On many recordings MQA also seems to clean up something relating to vocals. It removes some fuzz that you were never aware was there until it is gone.
Last edited:
Vinyl obsession
- Thread starter dctom
- Start date
On many recordings MQA also seems to clean up something relating to vocals. It removes some fuzz that you were never aware was there until it is gone.
I think people are not covering enough this aspect - MQA is said to "correct" existing digital recordings, it is not just giving the sound quality of the equivalent higher bit rates.
I can not understand why we do not have something equivalent to HQplayer for MQA- the HQMQA, a software program that would, for example, transcode MQA files to DXD or DSD128 or 256. Or does it exist and I do not know about it?
Has anyone here yet compared regular 44.1k PCM via an Non-Oversampling DAC, to MQA? If so, how did they subjectively compare? In what ways was the sound similar or dissimilar.
Vinyl couldn't even contain everything on a master tape...so(?) how can it be remotely "superior"? It was never engineered to be a recording device, just the least expensive mass-market medium to sell music on for 40 years.
It's such a snake-oil, B.S. argument to suggest vinyl sounds "better" because it purposely has to be mastered at a lower volume and have its EQ all bastardized (mainly, in the midrange --- where the ears are naturally the most sensitive) in order to even work as a playback format. If the MASTERING SOURCE itself isn't coming from an analog tape...the entire obsessiveness over analog "purity" goes out the window and means nothing.
Granted, now, CDs have suffered (much the same as FM sound quality has) because the industries manufacturing/marketing them cater to what they think will be their broadest consumer-end use (car stereo/boomboxes/compact shelf systems/etc.). However, when everybody gripes about "brickwalling" being employed on them (ESPECIALLY on reissued back catalog of recordings 40-50 years'-old)...how much of that limiting applied is out of necessity(?): just due to the lopsided discrepancy in resolution; of transferring material with -at best- a s/n ratio of 70dB onto a format where the s/n is over +100(?)! If you don't want the signal Dolbyized to death (to hide the hiss the average end buyer doesn't want to hear) then, you are left with no choice but to jack-up the input signal as loud as possible to overcome the noise floor problem inherent to the vintage source.
Obviously, it would be a different technique applied to record cutting; because the s/n ratio is so much less dealing in that software. I, though, would never accept the technical tradeoffs of vinyl as being anywhere near a representation of "master tape quality" sound (I would only accept them on the basis of original pressings being closer to when the recording was "new"). I've heard a lot of (well done) CDs where they sounded very much like a (vintage) reel to reel tape copy of the same album...and also a lot of CDs, where, it was obvious they'd (wrongly) used a LP submaster as the source (if the tracks on the new CD were kept in the same order as the original release: anything featuring pianos/horns/or strings on selections which had previously ended sides would stick out like a sore thumb in how the treble was clipped and the transients would be distorted).
It's such a snake-oil, B.S. argument to suggest vinyl sounds "better" because it purposely has to be mastered at a lower volume and have its EQ all bastardized (mainly, in the midrange --- where the ears are naturally the most sensitive) in order to even work as a playback format. If the MASTERING SOURCE itself isn't coming from an analog tape...the entire obsessiveness over analog "purity" goes out the window and means nothing.
Granted, now, CDs have suffered (much the same as FM sound quality has) because the industries manufacturing/marketing them cater to what they think will be their broadest consumer-end use (car stereo/boomboxes/compact shelf systems/etc.). However, when everybody gripes about "brickwalling" being employed on them (ESPECIALLY on reissued back catalog of recordings 40-50 years'-old)...how much of that limiting applied is out of necessity(?): just due to the lopsided discrepancy in resolution; of transferring material with -at best- a s/n ratio of 70dB onto a format where the s/n is over +100(?)! If you don't want the signal Dolbyized to death (to hide the hiss the average end buyer doesn't want to hear) then, you are left with no choice but to jack-up the input signal as loud as possible to overcome the noise floor problem inherent to the vintage source.
Obviously, it would be a different technique applied to record cutting; because the s/n ratio is so much less dealing in that software. I, though, would never accept the technical tradeoffs of vinyl as being anywhere near a representation of "master tape quality" sound (I would only accept them on the basis of original pressings being closer to when the recording was "new"). I've heard a lot of (well done) CDs where they sounded very much like a (vintage) reel to reel tape copy of the same album...and also a lot of CDs, where, it was obvious they'd (wrongly) used a LP submaster as the source (if the tracks on the new CD were kept in the same order as the original release: anything featuring pianos/horns/or strings on selections which had previously ended sides would stick out like a sore thumb in how the treble was clipped and the transients would be distorted).
Some LPs (especially carefully curated originals and some 45 rpm reissues) sound better than the equivalent tapes. Why this animosity toward vinyl?
Wow with all the imperfections vinyl still manages to sound better than any cd and most high rez.
There IS magic in them grooves.
Who is arguing that vinyl sounds better than "master" tape.
Referring to "master" tape is even relevant?
Referring to "master" tape is even relevant?
