castalla
Major Contributor
You are missing an essential ingredient. You haven't had your installation blessed by a local priest, have you?
Alternatively these voodoo candles can be used
Alternatively these voodoo candles can be used
Snake oil update! 🐍
- Thread starter BowsAndArrows
- Start date
Brantome
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2022
- Messages
- 6,842
No, but I’m sure I caught a glimpse of a medal of St Cecilia, the patron saint of music
Brantome
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2022
- Messages
- 6,842
Don’t they just burn something?
castalla
Major Contributor
A contradiction in terms, I'm afraid. They join the legion of lost souls.
BowsAndArrows
Senior Member
Lmao, I feel emojis make the text more readable by giving visual breaks to the snippets of text! 
Thanks for being empathetic, unfortunately I am at least as fo.Q'ed up as you think I am!
most of the impressions are indeed my genuine opinions. And yes, the delivery is intentionally satirical because I want to convey a degree of self-awareness, even if I sound insane to myself!
Thanks for being empathetic, unfortunately I am at least as fo.Q'ed up as you think I am!
most of the impressions are indeed my genuine opinions. And yes, the delivery is intentionally satirical because I want to convey a degree of self-awareness, even if I sound insane to myself!
Last edited:
Matterhorn
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2023
- Messages
- 102
LOL! You be you!Lmao, I feel emojis make the text more readable by giving visual breaks to the snippets of text!
Thanks for being empathetic, unfortunately I am at leased as fo.Q'ed up as you think I am!
BowsAndArrows
Senior Member
I wanna clarify some things and just add some thoughts for completeness relating to the last snake oil update. (this time no images and fewer emojis)
The reason why i said "A/B testing dB min and max isn't scientific" is not because anecdotal evidence is useless in science. No. It's because in this particular case the ambient noise floor in your listening room fluctuates too much for the separate readings to be sufficiently comparable. (for example in my room - the dB min can fluctuate easily from 22-28 and the dB avg with no music playing can fluctuate even more) Similarly the consistency of positioning and quality of mic etc contribute significantly to measurement errors that in turn affects the comparability.
That's why in this case I encourage audiophools to "tune by ear" since this seems to be the most reliable way to "control" for these variables. Our auditory (and hydrostatic pressure sensing) systems are very capable of "controlling for" these differences in real-time it seems...
when I say the dynamic range seems higher it's because the summation of my nervous system input is telling me it is and this is roughly supported by crude measurements. 
♂
With regards to the variability of the SQ with the time of day. This is probably also related to the dynamic nature of the ambient noise floor in real world situations... so i'm aware that it's not only AC quality that determines this perceived variability of SQ...
This may be a bit blasphemous to say, but imo often times the overall perceived SQ has a lot more to with the dynamic range of the source material (recording) that you are playing back and the quality of the mixing/mastering. That's why I think @Fender and others perceive vinyl records to be better sounding than their digital counterparts. In most cases (athough vinyl is actually more limited in its potential theoretical max dynamic range compared to digital) even digital vinyl rips invariably tend to measure better in dynamic range measurements. Probably because mixing and mastering engineers that work on digital media are instructed to make the records sound better in a higher ambient noise environment, to make them "pop" more - such as a car stereo system (where background noise levels could be as high as 70dB).
This is another area where A/B testing could shed some light btw - comparing SQ of vinyl to digital vinyl rips. any volunteers?? if you want me to dig up some examples - there are some "full sets" of albums that contain copies of all the masters in the form of hi-res digital downloads. i.e. high quality vinyl rips, CD rips, and the standard hi-res that was mastered for streaming. these can then be compared to the physical vinyl version in your system. sounds like a fun day of listening to me!!
I must add that this reduction in dynamic range (or compression) isn't necessarily a bad thing because the studios have recognised that digital media (probably because of extra convenience) tends to be consumed in higher ambient noise environments compared to vinyl... but it does mean that unfortunately those of us who are digital-first (digital-streaming-only, even!!) do not have access to copies of the masters that were mixed/mastered with a high DR. unless we are willing to source vinyl rips from virtual internet pals etc.
cassette tapes for example afforded a degree of extra convenience and portability etc that just wasn't possible in the vinyl era (also a technically higher theoretical max dynamic range). I mean, the boombox and probably all of hip-hop wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the cassette tape - because it facilitated sampling on the fly while you were listening to tracks on the block with your homies on your portable sound system... I mean if that's not mind blowing then I don't know what is.
but anyways, my point is that even in the tape era - the loudness war/race had already begun.
