Found the problem with Digital

Digital?, posted on May 25, 2015 at 12:28:15
volunteer Audiophile Posts: 5666 Location: Louisville, KY Joined: January 7, 2012	Or CD? -Wendell

You mean there's only one? nt, posted on May 25, 2015 at 12:55:30
viridian	nt

Very true, posted on May 25, 2015 at 13:06:56
David Smith	Wait till you hear cymbals. Dave

RE: Found the problem with Digital, posted on May 25, 2015 at 13:26:40
briggs Audiophile Posts: 1674 Location: Connecticut Joined: April 16, 2002	This reminds me of the time a junior programmer told me he had found the bug.

Long list...., posted on May 25, 2015 at 14:44:16
BPoletti Audiophile Posts: 931 Location: Midwest Joined: October 3, 2010	Isn't that Reason #26 on the "Problems with Digital" list? I use an Onkyo C-7030. It does strings somewhat better than the average CD player. Not analog vinyl, but not too bad. And it does timing as good or better than any integrated CD player I've heard.

Get a tubed cdp like the Jolida 100. I still hear analog as being more "alive" and prefer LP's, but......, posted on May 25, 2015 at 15:05:22
Rick W	I really don't have complaints about cd sound thru my system, including strings/orchestral.

+1 on the JD-100. Nice player. Wish it did SACDs. /nt\, posted on May 25, 2015 at 15:09:33
Opus 33 1/3 Audiophile Posts: 4184 Location: D.C. Area Joined: February 19, 2014	Opus 33 1/3

Not necessarily, posted on May 25, 2015 at 15:13:57
vinyl survivor Audiophile Posts: 1471 Location: Southeastern US Joined: November 28, 2007	Many factors involved. It starts with the violin itself. I have heard and recorded violins that hurt my ears while others sound beautiful. A recording engineer I worked with would do some EQ when using a spot microphone to tame the upper frequencies. So much for accuracy. Truthfully, I don't think most people want accuracy.

RE: Digital?, posted on May 25, 2015 at 15:38:34
kavakidd Audiophile Posts: 20316 Location: Upstate NY Joined: April 15, 2004	CD I think - I have a few digitally mastered LPs that sound excellent "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain

RE: Found the problem with Digital, posted on May 25, 2015 at 16:21:25
huubdas Audiophile Posts: 138 Joined: August 30, 2009	Classical, acoustic music on CD or other digital sources never satisfied me. I only listen to my favorite violinconcerto's on vinyl, violin on CD really sounds like nothing, because violin contains so much harmonics that digital can never reproduce. Violin on CD sound like a bad scratchy tonegenerator.

Digital has become excellent, posted on May 25, 2015 at 16:59:44
3Fates Audiophile Posts: 940 Joined: December 8, 2000	My opinion of digital has drastically changed since becoming a Tidal subscriber. Just listen to anything 'remastered' in the past couple of years and you will understand. New recordings have never sounded better. It's a much, much different world in 2015 regarding digital.

"Is this true", posted on May 25, 2015 at 17:01:20

Curious
Dealer

Posts: 5878
Joined: April 28, 2010

Not for me. While I do experience a palpability with vinyl I don't get anywhere else, I've heard violins sound pretty darn good on CD. Examples are Viktoria Mullova: Sibelius Violin Concerto In D. Also, the strings on "Eleanor Rigby" from The Beatles Yellow Submarine Songtrack. I also like the Johnny Frigo recordings I've heard on CD.

Some folks say that violin sounds too steely on CD, and I think I get that. I think they're essential saying that the body of the instrument is MIA. For me, digital just softens everything to the point that many recordings can sound simply uninvolving.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."

I have an Ah! Tjoeb that I really like as well, posted on May 25, 2015 at 17:14:26
spindoctor Audiophile Posts: 1661 Location: Virginia Joined: December 31, 2002	Tube output section and I use the upsampler, I'm delighted with the music. Sim

RE: Found the problem with Digital, posted on May 25, 2015 at 17:47:39

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

There are too many variables involved to make that call! It could be that the recording you have has been very closely mic'd or was mastered by an inexperienced (or ignorant to classical music) engineer more used to recording something like thrash metal!
I certainly haven't found this to be the case as a general rule and would suggest that your digital playback system is actually the culprit. My recordings from vinyl sources sound virtually indistinguishable to the source even when down converted to redbook so this would imply that the medium itself is not to blame in your situation but rather the playback system or mastering.

