引用:
原帖由 青面侠 于 2017-9-25 05:53 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPhone
黑胶不配火电能听？配核电就垃圾了
原帖由 @聋则嗅明XP 于 2017-9-24 16:35 发表
我是最近玩黑胶的，说实话，音质不如cd，但很有逼格，我不知道你说的好的结论怎么来的，可能是模拟音比较糊，让人有暖的感觉。
原帖由 @sunner 于 2017-9-24 17:27 发表
3.5寸软盘保存的数据比优盘好多了，这个必须要用过才知道，软盘里的数据拷出来后用debug看数据曲线会发现很柔和，但u盘的数据都是锯齿，很难看，而且用起来容易卡顿
原帖由 @skidrow 于 2017-9-24 21:53 发表
不是说LD的音质是最好的么
原帖由 青面侠 于 2017-9-25 05:53 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPhone
黑胶不配火电能听？配核电就垃圾了
原帖由 Tobar 于 2017-9-25 08:46 发表
Posted by: Meizu PRO 5
都是用太阳能的，市电根本听不了，正玄波太杂
原帖由 @塌方 于 2017-9-25 09:56 发表
我又要发这个了
原帖由 @eastwoodwest 于 2017-9-25 15:40 发表
黑胶确实棒，一耳朵区别，你格局太低不跟你争辩，香港财务司长买黑胶破了产，这个不是我说的，是人民日报刊登的，你不信我不要紧，脱离人民群众是你的问题，爆豆音按摩耳膜神经，跟百年前大清慈禧听到的一个味儿，世纪流金悠悠岁月潮起潮落都在爆豆里，科学家也研究过，不明白去看知乎，不要跟我争辩，你请我吃什么了，凭什么说我胖，黑胶确实棒，你现在不明白，将来可能也不会懂，不过这不重要，黑胶确确实实不是玄学，是一耳朵的区别，麻烦请听过之后再来刚，不要人云亦云，听完感受不到是你耳朵问题，不是我的问题，也可能你听得太少，经年累月的数字噪声把耳朵冲坏了，这还有救吗？不要问我，去问知乎，耳朵是耗材，耳朵不行也是数字噪声的问题，百万年来自然界哪有数字音效，数字音乐跟转基因一样是非自然的，不连续的，尖锐的波峰波谷夹杂毛刺，人类的耳朵几百万年的进化必须只接受模拟音效，有句刚句，黑胶音乐图谱是最接近自然波形的，是自然的，是真的和美的，几百万年的进化沧海桑田、时光、空间、白垩纪、人类简史全在黑胶里，不要反驳我，你耳朵有毛病我不和你争辩。
http://www.sohu.com/a/155856455_610450
2017-07-10 08:30 技术
注：本文转自公众号----------- 爱乐者
作者：中国录音师协会---乐迪
在全球唱片业持续低迷达十年之久之后，业主们迫于市场的极度压力，开始把注意力转向了毫无想象力的“复旧”之路，祭出了“黑胶唱片”复古这一招，运用各种宣传工具夸张地吆喝“黑胶”模拟声的优点，极力煽动音乐消费者购买黑胶唱片及其相应的播放设备。在此潮流下，上海和广东都重新引进了黑胶生产线，启动黑胶唱片的生产。昨天的新闻是，日本索尼唱片也重启了黑胶生产线。
试图东山再起的黑胶唱片，就是33转的LP立体声模拟唱片，大部分“80后”、“90后”的音乐爱好者见都没见过这劳什子。它的技术成熟是在上世纪的50至60年代，极度发达于70年代，衰落于80年代，消失于90年代。取代它的，先是MC盒式磁带，然后是CD唱片。然而，CD唱片现在也没落了，革命者是互联网数字音乐，正是网络数字音乐把整个唱片业给掀翻了。唱片这桌其实已经被端掉的酒水，有人试图用隔代消失的“黑胶”去扶正，并企图以此复兴唱片大业，实在是一种老年谵妄症。不排除有人很相信，也不排除有中青年人夹杂在里头起哄，但从市场价值来说，结果很无望是必然的。
2014年年底，营业面积1800平方米，有“中国唱片零售业标杆”之称的北京西单“大世界音像店”关张，是实体唱片销售在中国下行的重要拐点
根据IFPI发布的2015、2016两年的全球音乐制品产业报告披露，包含黑胶、CD、盒带在内的物理载体录音制品销售额，2015年同比下降4.5%，2016年同比下降7.6%。这个报告指出，2016年全球音乐产业收入为150亿美元，数字音乐下载和流媒体播放占61%，即91.5亿美元；物理载体的录音制品销售占39%，即58.5亿美元。在物理载体的录音制品中，黑胶唱片的销售额（含二手交易）整体微升，为630万美元，占整个唱片业销售总量的0.108%，占整个音乐录音产品产业的0.04%。这组数字大家看明白了，以黑胶唱片这样一个区区零头，想创下唱片业黑胶“复兴大业”，如果能成功，真是咸鱼翻身的奇迹了。
国际唱片工业协会（IFPI）每年发布全球音乐产业报告，除了每年公布实体唱片销售额断崖式下降的数字，从未提及”黑胶复兴“一说
有很多音乐爱者都比较感性，对数字不敏感，那说点形象的。
今年6月，广东记者采访率广交从欧洲归来的著名指挥家余隆，问他在家里听音乐是喜欢听唱片，还是数字音乐。余隆不假思索地回答：“当然是数字音乐。”同样的问题在不同场合也问了谭盾，谭盾也是一样的回答。这些时代音乐的弄潮儿，他们虽然年纪也不小了，但”先进性“的代表能力丝毫不弱。
时代的发展和前进，新技术的替代能力，是谁也阻挡不了的。但光就这一点老生常谈，我们还不足以发表这样一篇社评，我们写下这篇文章的意图，旨在揭示一些商业炒作和欺骗。
大家还能记得十年前开始炒作的普洱茶吗？普洱茶无疑是好茶，但就销售额来说，当年无法匹敌十大绿茶品种，连红茶、乌龙茶也比不上，价格很便宜。于是，有炒作经验的商人囤积大量普洱后，就开始爆炒普洱，养胃啦、治心血管病啦……最后连尿炕都能治了，一路把普洱炒到几万块钱一饼。
现在炒黑胶也有这个味道，因为大多数二手黑胶的不可再生性，有人到日本、美国、澳洲市场买了大量旧版唱片，利用日本人喜欢黑胶唱片的故事，想把黑胶二手碟的价格炒上去。五年前，广州唱片市场上一张普通二手黑胶碟的价格就是65元钱，现在已经炒到了平均两百多元，估计后年可以翻十倍了。唱片业主发现机会来了，也加入炒作，伺机想把煮熟的鸭子弄飞起来。黑胶炒手现在非常反对唱片业生产新的黑胶，因为新产品的加入，会把黑胶的”不可再生性“这点弄翻，于是黑胶拥趸现在分成了两派，一派主张恢复生产黑胶，一派崇拜老黑胶。两派的本质都是商业化思维，和音乐没有多大关系。
武汉最后一家黑胶唱片店，最贵的黑胶万元一张。店主说，他卖的已经不是唱片，是情怀
邮票热炒了20年，炒到现在没了行情，新票的价格还低于面值。为什么呢？因为大家现在基本不写信了，邮票已经失去了实用价值。如果我说，作为录音制品的黑胶唱片现在基本也没有实用价值，是炒不起来的，你信吗？下面说三条理由。
第一，黑胶唱片的音质大大低于现在的数字录音制品。数字录音制品不等于是CD唱片，CD唱片的标准出得比较早，是上世纪80年代初期的产物，在录音技术标准上有缺陷，声音相对干涩，高频部分有毛刺感，总体感觉声音不贴肉。加上早期的CD唱机滤波技术的青涩，听感不如黑胶那么圆润柔和。黑胶的鼓吹者就是抓住了这点大做文章，误导公众。
