What's new

I'm a believer! Lp's really do sound better! (1 Viewer)

Steve_AS

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
412
I assume that he's talking about the noise reduction software ("no-noise") from Sonic Solutions that removes noise from tape recordings and disc masters. This process has nothing to do with consumer products or 'euphonic' colorations though.
It most certainly does, since it (NoNoise), or some other form of noise reduction, often is used when mastering CDs, which are consumer products. It's especially common on remasters of previously released CDs from analog sources. One could quite properly term noise reduction as 'euphonic distortion' since it represent divergence from fidelity to the source tape (i.e., distortion), while producing a result that is pleasant to some ears (i.e. euphonic). More commonly the phrase euphonic distortion refers to some of the divergences from fidelity to the master tape that are either inherent to the LP medium, or

which have been commonly incorporated in LP mastering to make the medium more widely playable.
 

Robert AG

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
129
I think you are confusing the effects of NoNoise process with something else. If it produces artifacts, these are certainly not "euphonic" - they sound like digital crap. I master CDs and multi-channel material and use this process among others, and while they can be overdone, their mis-use never results in anything that would sound "good" to anybody's ears. Ideally, there is a tradeoff between the amount of noise reduction and the onset of artifacting, and this is where the good or not so good ears of the mastering engineer come into play.

There are plenty of opportunities along the digital to analog signal path for distortions and artifacts to creep in. It is the mastering engineer's job to make intelligent choices.

Frankly, most re-releases of older classical and jazz material eshews de-noising or other signal processing altogether, as the use of these processes can entail unacceptable compromises in sound quality. A little analog tape hiss is preferrable to the upper harmonics of violins being stripped away by de-noise processing, for example.
 

Steve_AS

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
412
Frankly, most re-releases of older classical and jazz material eshews de-noising or other signal processing altogether
But classical and jazz comprise a relatively minor proportion of all CD releases. Denoising and compression are both quite common in popular music releases and rereleases, whihc make up by far the bulk of CD issues.

If, btw, you got the impression that I'm *touting* denoising, I'm not. From the above it should be clear that I'd prefer to add noise reduction, compression, etc myself, if at all...not have the decision made *for* me in an unalterable fashion.
 

Robert AG

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
129
Euphonic means colorations that are "pleasant" to the ear - NoNoise should not be heard at all - it should only reduce noise, period. Tubes, LPs, magnetic tape - these are all mediums that are "eupnonic" - what comes out can sound better than what goes in, subjectively, although if measured, there would be deviations from the original source.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for CDs to be issued as "neutral" with all processing able to be added by the end user. Hell, almost no consumers can even handle a graphic equalizer without screwing up the sound, let alone the relatively complex tasks like compression, De-noising and EQ! Processes like the "ultramaximizer" that cram everything up to full-scale digital and limit the dynamic range to 3db are apparently here to stay. Even movie soundtracks (the area in which I work) are beginning to use these processes in order for the music to be "louder" so it can cut through all the sound effects and dialogue, which has been "ultramaximized" so THEY can cut through the music!
 

Steve_AS

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
412
Euphonic means colorations that are "pleasant" to the ear - NoNoise should not be heard at all - it should only reduce noise, period. Tubes, LPs, magnetic tape - these are all mediums that are "eupnonic" - what comes out can sound better than what goes in, subjectively, although if measured, there would be deviations from the original source.
We're getting into a semantic issue here. Euphonic means pleasant, and *distortion* means variance from linear reproduction. So denoising can surely be called a euphonic *distortion* , but only with reference to the original recording.
 

Jerry_Kill

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
3
I've had a 3000+ LP collection for 20 years. I have been slowly transferring the music to CD using a Creative Labs Soundblaster card with an external input module. This allows me to directly connect my stereo to the soundcard through RCA jacks. To my ears, the recordings sound exactly the same as the LPs, and better than factory CDs. I record directly to a WAV file, never a compressed mp3 file, then burn the WAV file onto CD. The LP then goes up for auction on eBay...the profits from which go to buy...what else, DVDs. I call this the format shuffle. Oh yeah, I have a few CDs burned from 8 track tape...some stuff I only had in that format...the ultimate format shuffle!
 

Mattias_ka

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
567
I say as the superb mastering guy Steve Hoffman say's:

Say no to nonoise!

And to talk about what format is best is rather dumb. It's all in the mastering! A 8-track cassette can sound better and closer to the mastertape than the CD. It's all in the mastering. And THIS is one of the best reason to have vinyl (the other is frequency range). Today's bad mastering with lot of nonise, EQ, limiting, etc make's the CD's not sound like the mastertape.
 

Robert AG

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
129
Just to clarify, the no-noise process is not needed with recordings that were made within at least the last couple decades. Noise is simply not a problem with digital recording, and it was not a problem with modern analog tape recording that used Dolby SR, which could have a dynamic range that exceeded 16 bit digital.

It actually takes more effort to screw up a master recording than to just leave what's there alone and transfer it verbatim. Technically, with digital recordings, the mastering phase is not needed at all if the person mixing the tracks has a good ear in the first place. The mastering phase was originated as vinyl disc cutting, and now it has morphed into something else, where things are screwed up more often than not.
 