In fact, vinyl cutting/playback involves the addition of so many sources of distortion that take you further away from master tape, not closer. I'm not saying your vinyl rig is bad! I'm certainly not trying to be provocative; I'm just pointing out that making a record and playing it back alters the sound very significantly if you were to compare directly! For example, cutting engineers gradually roll off the top end as the inner grooves are approached due to the reduction in the recorded wavelength. Couple that with variations in cutting angle and effective SRA and you are adding a lot of extra distortion components due to HF modulation by LF tones. The cartridge and stylus itself adds a whole raft of distortions due to tracking error, tracing error etc that would tend to invalidate your assertion rather than support it.

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Found the problem with Digital, posted on May 25, 2015 at 17:59:31
drlowmu Manufacturer Posts: 9730 Location: East of Kansas City Joined: January 10, 2005	"All the King's Horses, and all the King's Men, could never put poor old Humpty together again" Robert W. Fulton, 1980. Jeff Medwin

Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 25, 2015 at 18:36:40
risabet Audiophile Posts: 3197 Location: SoCal Joined: January 10, 2005	IME digital does a really poor job with asymmetrical waveforms like brass instruments and the upper harmonics of strings. I prefer analog for all music as it is more consonant with the real thing IMO. YMMV Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. Adam Smith

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 25, 2015 at 19:22:03

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

Could you elaborate about how "asymmetrical waveforms" are worse on digital reproduction? Are you comparing the CD or high resolution file to the LP? When you refer to digital reproduction do you mean "CD" or digital in general?

Analogue replay (particularly from LP) introduces considerable levels of distortion that will colour the sound in particular ways. Therefore if you are used to a particular recording on LP, it wouldn't be surprising if a CD (for example) sounds "different" possibly even in a negative way (subjectively) if it sounds brighter. This may mean that your LP reproduction is actually coloured by the bandwidth limitations of the transducer and/or phono stage. Mastering may account for some differences, but the digital version is highly likely to be more technically accurate even if you dislike the sound relative to your LP! Where the harshness comes in depends on the specific hardware implementation and filter design etc. In other words, whilst you may well be absolutely correct to say that you prefer the LP/analogue version better than digital, it doesn't mean the digital version is inferior per se. It means that your digital rig is not of a sufficient standard to match your analogue rig!

The ability to reproduce the waveform obviously depends on the bandwidth available (defined by the sample rate) relative to the number of harmonics required for a "close enough" approximation of the original waveform. A 24/96 file is sufficient to exceed the dynamic range of human hearing and bandwidth of an LP - the LP will not be able to maintain this bandwidth over the entire side and the ability to reproduce the highest frequencies will also require an advanced stylus profile such as a MicroLine or VdH Type 1S otherwise scanning loss will result in reduced bandwidth. CD4 LPs are not cut all the way to the minimum radius defined in the standard for this very reason!

Whilst the bandwidth limitation for CD may seem "small" compared to the theoretical capability of a wide bandwidth analogue system (tape for example), the question of audibility with the individual comes in.
I am able to transcribe LPs to digital format virtually transparently. I say virtually, because every process will alter the sound even in a miniscule way. There is no such thing as absolute transparency in practical terms!

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 25, 2015 at 19:30:42

risabet
Audiophile

Posts: 3197
Location: SoCal
Joined: January 10, 2005

Referring strictly to CD. Hi-res doesn't seem to have this issue IME. As regarding CD reproduction of brass instruments which have highly asymmetrical waveforms, they simply sound bad on most CD systems when compared to analog vinyl, definitely to analog tape or high resolution digital, and most of all to the real thing.
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.

