Microprojects - A simple (stereo) bar-LED driven driving indicator.

sq3evp wrote:

Mechanical in the sense of artificial, too accurate for the real world.

.
Mechanical is what the C64 sounded like, there's an appropriate term for what you're writing about - CD sound is sterile.

sq3evp wrote:

Mechanical in the sense of artificial, too accurate for the real world.

Hehehe...how it is through inaccurate presentation of the subject that wrong conclusions can be drawn....
Nothing to it,
Personally, I would describe the sound of a CD as rather sterile - mechanical (in my opinion) doesn't really fit here; I've seen a bit of different mechanisms in my life and I've never encountered a "pure" mechanism - without its own noises such as rasps, squeaks, hums .... perhaps that's why I misunderstood the meaning. And the fact that a black record sounds better is a long known fact; Anything that is analogue from start to finish will be more pleasing to our hearing. After all, we have encountered this kind of sound for thousands of years.

Knowably, primitive man sitting safely in a cave heard muffled sounds from outside, this appealed to him so he survived. Another species preferred to listen to dinosaurs without distortion and ended up as a fossil .

398216 Usunięty wrote:

And the fact that the black plate sounds better is a long known fact;

.
Better than what? If better from what used to be before black vinyl ie black shellac then you are right.

CD/vinyl, this is a topic without end....
Here the question would have to be asked:
Which sounds more "real"?
In the sense of a comparison to the source.

efi222 wrote:

CD/vinyl, is a topic without end....
Here the question would have to be asked:
Which sounds more "real"?
In the sense of a comparison to the source.

Oh Lord, this is nominally heresy - there are people who use audio equipment for several tens of thousands of zloty to listen to MP3s.
Nothing to discourse about for them....

vodiczka wrote:

From what?

.
From the CD, of course. And I don't mean pseudo vinyl pressed from digital recordings in addition with compression cutting off all dynamics. And to answer another question; Better in terms of naturalness of sound. The difference between vinyl vs. CD is more or less like the difference between an original Van Gog piece and a copy on chalk paper. I have seen such and I must say it does not look good.
Another thing is that today's society has degraded hearing compared to decades ago, for example.
Ubiquitous broadcasts, and especially commercials, effectively limit the ability to distinguish what sounds good from those commercials; not only that, but I have even encountered the opinion that this sound, with flattened dynamics and artificially "beautified" by boosting the band's extremities (please do not confuse this with the operation of a loudness filter!), sounds ...NATURAL... Being told by the clique that black is white has the effect of making weaker individuals start to believe it. Just like with this "coup".
It is not without reason that I wrote about the ready-made indicators from Aliexpress, which yes "twinkle" and at first glance even seem to be in line with the signal, while the truth comes out when a tuned generator is connected.

398216 Usunięty wrote:

The difference between vinyl vs. CD is about the same as the difference between an original Van Gog work and a copy on chalk paper.

.
You're conjuring, mate, because you're comparing the ways in which the original is abused and not the possibilities of vinyles and CDs as carriers and the signal converters that work with them. The possibilities of the latter are significantly greater, it's a pity they are not used in mass production. You listen to an original work in a philharmonic hall, not from loudspeakers or headphones.

vodiczka wrote:

An original work is listened to in a philharmonic hall and not from loudspeakers or headphones

.
This is true. Because nothing has yet been invented here (and will probably remain so for a long time) that can bring this atmosphere into the home.
But everyone is looking for a solution that is at least a substitute for this climate.

efi222 wrote:

But everyone is looking for a solution,

.
Of course, I am attached to vinyl records and phono cartridges but I do not consider CDs to be an inferior solution in terms of sound quality.

vodiczka wrote:

An original work is listened to in a philharmonic hall, not from loudspeakers or headphones.

.
Including the snotting or coughing music lover sitting next to you or the sounds of trams passing by. There are no ideal conditions, so unfortunately in the real world you have to get to like the noise.