不说90年代末”AC97“录音标准提出后，优于CD技术标准的录音制品大量涌现，CD的音质缺陷早已烟消云散。就说早期CD本身吧，它的总体音质还是超越了黑胶的，不然卡拉扬也不会那么起劲地录制CD唱片。我们来对比一组来自行业标准的技术数据，你不用懂它们的含义，看阿拉伯数字大小就行。动态范围：黑胶45dB，CD 105dB；信噪比：黑胶35dB，CD 95dB；声道分离度：黑胶25dB，CD 95dB……孰优孰劣，其实很清楚。
第二，新生产的黑胶，不可能是全模拟声。黑胶拥趸既然拿模拟录音的所谓优点说话，请问，现在新生产的黑胶还是模拟录音吗？到哪里去找模拟录音和混音的棚子？全世界都没有了，为什么没有了，技术不行啊。拿数字录音混音的母板压制的黑胶，老瓶装新酒，这蒙谁啊？这么问，黑胶们又要说了，我们是买卖老黑胶的，新碟我们不玩。黑胶放一次寿命短一次，放唱200次的黑胶信噪比和频响指标会下跌到新碟的一半，这老黑胶有玩的价值吗？当然收藏家除外，可复兴黑胶靠那么几个收藏家行吗？不愚弄大众，这么成得了气候？
优质的黑胶唱机价格非常昂贵
但这架制作精良的唱机用的仍是廉价的唱头
第三，黑胶和放唱设备投入巨大，网络数字音乐才是成本低廉的。现在一张全新的黑胶300-700元。黑胶唱机不超过一万元一台的，就根本没法与3000元一台的CD唱机比声音。黑胶唱片唱机在数字移动音乐时代，简直就是个花钱如流水的玩意儿，就是个贵族消费。贵族消费也是消费，但那是小众市场，起不了大浪的，承担不了行业复兴大业。就像十万一块的瑞士手表买的人看上去也很多，把瑞士小镇的表店都买空了，可相对全球几十亿大众，这点抢购又算得了什么呢？大多数人还是天天看看手机知道时间，而且还准，不用上发条。
对于不明就里的消费者，炒作仍是妙法
有趣的现象是，大叫黑胶声音好的商人，卖的却是二三百元一台的低廉黑胶唱机，那种声音，比七十年代的半导体收音机好不了多少。这叫高举皇家高贵的大旗，出笼作坊低价劣质品，试图让大众掏钱，移情意淫大发作。
在数字音乐+移动平台蓬勃发展的今天，任何开倒车的技术复辟都是徒劳的幻想，理性消费的人群肯定不会盲目跟进，他们会捂紧口袋，专注于音乐欣赏的乐趣，跟着时代前进，跟着艺术前进。
黑胶不会有”复兴“的那一天。
END
原帖由 flyingchaos 于 2017-9-27 12:38 发表
posted by wap, platform: Galaxy S6
这个模拟和数字信号的区别是显见的，直出的话就比如照片，你可以说数码片更锐利各方面指标更好，但观感就是不如胶片自然柔和。泥潭一口一个玄学，怎么这点常识都不理解。
原帖由 @cubesun 于 2017-9-27 16:51 发表
这种说法大概就是说油画比照片真实吧
原帖由 @cubesun 于 2017-9-27 16:51 发表
这种说法大概就是说油画比照片真实吧
原帖由 amm 于 2017-9-28 02:33 发表
知道这帖子最有趣在哪么
我敢保证，ls一群酸的牙掉的人，不会有什么正儿八经的听音设备
别说黑胶，跟别说sacd，cd有么喷了，比如532片？
原帖由 mogle 于 2017-9-29 08:23 发表
怎么不去hifi论坛发这个帖子呢？
估计自己知道会被一群“老烧”喷成狗头，所以才来这里发这种帖子？
原帖由 @jjx01 于 2017-9-28 08:19 发表
ls大概也没有人有设备测试黑胶的动态、信噪比和立体声分离度，包括买了昂贵听音器材的“烧友”
原帖由 nai 于 2017-9-29 11:59 发表
老烧再怎么喷，也不会说出你这种傻逼得话来得
音响发烧友普遍的素质还是比较高
原帖由 amm 于 2017-9-30 04:05 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPhone
说的好像你有一样
原帖由 @532 于 2017-9-25 09:22 发表
跟你讲
太阳能的除非你直接接电瓶
不然逆变器出来的我怀疑都变成高阶三角函数了
原帖由 jun4rui 于 2017-9-30 09:05 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPad
看了下铁三角的唱机也就2K不到，反正是玩玩，到时候买一台就好了，唱片收藏一点就好了
原帖由 amiliy88 于 2017-9-30 07:42 发表
posted by wap, platform: Android
我是光伏供应商，来
原帖由 mogle 于 2017-9-30 07:32 发表
自己虽然没有 但公司有
ap555这东西现在只要做音频相关的 那家公司不买一个
原帖由 lkskk 于 2017-9-29 14:20 发表
本来不想在TG讨论玄学问题，一张口就水电火电满地球跑。黑胶作为模拟音源可能比开盘弱一点，但是起码简单的多，片源也好找的多。比起一般的数字音源，黑胶的密度和信息量是有优势的。而且由于模拟音源的天然优势，在 ...
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not
Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not
February 10, 20121:00 PM ET
Heard on Talk of the Nation
According to Rolling Stone magazine, sales of vinyl albums continue to grow, setting a new record in 2010. Does vinyl reproduce sound better, or is it just a trend? Two audio experts join guest host John Dankosky to talk about the science of audio, and how perceptions can shape the sound experience.
JOHN DANKOSKY, HOST:
Up next: how to tell your CD from your MP3, from your AAC. But first, let's start with the LP. When I was a kid, music took up a lot of room - not in your hard drive, but in your life. Being an audiophile meant devoting shelves and shelves and shelves and shelves to your album collection. And when you moved out of your parents' house, out of your first apartment, you hauled milk crates filled with your music collection onto your next life. And these days, most of us probably get our music in the form of downloads - no heavy boxes, but no fancy cover art, either.