Adam Smith

Agreed, tho one could say they "found the problem with Columbia...", posted on May 25, 2015 at 19:38:24
jdaniel@jps.net	"...the violins." : )

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 25, 2015 at 20:09:01

David Smith

The assumption that digital is more "accurate" is a flawed one, IMO. Yes vinyl has its drawbacks/flaws/limitations, but so does digital. The moment the sound goes into a microphone, all bets are off in terms of "accuracy", the recording is an attempt at presenting some semblance of the instruments being recorded. All microphones/mic preamps/consoles/recording software/hardware alter the sound, not to mention the same with respect to the mixing and mastering process, all before the final medium. So the notion that one is "distorted" and the other is "accurate" is deeply flawed. Yes, both can sound very very good done the right way and played back on the right equipment, however far from the original.

Dave

Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 25, 2015 at 20:15:26

jeromelang
Audiophile

Posts: 2303
Joined: February 2, 2001

Take out the disc.

Shut down the player.

Then turn on again.

Open tray by pressing the open/close button on the front panel.

Insert the disc, place the stabilizer over disc, press the open/close button to close the tray
(Manually from the front panel. Don't use remote)

Let the player read TOC and fully settle.

To play track 1, use a finger from each hand, press the skip forward button and the play button in quick succession.

(Because these two buttons just happen to be located separately on either side of the tray)

The speed at which both buttons are pressed in succession should be as fast as when you say the word:

Color

Say it like co-lor like you always say it in a normal conversation

Hit skip button on the "co" and play button on the "lor"

(Do not use remote, do not just press play, do not just use the numerical number keys)

What you are doing is erasing playback memory before starting play, and the way that you are cueing up the track to play is avoiding chocking up playback memory before music commence playing.

The speed at which the two buttons are pressed is crucial, or otherwise the resultant sound will be so dramatically different.

Hence it is still necessary to use a finger from each hand even if both buttons are closely positioned on the front panel of the player.

Make sure the disc you are playing is a first pressing disc released in the home country of the label/artiste.

The other intended recipient for this message is the other guy who owns the ELP.....

Cheers

I tried that and I still remember /nt, posted on May 25, 2015 at 20:44:41
BPoletti Audiophile Posts: 931 Location: Midwest Joined: October 3, 2010	/nt

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 25, 2015 at 21:09:26

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

I agree! However, I think what we are all talking about is with respect to the master tape after the Mastering Engineer has already fiddled with reality... and we should emphasise *MORE* accurate as opposed to more *ACCURATE* relative to the LP.
In practical terms, there is absolutely no way that the waveform on an LP can be deemed to be more accurate (with respect to the mastertape) than a digital copy simply because of the additional EQ, distortions from the power amp and additional mechanical distortions from the cutting head, which is what I was trying to convey in my previous post.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 25, 2015 at 21:53:59

David Smith

Yeah I'm still not in agreement with much of that. I do think an LP can be a good bit more accurate than digital in many areas (ie violin overtones), and while power amps and cutting heads have distortions, so does the translation of an analog signal to a digital one. Both are imperfect, and trying to rate the relative degrees of imperfection becomes an exercise of limited use given that the recording itself is an approximation at best.

Do you maintain that in the case of a digital transfer of an analog master tape that the digital is more accurate (to the master tape) than an lp cut from the analog master tape?

Dave

Digital not so bad, posted on May 25, 2015 at 21:54:00

jedrider
Audiophile

Posts: 15166
Location: No. California
Joined: December 26, 2003

Well, I tried a few variations. Dug up some more recent recordings with violin. They had to be library copies (unfortunately). Tried all my CD players, then figured out maybe putting it on computer for USB playback is the best bet. That seemed to work very well.

I still like the analog sound better but, at least, we're getting somewhere with digital. It's a digital world out there, so let's hope for the best.

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 26, 2015 at 04:29:37
MannyE Audiophile Posts: 2088 Location: Miami Beach Joined: March 4, 2001	LOL Is that what the Japanese guy that showed up at your door would do when purchasing an ELP? I still want one of those..

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 26, 2015 at 05:29:15
jeromelang Audiophile Posts: 2303 Joined: February 2, 2001	No, I went to his factory and showed him that his player has that same problem. But I bought it anyway.

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 26, 2015 at 06:18:49
MannyE Audiophile Posts: 2088 Location: Miami Beach Joined: March 4, 2001	Is it everything I imagine? It's going to be my retirement gift to myself. In about 20 years.

