this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
694 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
14 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Poeple jerking off CDs here dont understand down sampling and the average quality of CDS. they think that just because it is digitally mastered that it therefore must be the master that is put on CDS, its not.
I can't hear anything above 20 kHz, and neither can most people. CD audio is passed through a 20 kHz lowpass filter. It is then sampled at 44 kHz. Due to the Nyquist Shannon Spamling Theorum, when sound is digitally sampled at just above twice the rate of the source audio, converting it back to analog perfectly reproduces the original waveform. And I do mean perfectly. The exact same waveform. (The extra 4 kHz is to prevent artifacts in frequencies very close to 20 kHz.)
Therefore CD audio is perfect unless you think you can hear above 20 kHz. (Spoiler: you can't) There are a few good YouTube videos on this topic, and the best ones are very mathy.
Is there something I'm missing? Do I need to educate myself some more?
I don't know shit about fuck, but you explanation seems correct.
I do remember hearing that precisely because of the limitations of vinyl compared to CD, music is mastered differently for each medium. So the CD master of a certain song might be more compressed (dynamic compression, not digital compression) to make it sound "louder", while the vinyl release has a wider dynamic range. So some people might prefer the vinyl version because it actually does sound different to the CD version.
Keep in mind tho, I might be spreading misinformation here.
The loudness wars were definitely a thing; you are correct. But that was a choice and not a limitation of the medium. Plenty of CDs were not produced that way. But that's not what the OC was talking about. They were talking about down sampling, not dynamic range compression.
You are correct, CDs can reproduce the human audio spectrum perfectly, IF AND ONLY IF certain rules are followed, and I think that's why earlier CDs sounded weird. For example: how good were low pass filters when digital sound first arrived?
I really don't care to comment anymore on your FUD.
also the CDs dynamic range is far greater then that present in most music, so it makes little impact in practice. unless you intentionally utilize it.
Keep kidding yourself that you can hear the difference.
Vinyls have their appeal but they get dusty, scratched, they skip etc. Only snobs truly think that they sound better.
Digital music can be taken as easily as it can be given.
CDs are the best compromise. They have sound quality as good as digital but you also get the lyrics and artwork that come with a vinyl, they're also much easier to store. The best thing though, is that if I get bored of a CD, I can sell it or even just give it away for free, you can't do that with digital music.
I'm a (former) audio engineer and I can't tell the difference. My professors used to laugh at audiophiles who spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars for stereo equipment because we were taught to mix things so that they sound good in a car as well as a perfectly quiet room. In fact, we were told that after we finished a master, we should test it by putting it in our car and driving around to make sure the mix was audible in the ways you and the band wanted.
I still really like vinyl because I like the ritual of the whole thing, but I don't spend money on it because it's way too expensive and everything you hear is almost certainly mastered digitally and likely recorded and mixed digitally, negating the whole "warmth" factor.
Digital does not always mean DRM. You can pry my bandcamp FLACs from my cold dead hands. Physical media nowadays is more about the experience than functionality. Maybe there are snobs who claim that vinyls are somehow functionally superior, but generally the people who use vinyls or CDs or tapes instead of digital are really just looking for that physical experience in a highly digitalized world.
CD quality is actually superior to streaming services like spotify (I personally can't tell the difference tho).
It's why I use a dedicated music tracker for my music. I own it. I get the exact quality and version I want, and no one can take it from me.
I've had a lot of physical media stolen from me, and I would never try replacing it with more purchased media, because of the he cost and potential for damage and chance it might get stolen again.
I hate to tell you, but all that vinyl is digitally mastered as well.
yes, but generally the digital master is not what the recordings are made fromm you do not contradict a single thing i said.
What do you think the recordings are made from? They're mixed digitally too.