There was a similar discussion on the forum recently.
CDs yes. Provided they have not been affected by loudnes war. This problem does not apply to vinyl records, which, due to the playback technique, have not been "contaminated" by this affliction, or at least not to the same extent as CDs.
Here you can check the DR value (dynamic range) for different record releases.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/

efi222 wrote:

This problem does not apply to vinyl records, which, due to the playback technique, have not been "contaminated" by this affliction

.
Akurat is not the fault of the playback technique but of the implementation of the recordings. CD itself has a huge advantage in dynamics over vinyl, i.e. 96 dB to a maximum of 40 dB.

acctr wrote:

The CD itself has a huge advantage in dynamics over vinyl,

.
What do I care about the theoretical amount of dynamic range, if the engineer screws everything up to the max and the 96dB can be put in your shoes. I won't even mention the additional distortion...
Quite a few records like this have been made. A friend of mine is looking for older CD releases for this reason.

efi222 wrote:

What do I care about the theoretical amount of dynamics if the realist screws everything up to the max and those 96dB can be put in your shoes.

.
This is not theoretical dynamics but authentic/real/factual. What the realiser does is another tale and has nothing to do with the CD reading technique, but on his skill or the artist himself.
Loudness war has already appeared on vinyl, e.g. The Beatles, what this has to do with a particular CD or vinyl medium you can't meaningfully explain.

efi222 wrote:

acctr wrote:

The CD itself has a huge advantage in dynamics over vinyl,

.
What do I care about the theoretical amount of dynamic range, if the engineer screws everything up to the max and the 96dB can be put in your shoes. I won't even mention additional distortion....

.
That's the thing - dynamics is just a parameter, and the realiser can mess it up.

On vinyl such attempts (loudnes war) were sprady. Digital recording facilitated and resulted in some years in the widespread use of this procedure, until it led in extreme cases to a hopeless flattening of the sound with additional clipping that was a side effect of such processing.
These discs sounded very bad, and we are talking here about the sound, not the parameters of the media.
Black discs still have advocates of digitally unprocessed sound today.

It is the same with the "shooting" of feature films.
Despite widespread digitisation, half of film productions continue to be made on film stock, because the image from it is simply different (prettier, artistic). And there is no magic here.

acctr wrote:

Including a snotty or coughing music lover sitting next to or the sounds of passing trams.

.
An infected music lover is a random event and a shed in which a passing tram can be heard does not deserve to be called a philharmonic.

vodiczka wrote:

a building where you can hear a passing tram does not deserve to be called a philharmonic

.
Trams can be heard, world-class artists want to play and people buy tickets that sometimes chairs have to be added .

acctr wrote:

Trams can be heard,

Enter address

vodiczka wrote:

Address

.
Where does the tram go?

acctr wrote:

This is not theoretical dynamics just authentic/real/factual. What the realiser does is a different tale and has nothing to do with the CD reading technique but on his skill or the artist himself.

Correct. However, so what if the equipment itself has 98dB of noise isolation if the CD played back in it has a "flattened" dynamic range down to 80dB? Is it possible to speak of good quality sound reproduced in this way? You're right, the equipment is essential, but if the sound engineer is a d..b., even the best equipment won't change that.
A'props to the coughing guy sitting next to you at the concert - I've heard a CD (black) where the sound was deliberately mixed with the hall sounds and it sounded really nice - listening to it you could get the impression of being a participant (live) in a concert; even when you closed your eyes you could hear the moment when the person in the row in front of you changed their position in the fort.
In fact, I don't count such a recording of a concert as a mistake; it simply captures the full impression of the concert hall, including its imperfections. Another thing is that such a recording is best listened to on headphones, as it loses on speakers.
However, when it comes to listening on loudspeakers, I agree that sterile recordings - recorded in a studio - sound best. This is because the imperfections of the room come into play and the sound is less sterile/artificial.
Colleague acctr is right when he writes:

acctr wrote:

in the real world you have to get to like the noise.