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 26, 2015 at 06:45:59

rbolaw

FWIW, with my modest equipment, the vinyl LP is still superior to any digital format I've tried, including SACD and DVD Audio, in certain regards. at least with the acoustic classical music I listen to (and play myself).

A friend of mine bought a 1970s professional half-track, 15 ips tape deck from a thrift shop and had it rebuilt, total cost around $600. He then bought a few tapes (for $300 each, but with the tiny quantities they sell, you can't expect mass market prices) from an outfit called The Tape Project, including one that is very familiar to me -- Sonny Rollins' Saxophone Colossus.

Consumer digital audio, at least modestly priced consumer audio, has a long way to go to match that sound.

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 26, 2015 at 07:29:53

David Smith

I believe it.

I'm not trying to knock digital, good digital can be excellent, but it has different advantages than analog/vinyl. Were it simply a matter of one being "accurate" and the other not, it should be easy to recreate the sound of the "inaccurate", but you can add all kinds of distortions to a digital file and it won't sound like a vinyl record, nor will it have any of the positive qualities of a good LP.

Dave

And yet. . . , posted on May 26, 2015 at 13:07:51
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26430 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	. . . many years ago, I recall tests that were done where LP's were recorded onto CD's and then both were compared. Listeners could not tell the difference between the original vinyl and the CD copy.

RE: Found the problem with Digital, posted on May 26, 2015 at 15:02:22
Jim Austin	Massed violins--like violin sections. One of the first things I noticed when I got serious about audio. But it gets better with better gear. Jim

But there's testing and then there's testing, posted on May 26, 2015 at 18:16:35

rbolaw

I've made this comparison many times -- not necessarily with an LP transferred to a CD, but with a CD made and remastered with the same original master tapes used to make the LP. That is a much more fair comparison of the two formats imo. And the CD is sometimes vastly superior, sometimes vastly inferior, to the original LP.

IME a well-made LP will generally have certain advantages over a CD or SACD made from the same original (analog) master tapes, even though it may be worse in other ways.

Of course, all of that is a different kettle of fish from the latest high-rez digital made from today's digital masters, which you seem to listen to much of the time. There, the advantages of digital audio are especially pronounced, again IMO.

Why wait?, posted on May 26, 2015 at 18:29:21
jeromelang Audiophile Posts: 2303 Joined: February 2, 2001	There's Jeremy Kipnis at upstate New York who will be glad to do a demo for you. Search for him on Facebook.

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 26, 2015 at 18:34:38

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

You'll have to be more specific about what you disagree with. Digital recording has become the norm since the early 80s when LPs bearing the label "Digital Recording" first appeared on record sleeves. You comments about "accuracy" make even less sense especially with LPs today which are cut from a digital source and have gone through an additional D/A stage before the rest of the vinyl mastering process begins.
For now let's ignore digital recordings and the replay side of things and look at only what is stored in the grooves...

You mentioned the example of violin overtones and the OP mentioned brass instruments sounding "bad". I don't understand what is meant by "bad" in this context although I attempted to enquire if "bright" or "harsh" was meant.
Could you clarify in more detail what you mean by analogue having improved accuracy in reproduction of overtones and whether you consider LPs cut in the 50s and 60s to also be superior to digital equivalents? You may be aware that the original recordings were often limited to 15kHz. I have many jazz LPs from that era where the sleeve proudly proclaims a flat response up to "15 000 cps". Would you consider FM Radio to be sufficient in reproducing violin overtones? Again the bandwidth is limited to 15kHz to allow for stereo.

What should be discussed is the relative amplitude of the harmonics relative to the fundamental and whether any additional (undesirable)components are added (and what the relative amplitudes are), NOT the claimed number of harmonics that can be reproduced. The cutting process of an LP is very bandwidth limited on inner grooves (by necessity) and non-linear so the relative amplitudes of the harmonics will be altered during the process and additional IM components are added.

With a digital copy from the analogue master, the relative amplitude is going to remain approximately the same (allowing for the band-limiting analogue filter passband response depending on the bandwidth of the system), therefore the ratios of harmonics with respect to the corresponding fundamentals will be very similar; in which case the encoded signal will be closer to the master.