Steve_AS

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
412
And to talk about what format is best is rather dumb. It's all in the mastering! A 8-track cassette can sound better and closer to the mastertape than the CD. It's all in the mastering. And THIS is one of the best reason to have vinyl (the other is frequency range). Today's bad mastering with lot of nonise, EQ, limiting, etc make's the CD's not sound like the mastertape.
er..and what makes you assume that your LPs sound like their master tapes?
 

Mattias_ka

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
567
er..and what makes you assume that your LPs sound like their master tapes?
Well, it can be rather simple. If the vinyl has better dynamic or the CD sound's like heavy used EQ or the life sucked out with nonoise it's easy to hear. AND we also have the great Steve Hoffman om his board talking about how the mastertape sounds. If he say's the, for example the Uk first press vinyl sounds more like the mastertape (that he have heard) I trust that.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
If the vinyl has better dynamic or the CD sound's like heavy used EQ or the life sucked out with nonoise it's easy to hear.
It's rather obvious that this is a criticism of bad engineering practice (something rampant in High End audio), NOT a criticism of the technical capabilities of the CD format. I see the same sort of argument made by LD diehards--"so and so DVD transfer was very badly done!", which, of course, says NOTHING about the capabilities of the medium.

The fact is that blind listening tests comparing a live mike feed with a simultaneous 16/44 digitization of the same feed have been done, and people couldn't hear the difference. That says FAR more to me than bad example A or B of CD.
 

Mattias_ka

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
567
The fact is that blind listening tests comparing a live mike feed with a simultaneous 16/44 digitization of the same feed have been done, and people couldn't hear the difference. That says FAR more to me than bad example A or B of CD.
But this show NOTHING about the Dark side of the moon original CD for example.

And there are blind test where they easily could hear the difference between live feed, 16/44 and higher resolution and DSD.
 

Robert AG

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
129
>>>And there are blind test where they easily could hear the difference between live feed, 16/44 and higher resolution and DSD.
 

Mattias_ka

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
567
In a 2-3 year old TAS (The Absolute Sound) magazine there is interview with some really great mastering people and producers (the top of the line, like Bob ludwig, etc).

They did a A/B test between 16/44, higher PCM sampling rate and DSD with a live feed. ALL things was the same including the D/A (dCs if I remember correctly) and they had no problem to hear the difference.
 

Robert AG

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
129
I would be amazed if that was actually the case that the electronics were IDENTICAL except for the conversion circutiry. I am talking about the circuitry INSIDE THE CONVERTER BOX, not just the associated equipment such as the mixing console, amplifers and speakers! This circuitry would have to be designed by the same electronics engineer, and use identical componentry and circuitry to make a fair comparison. I have NEVER seen this to be the case in any converters I have used. If the converters are from different companies, they are almost certainly designed by different people and use different circuitry. The chances of the the converters having identical circuity inside the box which was designed by the same engineer is nil.

This is enough in and of itself to make a difference in sound which may have nothing to do with the actual conversion method.

I am quite sure that TAS was referring to changing the converter BOXES only, but as I've stated, the circuitry INSIDE those boxes is also going to be different, aside from the conversion technology used.

This would invalidate the test, and it seems that nobody realizes this point, not even TAS or those esteemed mastering engineers. (I mix and master music recordings myself for motion pictures).

All those tests "prove" is that "A" converter box WHICH INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE CONVERSION METHOD, BUT ALL THE OTHER SUPPORTING CIRCUITRY sounds different than box "B" WHICH HAS DIFFERENT SUPPORT CIRCUITRY!

The only valid method of actually acessing the sound quality of the actual conversion technology (PCM vs DSD etc) would be to have IDENTICAL supporting and input and output circuitry in each converter box.

This is never the case.

Consider this analogy. If your were going to compare the sound of two phono CARTRIDGES, would you compare them using two identical turntables which used identical tone arms, and fed to two identical preamps? Or would you compare the cartridges by using two completely different turntables with totally different tone arms and phono preamps?

Of course, it would completely invalidate the test to use totally different turntables, even if the remaining parts of the sound system were identical, such as the power amps and the speakers. An even better test would involve the use of the SAME turntable, arm and preamp.

I hear differences in the sound of different models of microphone preamps, line amplifiers, mixing amplifiers and other electronics all the time. Why should the support electronics inside a digital encoding / decoding box be immune to this variance in sound?

The answer is that they are not immune at all - this ancilliary circuitry will change the sound in and of itself, regardless of what the actual digital circuitry is doing.
 

Mattias_ka

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
567
I would be amazed if that was actually the case that the electronics were IDENTICAL except for the conversion circutiry. I am talking about the circuitry INSIDE THE CONVERTER BOX, not just the associated equipment such as the mixing console, amplifers and speakers! This circuitry would have to be designed by the same electronics engineer, and use identical componentry and circuitry to make a fair comparison. I have NEVER seen this to be the case in any converters I have used. If the converters are from different companies, they are almost certainly designed by different people and use different circuitry. The chances of the the converters having identical circuity inside the box which was designed by the same engineer is nil.
Well, I only know that they used the same dCs A/D D/A converter for both 16/44, highter PCM 24/96 (maybe) and DSD.

But as I said before, format are not the important here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,739
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top