Lots of audiophiles say that when it comes to sound quality, nothing beats vinyl. These purists wonder if digital files can really give you that analog sound of our youth. For the rest of this hour, we'll be talking about the science of audio, what all those bit rates and sample frequency terms mean, and we'll find out how your perceptions could affect what you hear. First, though, here's Laura from Main St. Jukebox in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
LAURA: I prefer vinyl. It's - listening to music is an experience, and a full experience includes putting on the record, moving over the needle and sitting back and rocking out.
DANKOSKY: OK. We know what she thinks. She works at a record store. Let's find out from our guests. Sean Olive is director of acoustic research at Harman International. He joins us from the studios of NPR West in Culver City, California. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Olive.
SEAN OLIVE: Welcome, John. Thank you for inviting me.
DANKOSKY: And Scott Metcalfe is director of recording arts and sciences at the Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University. He joins us from WTMD at Towson State. Thank you so much for joining us, Scott.
SCOTT METCALFE: Thank you, John.
DANKOSKY: So, first of all, I'll ask you, Scott: vinyl or CD?
(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)
METCALFE: I enjoy both formats, but my preference is definitely CD.
DANKOSKY: Now, why CD?
METCALFE: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm primarily a recording engineer, as far as working with music. And it's - the closer thing to what I'm sending into the recorder is very much what I'm getting back out. With analog formats, although the sound can be very pleasing in certain styles, it's definitely imparting its own sound on it. And I think, to an extent, it's that sound that some people are really drawn to. But it's nice as an engineer to have the confidence of knowing that what I'm putting into - in most cases these days, the computer - is pretty close to what I'm going to get out.
DANKOSKY: Sean Olive, I have to ask you. I think I know your answer, but vinyl or CD?
OLIVE: Definitely CD.
DANKOSKY: Yeah? So tell me why.
OLIVE: Well, I mean, I grew up listening to records up until about '85, when the CD was already out. And I was involved in testing loudspeakers up at the National Research Council in Canada. And we were testing cartridges at that time, and it was quite apparent that the amount of distortion coming out of these devices was very high compared to CD. So what we found was that vinyl was a limiting factor in our ability to do accurate and reliable listening tests on loudspeakers, and we had to find a more reliable and more accurate medium.