I am a musician myself so I understand very well what my instruments should sound like so I am just trying to compare the difference in what we are looking for in the reproduced sound. When I master CDs from my high resolution masters, they come out virtually indistinguishable to the source when listened to in isolation. Having said that, I can make them worse by choosing inappropriate levels of dither and noise shaping which will add spurious aharmonic tones to the signal! My LP transcriptions to CD sound indistinguishable from the source both subjectively and objectively via measurement.

My point is that much of the negatives heard in CD compared to a good LP are down to poor choices in the mastering (including dither and noiseshaping). When done properly, the digital version HAS to be more faithful to the master for the reasons given! For starters, once in the digital domain you don't add wow/flutter and you don't add spurious tones due to HF signal modulation from LF signals.

If your LP provides a technically better result than the CD, then the finger would point to your digital replay equipment being inferior to your analogue rig. From a playback perspective there is absolutely no basis to your claim assuming SOTA playback equipment for analogue and digital - cartridges typically give 15 to 20% harmonic distortion at 15k to 20kHz. That level of distortion may "sound" better to you, but don't pretend that it is more "accurate"!

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: And yet. . . , posted on May 26, 2015 at 18:44:26
David Smith	I'm not a fan of double-blind tests, useful for some things, not so much for others. For a manufacturer making dollars and cents decisions about customer behavior, probably quite useful. For me as a listener, not so much as they are not me and I don't listen to music as in a double-blind test. Dave

RE: Why wait?, posted on May 26, 2015 at 19:05:34
MannyE Audiophile Posts: 2088 Location: Miami Beach Joined: March 4, 2001	Its not that I want to wait. I want it now. I just need the ten grand for the stupid kids education. Damn kids. :)

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 26, 2015 at 19:13:39

David Smith

"You comments about "accuracy" make even less sense especially with LPs today which are cut from a digital source and have gone through an additional D/A stage before the rest of the vinyl mastering process begins."

That may be true of some, but certainly not all.

"You mentioned the example of violin overtones and the OP mentioned brass instruments sounding "bad". I don't understand what is meant by "bad" in this context although I attempted to enquire if "bright" or "harsh" was meant.
Could you clarify in more detail what you mean by analogue having improved accuracy in reproduction of overtones and whether you consider LPs cut in the 50s and 60s to also be superior to digital equivalents? You may be aware that the original recordings were often limited to 15kHz. I have many jazz LPs from that era where the sleeve proudly proclaims a flat response up to "15 000 cps". Would you consider FM Radio to be sufficient in reproducing violin overtones? Again the bandwidth is limited to 15kHz to allow for stereo."

Sure, I mean that strings, cymbals and brass (in particular, but I would also include bass) are reproduced with more tonal accuracy in analog. I don't think response above 15k is particularly crucial, cetainly not in that regard. With respect to that, I think I'd add that many or most modern recordings, including reissues of older recordings, suffer from exaggerated highs. It sounds impressive and people tend to associate highs with "good sound" for whatever reason. Generally speaking, I consider lps cut in the 50s and 60s to be superior to digital versions of the same recordings.

"With a digital copy from the analogue master, the relative amplitude is going to remain approximately the same (allowing for the band-limiting analogue filter passband response depending on the bandwidth of the system), therefore the ratios of harmonics with respect to the corresponding fundamentals will be very similar; in which case the encoded signal will be closer to the master."

On paper, perhaps.

"My LP transcriptions to CD sound indistinguishable from the source both subjectively and objectively via measurement."

I don't have that same experience, though I do agree that they can sound good and often better than digital reissues.

"My point is that much of the negatives heard in CD compared to a good LP are down to poor choices in the mastering (including dither and noiseshaping). When done properly, the digital version HAS to be more faithful to the master for the reasons given! For starters, once in the digital domain you don't add wow/flutter and you don't add spurious tones due to HF signal modulation from LF signals."

Again, perhaps on paper, looking at the particular variables you are looking at. But the digital version doesn't HAVE to be more faithful, for one it's been converted to digital! (And back of course). That's a pretty big issue you're not including. No doubt digital is superior to analog in terms of wow/flutter type issues, but I don't find that a critical issue in terms of the levels of wow/flutter in high-quality equipment.