The real world is what it is. We don't have the option of locking ourselves in an anechoic chamber with our equipment.

acctr wrote:

Where is the tram going?

.
Where does the filhamonia stand

398216 Usunięty wrote:

Normally (worked out by experience) the ironing time for me should be 4 minutes

.

Only 4 minutes? At my place it was usually a minimum of 8-10 and larger PCBs are and 10-15min less is an empty laminate.

398216 Usunięty wrote:

You're right, the equipment is the key, but if the sound engineer is a d..p., even the best equipment won't change that.

.
So you're admitting that it's not about the differences between CD and vinyl but how the sound engineer will use them.

398216 Usunięty wrote:

However, so what if the equipment itself has 98dB of noise isolation if the record played back in it is of "flattened" dynamics to 80dB?

This is still more than 30 dB of vinyl, at times 35 dB.
The same is true for channel separation in stereo playback although in practice separation greater than 30 dB is not necessary.
Let's not forget the big disadvantage of vinyl - deteriorating sound quality with the number of plays not to mention accidental scratching of the disc.

vodiczka wrote:

Where does filhamonia stand

.
I'm not going to write it because I don't want to do black PR, especially after the way you specified.

acctr wrote:

I'm not going to write that

.
Don't be shy, google doesn't hide the truth

23 February 2012 - The Baltic Opera's current venue is not the happiest. Sometimes during opera performances you can hear a tram passing by .
16 mar 2023 Krakow Philharmonic. - In the current location, there are occasionally external chords during a concert associated with the passing of trams on lines 1, 2 or 8 .

vodiczka wrote:

Don't be shy, google doesn't hide the truth

.
Now you know and you can go and see for yourself what I wrote about.

I believe, I will not go.
The Lodz Philharmonic is better soundproofed and you can't hear a tram passing by on Narutowicza Street, even though it's going ''under your windows''.

tesla97 wrote:

only 4 minutes? With me it was usually a minimum of 8-10

.
A lot depends on individual 'pressing' conditions - on temperature, pressing force, etc. In my case exactly 4 minutes
give the best result.

vodiczka wrote:

This means that you admit that it is not about the differences between CD and vinyl but about how the sound engineer uses them.

I wrote nothing of the sort. I'm sorry that you didn't understand (?) my post.

vodiczka wrote:

It's still more than 30 dB of vinyl, at times 35 dB.

Yes, but the issue here is not the dynamics of a correctly recorded album but the flattening by the compressor during recording (CD) or playback (RADIO). This artificial procedure gives the first impression (false) of the high volume of the recording and its "dynamics" (inverted commas intended). It is one thing to have a noise interval and another to have the interval from the quietest part of a recording to the loudest. And besides, where did you get vinyl dynamics of 30dB from? Telephones (the kind with a dial and earpiece on a wire) had more....
Yes - there's no denying that with every playback the disc loses quality - especially in the high frequency range. This is a fact known since the dawn of time. But a lot also depends on the pressure of the needle on the disc, the guidance of the cartridge and the shape of the needle itself. Here, too, there is not some fixed value that the record loses some quality value after each playback. It is one thing to use 20 G pressure with a sapphire needle (with a few tens of hours of work at best...) and another to use a dynamic cartridge with a diamond needle and HASZIMOTO cut (I think this is how the name is spelled in Polish) with a pressure of 1.2 G. A lot also depends on the way the needle tracks the record. It is true that the "S" arm is more "friendly" to discs to a certain extent, but the best parameters are still given by the linear tracking of the cartridge - that is, the same as when writing the "mother" matrix.

AS anyway, I don't understand the trend to litter topics with side threads, not directly related to the content of the topic. Is this some kind of competition? Who's going to write more posts not related to the primary thread, or who's going to force how many "straightening" posts through their posts???? And who revels in this? The old users? Shame.