy the CD. If you prefer the sounds that Vinyl induces (hiss, pops, cracks, etc) then buy the Vinyl.

Now there's an exception to the above, and that is bad mastering. You can't 'brickwall' a Vinyl in the same way you can a CD, so if you find a badly mastered CD (of which, there are many examples) then you may enjoy the Vinyl more.

Until you listen to it a few times and it loses all the highend anyway P
CCP Falcon wrote:
Without a doubt the difference between vinyl and digital is there.

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#28 - 2013-08-20 12:02:14 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"



I guess I'm not human then as I can tell in a blind-hearing demonstration. If it's the same song or whatever.

Difference is night and day.

But you go ahead and believe your fantasy. That's just fine.

"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
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#29 - 2013-08-20 12:21:10 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"



I guess I'm not human then as I can tell in a blind-hearing demonstration. If it's the same song or whatever.

Difference is night and day.

But you go ahead and believe your fantasy. That's just fine.

Interesting that you selectively quoted me, and in doing so literally cut out the link which shows that people who make this claim can't back it up.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#30 - 2013-08-20 14:04:52 UTC
I'm still waiting for the CD version to come in the mail, let alone worrying about getting my hands on a vinyl copy...

...
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#31 - 2013-08-20 14:12:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"



I guess I'm not human then as I can tell in a blind-hearing demonstration. If it's the same song or whatever.

Difference is night and day.

But you go ahead and believe your fantasy. That's just fine.

Interesting that you selectively quoted me, and in doing so literally cut out the link which shows that people who make this claim can't back it up.



I base my opinion on personal experience, not what other have to say.

I have more integrity than to rely solely upon Interwebz Poastings and their "truths".

edit: Just leave and stop embarrassing yourself. Nobody believes you. Not even Falcon. We know better.

I'll take my 30th Anniversary Vinyl Pressing of "Dark Side of the Moon" always over the tin-like sound of its CD version always.

"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
#32 - 2013-08-20 14:26:13 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"



I guess I'm not human then as I can tell in a blind-hearing demonstration. If it's the same song or whatever.

Difference is night and day.

But you go ahead and believe your fantasy. That's just fine.


Perhaps use a better setup and stop listening to MP3s?

Otherwise the recording being digital if what you are listing to is a CD or lossless format is not likely your problem, your ability to play it back properly is. Consumer digital playback devices only have "good enough" D/A converters and not good ones, that difference can definitely be night and day and can certainly be heard.

See: Jitter, not to be confused with twitter.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#33 - 2013-08-20 14:37:00 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:


Perhaps use a better setup and stop listening to MP3s?




I'm basing my experience on recordings made during the first 20 years of my life before CD's were even available, as contrasted with digital formats at that early time, and now.

It's 28 years later, and my mind just is not going to be changed on this ever. Sorry.

"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
Hra Neuvosto
Party Cat Enterprises
#34 - 2013-08-20 14:48:45 UTC
I only listen to wax cylinders, I can totally feel the difference, they just make me feel so much more.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#35 - 2013-08-20 15:04:33 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:


Perhaps use a better setup and stop listening to MP3s?


I'm basing my experience on recordings made during the first 20 years of my life before CD's were even available, as contrasted with digital formats at that early time, and now.

It's 28 years later, and my mind just is not going to be changed on this ever. Sorry.


Could you maybe give some specific examples? Otherwise it just sounds like you are saying you only remember it sounded better without actually doing any kind of direct comparison. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just pointing out you probably came to your conclusion (as many do) without comparing apples to apples. To change your mind I would have to demonstrate the differences (or lack thereof), something that is not possible if you are not using a CD-player with digital outputs feeding into a $1500 reference D/A converter and preamp.






☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#36 - 2013-08-20 15:06:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Khanh'rhh wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Without a doubt the difference between vinyl and digital is there.

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"

There's scientific evidence that says that a human ear should not be able to "hear" a difference between high quality digital and an analog source. There is no evidence however that sounds outside the average frequency ranges can't be heard, and and it's an absolute fact that digital sounds are clamped between frequencies. The way digital is stored, there will always be a set limitation on how much data can be stored, while analog can have a considerably higher limitation and is only limited by the quality of the recording and the system playing it.
There's also the problem that digital music is so precise and doesn't have wear. I prefer much of my music on vinyl simply because there's a certain way it feels when you hear it. It just sounds more natural, and the flaws it has that haven't been digitally stamped out are a part of that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#37 - 2013-08-20 15:18:13 UTC
Yup. Us old folks just have no idea what we are talking about in our decrepit senility. That's it.