Wow with all the imperfections vinyl still manages to sound better than any cd and most high rez.
There IS magic in them grooves.
IMHO the never ending debates about people preferences, claiming that our preference is "better" than other people preference, is just a question of semantics.
In listening tests people preferred the signal going through a tape loop to the direct microphone feed.
Which is "better"?
IMHO the never ending debates about people preferences, claiming that our preference is "better" than other people preference, is just a question of semantics.
In listening tests people preferred the signal going through a tape loop to the direct microphone feed.
Preferences is one thing. If I say flac is better than mp3, and you reply that flac can never be better than master tape, that is a bit silly. No one was arguing about master tape, not to mention that you would not have heard the master tapes in the first place.
These kind of arguments where subject of argument is changed to appeal to the wider public
Wow with all the imperfections vinyl still manages to sound better than any cd and most high rez.
There IS magic in them grooves.
I don't care about "magic".
Define "better".
Loved the video lol
I agree it’s all about having choice
I don’t care about master tape cos I don’t now have a tape machine, other do and love it I am happy for them
I have 2000cd
7000 LP
I play them because I have them, and enjoy the sound they make
I have lousy CDs and lousy records, I have great CD and SACDs and Great vinyls
What do we need to have these dichotomy preferences
I have a record at the moment I really enjoy listening to, what does it matter if there is a better version. On tape or CD, I don’t have a Rtr And I don’t own this hypothetical CD which is better.
I could go out and buy it. Bring it home and think hmmm why did others think this version is so great, or wow it’s great but I cannot order a copy anymore
I am happy with my record and don’t see the need to duplicate it with something better on another media, that seems pointless to me if I already own a version I enjoy.
I love vinyl in my friends' systems, and I find it very enjoyable to listen to, but I honestly can't say I find it more enjoyable than digital.
I think you may already know that vinyl sounds better as in more enjoyable to listen to.[/QUOTE]
Define better
More desirable, satisfactory or effective, improve or surpass a level of performance previously or currently know
I prefer myself enjoyable, as this is subjective ie in the ear of the listener, and an ultimate intention of music
Once we go to quasi objective measures it all gets rather muddled, plus there is such variably in all media, what would be considered an agreed measuring stick
If someone says I like CD because vinyl is too fiddle to get right why should I argue if this is their priority
If another says they prefer their vinyl recordings to the CD why should I argue
If someone says I prefer this recording on vinyl to that on CD that’s fine, but to say it’s irrelevant because the master tape will be better than either is possibly true but also irrelevant to the conversation, and if you don’t own a RTR nor have access to the mastertape, which most don’t, it’s rather moot point.
But like saying a Porsche 918 is not so fast because a Jumbo jet is faster
I think Magic is another word for a less artificial fool you real musical connection or suspension of disbelief when people talk about it. In this sense, everyone crazy enough to regularly join WBF ought to care about it
. And ofcourse XV-1 said the "better" word, this is a "Vinyl Obsession" thread
.Kind regards,
Tang
Good point Tang it’s about vinylI think Magic is another word for a less artificial fool you real musical connection or suspension of disbelief when people talk about it. In this sense, everyone crazy enough to regularly join WBF ought to care about it
And ofcourse XV-1 said the "better" word, this is a "Vinyl Obsession" thread
Kind regards,
Tang
I suppose SQ aside which seems a never ending argument , there is a collector aspect to vinyl that I don’t feel with digital media, other than movies
Because many great vinyls are also very old recording there is something about the time capsule aspect of these recording and hearing famous artists of the past again
The fact they are often great recording as well adds to the collector element
I touch hold and feel these artefacts, and then get to play them and hear greats again in their prime. That’s quite an experience we enjoy enhance the obsession in finding vinyl that has lasted 44 years with me, including last weekend in Melbourne for an hour before my daughter birthday party
I think Magic is another word for a less artificial fool you real musical connection or suspension of disbelief when people talk about it. In this sense, everyone crazy enough to regularly join WBF ought to care about it
And ofcourse XV-1 said the "better" word, this is a "Vinyl Obsession" thread
Kind regards,
Tang
Actually, Tang, this thread was about vinyl vs. digital from the very beginning, not about vinyl per se. And I was just responding to post # 86 by XV-1.
I agree with you about suspension of disbelief.
[
Tang
My bad Al. I didnt read the thread startup...only look at the title. Apologize for the sloppyness.
Tang
No problem, Tang, I appreciate. Yet this can happen to all of us. I also had to modify my answer after discovering, while drafting my reply, what this old thread had been about
.
Al, It's interesting that you stop short of saying you honestly find vinyl less enjoyable.
I think it really just comes down to personal preferences. Al and I can listen to my vinyl system in the afternoon and then to his digital system in the evening and each prefer our own for reasons we may or may not understand. I hear the "digital" signature in his system, and I'm sure he hears the "vinyl" signature in mine. That is just the way it is. There is nothing objective about this aspect of the hobby. It is all very personal, and we are sometimes quite stubborn about our beliefs.Similar threads
- Sticky