DANKOSKY: I just wanted to say quickly, I'm John Dankosky, and this is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR. So when we're talking about all of this digital technology, there's a lot of terminology that I don't think everyone completely understands. Maybe I'll ask you, Scott Metcalfe, first. What is dynamic range?
METCALFE: Dynamic range we can think of initially as a musical term, meaning the range from the loudest notes being played to the softest notes being played. And when we talk about dynamic range in a recording medium, we're talking about the range between the noise floor - sort the bottom point where the noise becomes a distraction - to the top point, where it starts to introduce harmonic distortion, where the, technically, the waves that are being captured start to change in their form, and they're no longer precisely what we're feeding into it.
DANKOSKY: How about dynamic compression?
METCALFE: Well, dynamic compression is a tool that we may apply to reduce the overall dynamic range. That can be done in a creative sense, where we can apply, say, dynamic compression to a vocal track that needs to sit over a jazz trio, for example. So if the singer gets too loud, it doesn't jump out of the track, and if gets too quiet, it doesn't get buried behind the other instruments.
The term can sometimes be applied to vinyl in that the physical limitations of what the medium is able to store and reproduce is such that it can be advantageous, particularly in the lower frequencies, to reduce the dynamic range - meaning the low notes that are being captured - to reduce the dynamic range to do a couple of things.
One, it's going to prevent the needle from jumping right out of the groove if it gets too extreme. The other is that if we reduce the overall dynamic range going to the disc itself, we can actually fit more material, more length, onto each side of the disc.
With CDs, there isn't that trade-off. We have a, you know, easily, 80, 90 dB or more of dynamic range to work from, and we don't have to worry about any - although, unfortunately, it's very popular to put dynamic compression on a lot of modern music, but it's not a - it's not necessary. Technically, it's more an aesthetic choice or trying to be louder than the other band on the street.
DANKOSKY: We'll be talking a bit about some of these new, modern ways of compressing music. If you want to join us: 1-800-989-8255, or 1-800-989-TALK. Vinyl or CD or MP3? Can you tell the difference? Jerry's in Missouri. Hi, Jerry. Go ahead.
JERRY: I'm one of those old-school audiophiles that used to have the Discwasher and the expensive turntables and $300 cartridges. And when CDs first came about in the mid-'80s, some of the early digital recordings, even the digital recordings that were reproduced on LP - Pablo and Fantasy both did that with jazz groups - sounded kind of trebly. And I guess it's the aural equivalent of looking at the dots or pixels of a not very fine photograph.
I still have friends that swear by vinyl records. My daughter is really into vinyl records. But to me, I have the recordings of the same - exact same things. And, of course, anything, I think, done in the last decade or more has a fuller sound. And, of course, you don't have that problem of when you have a quiet passage in something, you're hearing the mechanical sound of that needle going across the vinyl and/or - even as careful as you've been with your records - sort of pops and clicks.
DANKOSKY: Yeah. Sean, what do you say to him?
OLIVE: Yeah. Well, first of all, when CD first came out, a lot of the CDs that were released were actually recordings made for vinyl. And those master tapes, rather than remastering, they just made them into CDs. So a lot of the, you know, objectionable sounds of CD was actually because the record companies didn't bother to remaster these old recordings. And this is something that I learned from Phil Ramone, who admitted this that, you know, there was a reason why these bad CDs first sounded bad, but it had nothing to do with the medium. And it was the actual recordings.
DANKOSKY: Well, we're going to talk more. We're going to give a little listening session right after this short break.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
DANKOSKY: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, and I'm John Dankosky. We're talking this hour about the science of audio. My guests are Sean Olive, director of acoustic research at Harman International, and Scott Metcalfe, the director of recording arts and sciences at The Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University. OK. We're going to do a little listening test, here, guys. We have an LP and a CD of the same song. We're going to play each of them and see if you can hear the difference.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, "FOOL IN THE RAIN"
ROBERT PLANT: (Singing) Oh, baby. Well, there's a light in your eye that keeps shining. Like a star that can't wait for a night. I hate to think I've been blinded, baby. Why I can't I see you tonight?
DANKOSKY: So we're listening to, of course, some Led Zeppelin on the background. I'm sure that our guests down the line can hear pretty clearly which one is the vinyl and which one is the CD, huh?
METCALFE: Sure. Yeah.
DANKOSKY: Yeah. And the big thing is all this surface noise that's on the front, but is that the big difference between these two recordings? If you were somehow able to take out all the scratches, the remnants of all these years of listening to Led Zeppelin, would you be able to really tell that much of a difference?
METCALFE: I think so. In fact, Sean kind of alluded to this a little bit earlier in talking about Phil Ramone. But one of the issues, too, when people say, well, I have this on CD and I have it on vinyl, and the vinyl just sounds so much better, it may not be an apples-to-apples comparison, because the flip was also true where - particularly stuff that's been re-released, remastered onto CD, it's gone through an entirely different mastering process and, I'm sorry to say, in some cases, without the original staff involved, you know, the original engineering staff or production staff. If it was really just a business decision, let's get this off master and get it out there.
DANKOSKY: Well, and we wanted to ask you about that quickly, because we see these things. They come out after, you know, almost every 10 years, there's a remastered version of the same record. What exactly is happening with this remastered?