"If your LP provides a technically better result than the CD, then the finger would point to your digital replay equipment being inferior to your analogue rig. From a playback perspective there is absolutely no basis to your claim assuming SOTA playback equipment for analogue and digital - cartridges typically give 15 to 20% harmonic distortion at 15k to 20kHz. That level of distortion may "sound" better to you, but don't pretend that it is more "accurate"!"

I'm not speaking exclusively with respect to my rig, it doesn't matter if that's where I make the comparison or at a studio (with SOTA equipment). Your assuming that it's the 20% distortion at 20k that is the basis of the difference I am speaking of, by all means add that to a recording and I'll let you know whether it sounds exactly like vinyl.

I'm not sure exactly where the difference of our experience lies, we probably appreciate different aspects of sound. Different strokes, no biggie. I do disagree with the notion of digital being inherently more accurate in reproducing an analog signal.

Dave

OK, I think I understand.., posted on May 26, 2015 at 21:38:13

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

..where you are coming from better.

I have many examples myself of original LPs sounding much better than any digital transfers - a personal example would be Getz Au Go Go. I have the original LP in gatefold sleeve and several CD issues of the same material. The LP does sound better subjectively. However, what I also noticed from the most recent Verve "By Request" version, is that not only has the recording been remastered, but possibly from a different tape master as the intro to Corcovado was different. This highlights that the digital transfer is going to sound different by choice of the Mastering Engineer through EQ adjustments and dynamic range adjustments; therefore not necessarily due to the quantisation process itself.

There are other sources of difference:
i) whether Tube or solid state equipment is used during the transfer from the original master tape. Note that the original master tape is not always available and a subsequent LP reissue may be cut from the digital master (sometimes from CD...)
ii) whether the power amp used for the cutting head is tube or solid state. The distortion characteristics on overload are different and can contribute to the perceived differences.

iii) Whether the tape azimuth is perfectly matched to the original record head

iv) Half -speed mastering can improve the sound by reducing the HF losses from the playback head at the expense of low end. Tonally this will change the subjective tonal balance of a recording.

v) W/F is not zero for the cutting lathe and is independent of the W/F of the tape machine so HAS to be factored in. Given that this alters the waveform in the groove, by definition the waveform is now different to the master tape therefore cannot be deemed to be "as faithful" to the original.

Psychoacoustics plays a big part in our perception. Noise can enable us to hear sounds which would technically be below the noise floor in amplitude. Even though CD has a SNR much greater than LP, if we are talking about a transfer from an analogue master tape with hiss, we should get the same perceived result. From your description of cymbals and brass etc, would you say that transient response is one of the areas that you feel is better handled with analogue? By transient response I mean the attack and decay characteristics?

Also, would it be fair to say that part of your viewpoint is based on a suspicion of the quantisation process itself? We can agree to disagree on that one if you like! However, with respect to the transient response, I am genuinely interested in your views!

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: OK, I think I understand.., posted on May 26, 2015 at 22:38:15

David Smith

"There are other sources of difference:
i) whether Tube or solid state equipment is used during the transfer from the original master tape. Note that the original master tape is not always available and a subsequent LP reissue may be cut from the digital master (sometimes from CD...)
ii) whether the power amp used for the cutting head is tube or solid state. The distortion characteristics on overload are different and can contribute to the perceived differences.

iii) Whether the tape azimuth is perfectly matched to the original record head

iv) Half -speed mastering can improve the sound by reducing the HF losses from the playback head at the expense of low end. Tonally this will change the subjective tonal balance of a recording."

All true, but my comments are coming both from experience with commercial recordings and also in the studio, where these kinds of variables are constant. Having said that, it's also much more general an issue than one recording or another where the above might apply.

"v) W/F is not zero for the cutting lathe and is independent of the W/F of the tape machine so HAS to be factored in. Given that this alters the waveform in the groove, by definition the waveform is now different to the master tape therefore cannot be deemed to be "as faithful" to the original."

Also true, by definition, but again at the levels in high-quality equipment this simply isn't an issue that shows up in listening (IMO). It certainly isn't part of why I think vinyl sounds more tonally accurate.

"From your description of cymbals and brass etc, would you say that transient response is one of the areas that you feel is better handled with analogue? By transient response I mean the attack and decay characteristics?"