The reason why i said "A/B testing dB min and max isn't scientific" is not because anecdotal evidence is useless in science. No. It's because in this particular case the ambient noise floor in your listening room fluctuates too much for the separate readings to be sufficiently comparable. (for example in my room - the dB min can fluctuate easily from 22-28 and the dB avg with no music playing can fluctuate even more) Similarly the consistency of positioning and quality of mic etc contribute significantly to measurement errors that in turn affects the comparability.
That's why in this case I encourage audiophools to "tune by ear" since this seems to be the most reliable way to "control" for these variables. Our auditory (and hydrostatic pressure sensing) systems are very capable of "controlling for" these differences in real-time it seems...
when I say the dynamic range seems higher it's because the summation of my nervous system input is telling me it is and this is roughly supported by crude measurements. ♂With regards to the variability of the SQ with the time of day. This is probably also related to the dynamic nature of the ambient noise floor in real world situations... so i'm aware that it's not only AC quality that determines this perceived variability of SQ...
This may be a bit blasphemous to say, but imo often times the overall perceived SQ has a lot more to with the dynamic range of the source material (recording) that you are playing back and the quality of the mixing/mastering. That's why I think @Fender and others perceive vinyl records to be better sounding than their digital counterparts. In most cases (athough vinyl is actually more limited in its potential theoretical max dynamic range compared to digital) even digital vinyl rips invariably tend to measure better in dynamic range measurements. Probably because mixing and mastering engineers that work on digital media are instructed to make the records sound better in a higher ambient noise environment, to make them "pop" more - such as a car stereo system (where background noise levels could be as high as 70dB).
This is another area where A/B testing could shed some light btw - comparing SQ of vinyl to digital vinyl rips. any volunteers?? if you want me to dig up some examples - there are some "full sets" of albums that contain copies of all the masters in the form of hi-res digital downloads. i.e. high quality vinyl rips, CD rips, and the standard hi-res that was mastered for streaming. these can then be compared to the physical vinyl version in your system. sounds like a fun day of listening to me!!
I must add that this reduction in dynamic range (or compression) isn't necessarily a bad thing because the studios have recognised that digital media (probably because of extra convenience) tends to be consumed in higher ambient noise environments compared to vinyl... but it does mean that unfortunately those of us who are digital-first (digital-streaming-only, even!!) do not have access to copies of the masters that were mixed/mastered with a high DR. unless we are willing to source vinyl rips from virtual internet pals etc.
cassette tapes for example afforded a degree of extra convenience and portability etc that just wasn't possible in the vinyl era (also a technically higher theoretical max dynamic range). I mean, the boombox and probably all of hip-hop wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the cassette tape - because it facilitated sampling on the fly while you were listening to tracks on the block with your homies on your portable sound system... I mean if that's not mind blowing then I don't know what is.
but anyways, my point is that even in the tape era - the loudness war/race had already begun.
BowsAndArrows
Senior Member
Thanks for responding... see that's what I'd expect to find. Given that you are listening to copies of the same master. do you have any versions of the same album in a "mastered for CD" or "for streaming" versions? That would be a cool comparison
Vinyl Studio does a very good job of taking out the clicks, pops and hiss.
Most original vinyls were remastered for CD, so it is hard to find an exact comparison. But, even if you do, the playback mechanisms create different sounds. Vinyl playback, like tubes, creates more even harmonics that many believe creates a sense of warmth, richness, and depth that CDs do not have. Obviously, the differences are subjective and are more obvious in higher quality systems. I ripped a lot of vinyl just for that reason, even though I had the album on CD.
D
Deleted member 404
Guest
...my recommendation is a 1:1 recording without subsequent editing. I digitized several LPs in the 2000s and edited them with Adobe Audition (hiss reduction, click/pop eliminator etc.). When I listen to these recordings today, I'm dealing with a poor, sterile version that has nothing to do with the LP feeling. Apart from track recognition and separation, I wouldn't do anything else with the recordings today after this experience (and would use the free and very good Audacity for this).
I have ripped several hundred LPs with a high quality commercial A to D converter at 192/24 and processed them with Vinyl Studio, including click and pop and hiss removal. The results are pretty much identical to playing the original vinyl, with the pops, clicks and hiss removed. This includes using a high quality DAC. It is certainly possible to destroy the magic of LPs when digitizing them. But, it is also possible to retain the magic if done appropriately.