METCALFE: Well, it's - in some ways, it's up to the mastering engineer what's happening there. With - I would say, at best, an old recording, you know, any kind of noises or artifacts or anomalies from either the recording process or just from the ageing of the material, if that can be cleaned up, I think that makes a lot of sense. Modern recordings, though, are comparatively louder. That's kind of a subjective term. But if you were to play a CD, let's say, from 20 years ago and compare that to a CD that just came out recently, I don't think many of the listeners would be, you know, they will have experienced this, that you have to turn a new CD down a lot.
There's a lot of dynamic compression that we talked about before being used on modern CDs. And in some cases, the depth of field, the depth of sound that people talk about, enjoying about vinyl that they say is missing from the CD may, in fact, be a result of the compression to make that old recording more competitive for the modern market. I - in preparing for today, I though, jeez, this would be a great thing to do over at school, is do a recording and put it onto vinyl without any additional processing, put it onto CD without any additional processing, and that's really gonna be the apples-to-apples comparison of those two. It's two hard now to take something off the shelf and assume that they're gonna be the same thing.
DANKOSKY: I think our caller Bill, though, from Indiana maybe gets it, one of the points here between vinyl and CD. Bill, go ahead.
BILL: Yes. I wanted to agree with the - at least I believe the point that the first lady was talking about, that although the sound of CDs and MP3s and that sort of thing is certainly better, there's a whole ritualistic quality of taking a vinyl record out and placing it on the turntable, using a little device to clean the dust off of it, setting the needle on, watching a little stroboscope to make sure it's turning at exactly 33-and-a-third revolutions a minute that I miss with the new technology that you can just pop in or turn on a button or whatever, and all of a sudden you're listening to it. And I just - the incorporation of your other senses and everything is just something that I really miss with the new technology.
DANKOSKY: Yeah, that smell of taking the record out of a jacket the very first time. I know what you're talking about, Bill.
BILL: Oh, absolutely.
(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)
METCALFE: John, you know, there's a couple of things that come to mind with that. One is that I completely agree, and I'm not preaching that one format is really better than the other, because I would never tell an artist, no, you shouldn't paint on canvas because I think paper looks better. So there's that extent. There's also - we have lost the ritual, and we've lost the experience of sitting down and focusing on just a recording. What we've gained, in a way - and I'm not saying one's necessarily that much better than the other - is most people walk around with a huge collection of music on their belt or in their jacket pocket.
And I think we probably consume more music now than we ever did. So there's a little bit of a tradeoff there. We can still make room for the experience if that's our interest.
DANKOSKY: Sean Olive, how about this perception that may change the way we feel about how one piece of music sounds over another?
OLIVE: Right. Well, there's a number of factors involved in our perception of sound quality, and a lot of them have nothing to do with the sound itself. So in the research that we do, we've looked at the - and we call these things nuisance variables or biases. So one of the ones that we deal with is psychological nuisance variables, which have to do with your knowledge or expectation of what you're hearing. Thomas Edison knew this a hundred years ago. He said people will hear what you tell them to hear. So if you're aware of - that you're listening to a violin, you've been told it sounds great, if it costs more money, all of those factors play into your perception of how it sounds.
DANKOSKY: And I can only imagine that in your line of work, sometimes people will spend a whole lot of money on a set of speakers, and they'll think those speakers have to sound much better because they just cost me a lot of money.
OLIVE: Right. And often it's a case where the price has very little to do with the sound quality.
DANKOSKY: Is that really true that you can't really buy your speakers on a price point?
OLIVE: No. I mean, we have many examples where we do double blind tests, and some of the competitors are very expensive, but they don't sound very good because I think it's a matter of, you know, the more expensive the speaker is the fewer you sell. So your R and D budget is much smaller, and you just don't have the money to spend on good measurements, for example.
DANKOSKY: Let's go to Brian in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hi, Brian.
BRIAN: Hi there. I appreciate the discussion on the CD versus LP, but wanted to add into the mix CD versus MP3 and AAC, et cetera, because we're losing a lot of information when we go to that next level. And it's kind of sad that that's the way we consume music now.
DANKOSKY: And that's exactly what we want to get to. So, Scott Metcalfe, what happens here? We're talking MP3s and different types of MP3s. Maybe you can explain the differences between these various formats.
METCALFE: Sure. Well, the - I was referring to before with the portability of music now. That's the upshot of MP3s and AACs. And even in my work, when I'm working with an artist who's not nearby, it's very convenient to put a demonstration of a mix or an edit, into a compressed format like that that I can put on to an FTP server, and they can download and audition. But there is definitely a quality difference. Just today, I put an actual CD in the FedEx to a client that I'm working with so he can hear exactly what it sounds like, not like what, you know, what we are working with online.
There is loss - there's a loss of depth of field in a smaller format. Just to say, though, MP3 and AAC excludes a lot of details. You can have very low-resolution MP3s that offer you really small file sizes but a pretty big hit in sound quality. And you can get bigger MP3s or what we would call the kind of the next generation of MP3, which is the AAC, which most people know as the format of iTunes. The equivalent AAC to MP3, to my ears, does sound better. And when I get into the higher ranges like 190, 320 kilobits per second, those are pretty respectable sounding.
And I'll use those, you know, as audition levels. The types of things I hear in the MP3s that I don't hear in the original, excuse me, in particular things like drums. A snare drum tends to sound more like noise to me. The rattle of the snares loses its definition. The stereophony of the sound gets a little bit collapsed. You know, if I'm listening in the car and there's a lot of noise there, I'm not terribly concerned about it. I go into my home to listen.