I'm out of here with all the tired trolling. Laterz.

"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
Whitehound
#38 - 2013-08-20 15:53:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Without a doubt the difference between vinyl and digital is there.

Well, actually there's massive amounts of scientifically accurate evidence that says there isn't one, and a whole lot of people saying "I *can* hear a difference, but not if you test me on it!"

There's scientific evidence that says that a human ear should not be able to "hear" a difference between high quality digital and an analog source. There is no evidence however that sounds outside the average frequency ranges can't be heard, and and it's an absolute fact that digital sounds are clamped between frequencies. The way digital is stored, there will always be a set limitation on how much data can be stored, while analog can have a considerably higher limitation and is only limited by the quality of the recording and the system playing it.
There's also the problem that digital music is so precise and doesn't have wear. I prefer much of my music on vinyl simply because there's a certain way it feels when you hear it. It just sounds more natural, and the flaws it has that haven't been digitally stamped out are a part of that.

It might be easier to understand when you look at a picture taken with a digital camera and one taken with an analogue camera.

Analogue pictures appear more natural, because even the sharpest contours have a blur and disappear in the grain caused by the mixture of chemicals. It makes these pictures look raw and being full of details, but also imprecise and sketchy, because it is impossible to tell where a detail disappears and where the grain begins. Not knowing where something ends or begins can be just as satisfying as having clear beginnings and ends.

It is like enjoying a good argument with somebody, and then sometimes it is good not to have an argument at all.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#39 - 2013-08-20 16:03:51 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
It might be easier to understand when you look at a picture taken with a digital camera and one taken with an analogue camera.

Analogue pictures appear more natural, because even the sharpest contours have a blur and disappear in the grain caused by the mixture of chemicals. It makes these pictures look raw and being full of details, but also imprecise and sketchy, because it is impossible to tell where a detail disappears and where the grain begins. Not knowing where something ends or begins can be just as satisfying as having clear beginnings and ends.

It is like enjoying a good argument with somebody, and then sometimes it is good not to have an argument at all.

But then camears are the same. High end photographers will user high end film, rather than digital. As digital has hard limits on the number of pixels and the pixel density, while film is limited only by the size of the photoreactive particles. This is why in forensics if you have a digital image, there's a limit you reach pretty quickly when zooming in to retrieve additional detail, while from film, you can get considerably more detail. High end photographic film would be the equivalent of hundreds of megapixels with a digital camera.

An like I say, part of the love for vinyl comes from wear. The sounds gains a unique quality when there's a variance in the way it plays.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#40 - 2013-08-20 16:43:34 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I base my opinion on personal experience, not what other have to say.

I have more integrity than to rely solely upon Interwebz Poastings and their "truths".

Literally convincing yourself something is true despite all the evidence against it is, erm, well it's something.
You should look at the link (or look around yourself) since it's not "internet people" talking, it's a university conducting a study. Do I need to print and mail it to you for it to not be "internet people"?
Lucas Kell wrote:
There's scientific evidence that says that a human ear should not be able to "hear" a difference between high quality digital and an analog source. There is no evidence however that sounds outside the average frequency ranges can't be heard, and and it's an absolute fact that digital sounds are clamped between frequencies.

a) There's no evidence people can innately tell digital from analogue - literally all the tests show the opposite, in fact. Between digital and higher bandwidth/fidelity digital (i.e. 24bit/48khz) has also shown to be impossible.
b) There's pretty definitive evidence people can't hear outside of normal hearing ranges.
Are you trolling by literally posting the opposite of what is factually supported? Because goddamn.
Quote:
There's also the problem that digital music is so precise and doesn't have wear. I prefer much of my music on vinyl simply because there's a certain way it feels when you hear it. It just sounds more natural, and the flaws it has that haven't been digitally stamped out are a part of that

If you prefer worn recordings that don't sound like the artists intended, then there's no problem with that.
Whitehound wrote:
It might be easier to understand when you look at a picture taken with a digital camera and one taken with an analogue camera.

It's easier to understand because it's a completely different process and not related in any way.

We can't hear well enough to grade a sound played for 1/44,100th of a second into 256 discrete levels no matter how many times people ignore evidence to the contrary and make up ~audiophile language~ to explain how they can.

The vast majority of self-claimed audiophiles can't double-blind test 192kbps AAC, which is taking the CD version and throwing ~87% of it away.

Our perception systems are very easily fooled and we're pretty bad at doing this as a species.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,