Last edited:
Some people like the sound of vinyl, some do not and most do not care. Stream a song to your phone and you will probably never hear the difference. So, the record companies do the cheapest thing, which is to do a digital master for digital playback. Doing a vinyl master, pressing some copies, then ripping a digital version and then cleaning up the pops and hiss and using that for CDs and streaming will probably not change sales by enough to matter. Note that many artists are now putting out a vinyl version of their albums, because more and more people are using vinyl. In addition, many people who like the vinyl sound, use tube equipment, which gives some of the same even harmonics.
BowsAndArrows
Senior Member
i agree with @dtc... but also because of what i alluded to earlier. in high ambient noise environments (e.g. a car or a stereo in the kitchen) and with lower quality sound reproduction equipment - these "compressed" dynamic range masters sound better. since the quietest sounds in the recording are mixed to be louder and are not lost in the noise floor... they do actually "pop" more.
the loudness war didn't just come out of nowhere imo - it was a direct response to the evolution of consumer music reproduction equipment.
in general though (depending on the genre of music etc.) this is not really preferable in a quiet listening environment with good equipment that can accurately reproduce dynamics. to me this matters a lot especially for recordings of acoustic (non-electronic) instruments - where accurately reproducing the dynamics adds a lot to the realism.
BowsAndArrows
Senior Member
yeh that's what you'd expect. if only more labels would release a digital copy of the vinyl masters that they are making for the growing market....
imo the dynamic range issue is also why many people remark that the multichannel (atmos and all that BS) recordings sometimes sound better, even when played in stereo.
D
Deleted member 404
Guest
Yes, I agree, it is possible. However, I think that applying the SW filters changes the "original" in any case. This is not noticeable when listening to the music in the car, bathroom or similar. However, on a reasonably quality hi-fi system, my impression changes. In this respect, I would simply run it through 1:1 today (as I used to do in the 80s when recording to tape
).If by software filters, you mean the pop and click removal, you should note that the original music is already badly distorted by the pop or click. Removing the imperfections returns it to pretty much the original form, although you can never guarantee it is exactly the original form. In my experience, removing the clicks and pops almost always smooths out the problem areas and you do not hear any distortion for that process. In my processing I look at the wave form and also listen with good quality headphones. If there is any distortion, I go back and try other techniques. Now, if you have an imperfection in the vinyl that is parallel to the grove rather than across the groove, that can be very hard to fix, although there are multiple techniques to address that situation also. Sometimes the "fix" is worse than the imperfection, so you leave the imperfection alone. But in the vast majority of cases you can remove the major distortion of the pops and clicks and not hear any significant distortion with the fix. The algorithms used to remove the pops and clicks are very sophisticated. And, yes, I listen on a high end playback system, not just in my car or bathroom.Yes, I agree, it is possible. However, I think that applying the SW filters changes the "original" in any case. This is not noticeable when listening to the music in the car, bathroom or similar. However, on a reasonably quality hi-fi system, my impression changes. In this respect, I would simply run it through 1:1 today (as I used to do in the 80s when recording to tape
D
Deleted member 404
Guest
It's nice when you achieve acceptable results. For my part, I just have different experiences. In this respect, my digitization is unaffected and corresponds exactly to the situation as if I had just put the LP on the turntable. With all its disadvantages due to the mechanics/technology etc. The only advantage now is that I have this data on the NAS and can access it quickly from anywhere without having to do the usual preparatory work for playing an LP 
.
I also dived into the wave back then and even removed some clicks manually. It was all very time-consuming, which is why the automatic filrers were used. From today's perspective, I don't like the result (sterile, high frequencies cut off, live recordings sound clipped, muffled, etc.). The ratio of time spent to result makes me want to simply use the original today. Back then with cassette, I was already of the opinion that I could achieve the best results without Dolby B or C
.I also dived into the wave back then and even removed some clicks manually. It was all very time-consuming, which is why the automatic filrers were used. From today's perspective, I don't like the result (sterile, high frequencies cut off, live recordings sound clipped, muffled, etc.). The ratio of time spent to result makes me want to simply use the original today. Back then with cassette, I was already of the opinion that I could achieve the best results without Dolby B or C
Similar threads