I listen in the recording studio, and it's blatantly obvious to me. Or occasionally, I'll hear somebody playing, you know, through a PA system at a party or, you know, a reception or something from an MP3, and it's almost painful for me to listen to. And I think if we did a quick comparison there, people would know what I'm listening to.
DANKOSKY: Well, we have some comparisons that you sent along to us, and we want to listen to those now. We have an original recording of a rock band that you made. And maybe you can just tell us about - when you say an original, how is this made? What are we listening to, this first track?
METCALFE: Yeah. This is a band called Bronze Radio Return from Hartford, Connecticut, and we - Chris Henderson, who's the lead singer of the group and songwriter, was a student of mine back at The Harrt School in Connecticut. And I had brought him down to - into a class that I was teaching down at Yale in the sound design, Yale School of Drama sound design department. And we brought the band and we recorded the class project. And so that's the material I decided to use. And I tested this on my own just to see what we would get. And immediately, I picked up on the cymbals and the snare drum having kind of this distortion noise quality to them that...
DANKOSKY: Yeah.
METCALFE: ...I didn't pick up in the original.
DANKOSKY: Well, let's listen to a little bit of this original recording first here.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, "OVER YOUR HEAD"
CHRIS HENDERSON: (Singing) ...this place because the water is over your head. It's over your head.
DANKOSKY: Now, we're going to play a little bit of an 8-bit recording, and this is what you would consider to be almost like an old-style MP3. And we - I think most people should be able to hear this even on their car stereos, the difference here.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, "OVER YOUR HEAD"
HENDERSON: (Singing) ...this place because the water is over your head.
DANKOSKY: So what are we losing in there, Scott Metcalfe?
METCALFE: Sure. Well, first of all, that wasn't really a format that people downloaded. The reason I put that in there is that it illustrates what the difference is or what is being lost with bit rate and sample rate. Sample rate - the higher the sample rate, the higher audio bandwidth you're able to capture. And most people would say that, on average, human beings hear up to about 20,000 cycles, wave cycles per second. So a CD is going to capture sound - not capture sound, but reproduce sound of 44,100 samples per second.
And we have a little formula that says if you divide that in half, whatever our sample rate is, we divide that in half, and that's what we're going to be able to capture. So the recording you just played was a 12 kilohertz sample rate. So therefore, we are only hearing up to six kilohertz. So we are missing a lot of overtones, a lot of content in there. And the 8-bit just means there's - essentially, there's quite a bit more noise. There is a lot of information that was lost there.
DANKOSKY: We're going to hear this original recording that you made. Once again, this higher fidelity recording. Let's listen for a moment here.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, "OVER YOUR HEAD"
HENDERSON: (Singing) ...this place because the water is over your head.
DANKOSKY: And now, we're going to go to an MP3, a more traditional MP3 recording. The type that you might download now.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, "OVER YOUR HEAD"
HENDERSON: (Singing) ....this place because the water is over your head.
DANKOSKY: Now, I say Scott, I can't hear really any different through my headphones and probably, at home you can't hear any difference. But you sent us an interesting comparison here, and the next thing that we're going to hear is what's missing. What's essentially missing between the original and the MP3. Let's listen to this.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, "OVER YOUR HEAD"
HENDERSON: (Singing) ...this place because the water is over your head.
DANKOSKY: So explain this, Scott. The data we're hearing there is what? It's just stuff that's out of the original recording to make this MP3, to compress it if you will?
METCALFE: Yeah. This is a fun little trick that we do when we want to really hear the difference between two pieces of audio depending on what kind of process we're applying to it. And what I did was took the excerpt, the original excerpt, and I inverted the polarity, which is a technical term for anything that was the positive side of the waveform is now on the bottom, is negative and vice versa.
So when you sum them together, if they're the same exact thing, you hear absolutely nothing. If you hear anything at all then you're hearing what's different between those two recordings. So this is just a cheap and simple way of hearing what was lost. And, you know, of course, my job requires me to listen really critically, but - and I wasn't sure how much I was going to get over the headphones here over the ISDN line. But I could clearly hear a lack of low frequency in the MP3 and just the real thinness to the rest of the texture. I'm not sure how much is that lost over the FM broadcast.
DANKOSKY: Well, I think an awful lot is lost. I'll just say quickly that I'm John Dankosky, and this is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. Now, Sean Olive, younger people listen mostly to MP3s. Do you think that this affects their preference in audio speakers? Do they have an appreciation for higher fidelity sound anymore?
OLIVE: Well, that's an interesting question because in the last couple of years there's been a lot of press saying that kid, you know, we're approaching the death of fidelity because of the younger generations have been raised on MP3 in low-quality earbuds. And that they now, you know, may prefer that over high-quality sound.
So about a year ago, we did a small study where we brought in high school students and more recently college students and we asked them to listen to MP3 at a low bit rate, 128 kilobits per second, versus CD. And, of course, it was a blind test, so they weren't aware of which was which. And what we found out was that in most cases, they prefer the CD over the MP3. And then we random through some speaker tests, where they heard four different loudspeakers that varied from one that was very accurate and neutral to one that was quite the opposite, and quite surprisingly they prefer the most accurate neutral loudspeaker.
DANKOSKY: Now, has your industry had to change it all with the idea though that because the music industry is making MP3s as the commodity, do you have to do different things in order to make a lower resolution piece of music sound good through a set of speakers?
OLIVE: No. We basically designed our speakers so that they will sound good if you play good sound and music through them. We don't try to compensate for - in the loudspeaker system for deficiencies in the MP3 or vinyl. We are working out some algorithms that will try to improve low-quality MP3 so it sounds closer CD quality.
DANKOSKY: I want to get to Zack(ph) in San Francisco. Hey, Zack.
ZACK: Hi. You're actually speaking to my question right now. As you're talking about formats on how to use the CDs and MP3, it seems to me that a lot of the newer music coming out is more manipulated and actually made to be heard on earbuds or actually on cell phones. It's more distorted or twangier(ph) or treblier(ph) , if you will.
DANKOSKY: Scott, what do you say? Is that true, Scott Metcalfe?
METCALFE: I'm not sure how much how that happens, but it is another place where, you know, years ago the litmus test was always, let's go play this in the car and see what is sounds like. If it sounds good there, it's going to sound good everywhere. I do know a lot of people - and I've done this myself - who will listen on earbuds since that's going to be the most common way that the music is going to be listened to. You know, it brings up an interesting point though is that as people gets faster connections at home and storage on phones and computers, it becomes comparatively much less expensive.
More record labels - right now, it's kind of the boutique labels, but we're seeing more record labels offering very high resolution downloads for purchase. And, you know, iTunes has gone up to give the option of downloading. I think it's iTunes Plus, where you get a much higher quality file than you did. So it'll be kind of interesting to see what - if the market sort of stirs us. The market stirred us towards the portability of music. It'll be interesting to see if the demand starts to come back.
DANKOSKY: If we can hit, we can start to head the other direction. Well, Scott Metcalfe, director of recording arts and sciences at The Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins. Thank you so much for joining us.
METCALFE: Thank you.
DANKOSKY: And thanks also to Sean Olive, director of acoustic research at Harman International. Thank you.
OLIVE: Thank you.
DANKOSKY: Thanks to Scott for the clips we played. We heard "Over Your Head" by Chris Henderson of the Hartford band, Bronze Radio Return, in New York. I'm John Dankosky, in for Ira Flatow with SCIENCE FRIDAY. I guess we're going to leave a little bit of Pink Floyd.
Copyright © 2012 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
今年6月，广东记者采访率广交从欧洲归来的著名指挥家余隆，问他在家里听音乐是喜欢听唱片，还是数字音乐。余隆不假思索地回答：“当然是数字音乐。”同样的问题在不同场合也问了谭盾，谭盾也是一样的回答。这些时代音乐的弄潮儿，他们虽然年纪也不小了，但”先进性“的代表能力丝毫不弱。
原帖由 jjx01 于 2017-9-30 09:17 发表
955493
动态能保证到70db
原帖由 @nai 于 2017-9-29 13:07 发表
是这个意思。还有更便宜的，可以玩玩试试
原帖由 jun4rui 于 2017-9-30 09:48 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPad
年纪大了，现在觉得一个方面走到很高其实也没啥意思，不如把面放广泛一点，保持一定素质，少数方向走高端就够了
原帖由 nai 于 2017-9-30 09:30 发表
黑胶唱机的指标肯定是全面低于现代数字音源
但黑胶和数字音源的主要差别，黑胶理论上是没有丢失信息量（模拟录音前提）
数字音源是采样获得，不论采样率多高，信息量肯定是丢失了一部分
数字录音的黑胶，情况就 ...
原帖由 reg-neo 于 2017-9-30 09:49 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPhone
信噪比那么低的玩意，信息量丰富？
原帖由 nai 于 2017-9-30 09:37 发表
黑胶本身也在不断进化：
DS Audio发布全球首个激光式黑胶唱头
日本DS Audio公司近期宣布推出全球首个激光式黑胶唱头DS-W1，国外售价大约6250英镑。DS-W1使用一束与数字光纤中的激光类似的光线探测黑胶唱盘上音 ...
原帖由 jjx01 于 2017-9-30 13:00 发表
吹得很神，请上数据，信噪比多少，立体声分离度多少
原帖由 nai 于 2017-9-30 14:02 发表
厂家似乎没写具体参数
从原理上看，比传统黑胶唱头读取强很多倍
原帖由 @nai 于 2017-9-30 10:02 发表
是这个意思
稍微成熟点的领域，现在科技的发展速度很多已经到头了，比如pc
声音领域也基本到头，换个玩法比如数字》模拟会获得完全不一样的感受
原帖由 @mogle 于 2017-10-1 07:59 发表
哈哈哈 从原理上看 。。。。。
带点奶子 哦不 脑子 可以不？
黑胶唱片上原始的信息就那么多 你还能强很多 抵挡黑胶 原始60分 努力了也就58分的东西 和先天99分 稍微用点力就80分的东西 怎么比
低档黑胶就是个装b的东西 样子货，还有大部分港台歌的黑胶片 更是垃圾 这是玩黑胶的人的共识 这些片子的来源 呵呵
我不知道怎么到了你这里 就能吹上天 没去hifi圈讨论的话 劝你多去学一学
如果其他的原因的话 那就是呵呵了
ap仪器的话 有用过的人看我那个图就清楚了 网上你也搜不到和我那个图一样的照片 我还要证明啥？
原帖由 nai 于 2017-10-1 21:39 发表
posted by wap, platform: Samsung
你一搞ap的，去hifi圈混？和那些什么烧线材，垫子老烧学？喷了，精分的可以。我随时可以上我器材照片，你上你的，让大伙评评那个更专业
原帖由 nai 于 2017-10-1 21:39 发表
posted by wap, platform: Samsung
你一搞ap的，去hifi圈混？和那些什么烧线材，垫子老烧学？喷了，精分的可以。我随时可以上我器材照片，你上你的，让大伙评评那个更专业
原帖由 jjx01 于 2017-10-3 09:07 发表
有器材，就跑一跑测试，看看黑胶动态和立体声分离度。
评价音质的专业不是看你有多贵听音器材，是看你有多少测试器材。就算有了最贵的播放设备，靠人耳也听不出频响曲线、动态范围、立体声分离度。
原帖由 nai 于 2017-10-7 21:18 发表
上器材不是比贵
是你自己到底啥听音风格，上你用的器材一看便知
比如，是hifi，还是profi
讨论这些，首先要避免嘴炮
原帖由 allensakura 于 2017-10-7 21:04 发表
底噪爱好者又从地洞里爬出来了，25db的分离度，翔都不如
原帖由 @allensakura 于 2017-10-7 21:04 发表
底噪爱好者又从地洞里爬出来了，25db的分离度，翔都不如
原帖由 @nai 于 2017-9-30 09:30 发表
黑胶唱机的指标肯定是全面低于现代数字音源
但黑胶和数字音源的主要差别，黑胶理论上是没有丢失信息量（模拟录音前提）
数字音源是采样获得，不论采样率多高，信息量肯定是丢失了一部分
数字录音的黑胶，情况就复杂了，总体上在家里播放比数字播放少了一道da（在录音室已经完成了）
黑胶唱机本身参数比解码要低，但一般人家里的解码器比录音室要差，一正一反，具体不好说。
就我实际听的港台流行的黑胶（基本都是数字），效果也还行。
原理不复杂
原帖由 @allensakura 于 2017-10-8 00:13 发表
天朝的LP吹估计十个有十个没听过什麽是Dr. Feickert Adjust+，以为唱针的最佳夹角是90度。跟社会主义的优势在於能克服资本主义不存在的困难一样，LP真正的优势在於你可以花上几十W屁民币去克服CD上不存在的困难
天朝黑胶粉这麽多，这玩意的销量却极其可怜，这说明了啥呢？
原帖由 @eastwoodwest 于 2017-9-25 15:40 发表
黑胶确实棒，一耳朵区别，你格局太低不跟你争辩，香港财务司长买黑胶破了产，这个不是我说的，是人民日报刊登的，你不信我不要紧，脱离人民群众是你的问题，爆豆音按摩耳膜神经，跟百年前大清慈禧听到的一个味儿，世纪流金悠悠岁月潮起潮落都在爆豆里，科学家也研究过，不明白去看知乎，不要跟我争辩，你请我吃什么了，凭什么说我胖，黑胶确实棒，你现在不明白，将来可能也不会懂，不过这不重要，黑胶确确实实不是玄学，是一耳朵的区别，麻烦请听过之后再来刚，不要人云亦云，听完感受不到是你耳朵问题，不是我的问题，也可能你听得太少，经年累月的数字噪声把耳朵冲坏了，这还有救吗？不要问我，去问知乎，耳朵是耗材，耳朵不行也是数字噪声的问题，百万年来自然界哪有数字音效，数字音乐跟转基因一样是非自然的，不连续的，尖锐的波峰波谷夹杂毛刺，人类的耳朵几百万年的进化必须只接受模拟音效，有句刚句，黑胶音乐图谱是最接近自然波形的，是自然的，是真的和美的，几百万年的进化沧海桑田、时光、空间、白垩纪、人类简史全在黑胶里，不要反驳我，你耳朵有毛病我不和你争辩。
原帖由 @eastwoodwest 于 2017-9-25 15:40 发表
黑胶确实棒，一耳朵区别，你格局太低不跟你争辩，香港财务司长买黑胶破了产，这个不是我说的，是人民日报刊登的，你不信我不要紧，脱离人民群众是你的问题，爆豆音按摩耳膜神经，跟百年前大清慈禧听到的一个味儿，世纪流金悠悠岁月潮起潮落都在爆豆里，科学家也研究过，不明白去看知乎，不要跟我争辩，你请我吃什么了，凭什么说我胖，黑胶确实棒，你现在不明白，将来可能也不会懂，不过这不重要，黑胶确确实实不是玄学，是一耳朵的区别，麻烦请听过之后再来刚，不要人云亦云，听完感受不到是你耳朵问题，不是我的问题，也可能你听得太少，经年累月的数字噪声把耳朵冲坏了，这还有救吗？不要问我，去问知乎，耳朵是耗材，耳朵不行也是数字噪声的问题，百万年来自然界哪有数字音效，数字音乐跟转基因一样是非自然的，不连续的，尖锐的波峰波谷夹杂毛刺，人类的耳朵几百万年的进化必须只接受模拟音效，有句刚句，黑胶音乐图谱是最接近自然波形的，是自然的，是真的和美的，几百万年的进化沧海桑田、时光、空间、白垩纪、人类简史全在黑胶里，不要反驳我，你耳朵有毛病我不和你争辩。
| 欢迎光临 TGFC Lifestyle (http://club.tgfcer.com/) | Powered by Discuz! 6.0.0 |