Hmm, kind of a tough one to answer for me. I don't think it has much to do with the tonal accuracy I'm talking about. In different respects I think each has advantages in this regard. The dynamic possibilities of digital cannot be matched by vinyl, however once again I do think for music the dynamic range of vinyl is more than adequate, but the boom of a bass drum can come across more dramatically in digital. I do think, however, that vinyl conveys the physical aspects of the sound better - sticks hitting cymbals, the bow contacting the strings, etc. I do relate that to the physical nature of the playback, and it certainly could be argued that it is a "creation" of the vinyl playback that isn't on the tape, but in the end the result is subjectively closer to the sound of those instruments being played live (again, IMO). That's a separate thing from the tonal thing though, and I'm guessing with respect to the cause, but I do think it's a reasonable guess at that.

"Also, would it be fair to say that part of your viewpoint is based on a suspicion of the quantisation process itself? "

Of course I can't say it couldn't be, but honestly, this is the result of years of experiences and living in a digital world where the vast majority of new recording is digital by default. I really don't think I am forming my opinion based on what I think is going on, I really have no idea what is going on, but I do have a good amount of experience with live instruments, digital recording and more limited experience with analog recording in addition to listening to commercial recordings. I have and have heard some excellent digital recordings, and there is no doubt that there are a number of things that digital does far superior to analog. I'm just not sure it's all related to "accuracy" or that "faithful to the recording" is really relevant, and subjectively by the things I care about in sound analog sounds more "accurate" to my ears, in general.

There are other factors, most notably recording techniques as those of the "analog era" are rather dramatcially different to modern techniques, and so it is rare to get an opportunity to hear a modern digital recording recorded the way analog recordings were done in order to make a proper comparison. The other way around is a little less uncommon, but even then a direct comparison is usually not possible.

Having said all of this, I'm going to get out some recent digital string recordings and give them a listen!

Dave

RE: Not necessarily, posted on May 27, 2015 at 05:55:27

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

> Truthfully, I don't think most people want accuracy.

I always want accuracy. On the other hand, I want a recording that sounds good, too.

Have you ever attended a symphony orchestra performance that sounded wonderful? Well, that's the kind of accuracy I want. In fact, my system comes very close if not identical until the orchestra begins playing loud. The live orchestral performance is smooth and pleasing even on the loudest passages whereas my home stereo becomes strained on those very loud passages. At low and medium volume, my home stereo sounds very accurate to me.

Have you ever heard a grand piano in a room with great acoustics versus the same grand piano in a church that has no sound absorption? The two sound entirely different. I want my stereo to accurately reproduce both, but I only want to listen to the piano recording made in a good acoustic environment.

I guess my point is that accuracy does not guarantee good sound, but the best way to achieve good sound from recordings that sound good is with an accurate stereo system.

Best regards,
John Elison

*The one place a tube buffer belongs maybe, posted on May 27, 2015 at 09:22:31**
Frank Sol Audiophile Posts: 420 Location: SoCal Joined: October 6, 2008	Place* = Between CDP and Preamp Frank .... Kind of Blue

RE: The one place* a tube buffer belongs maybe, posted on May 27, 2015 at 09:49:02

jedrider
Audiophile

Posts: 15166
Location: No. California
Joined: December 26, 2003

Yes, I found that out to be the case as well.

Upon trying several different combinations, I realized that SPDIF is a tricky interface to implement because they aren't working well enough for me.

I found that the USB interface straight from a computer into a DAC is far superior.

Still, as I am trying to play some 1990s CDs of violin, I did find that I also needed to bypass my new solid state headphone amplifier because it is TOO accurate. The tube line stage does make it almost listenable now.

There's only one valid test, posted on May 27, 2015 at 09:53:29
jedrider Audiophile Posts: 15166 Location: No. California Joined: December 26, 2003	Sit a person in front of a system and see if they can listen to a whole recording or concert that way. That is the system one wants.

RE: And yet. . . , posted on May 27, 2015 at 15:05:40

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

> I don't listen to music as in a double-blind test.

The purpose of a double blind test is to prove that you can hear a difference between two components or two recordings. If you can accurately differentiate one from the other with statistical significance, that is proof that a difference between the two must exist. If your selection between the two comes out in a random fashion, the likelihood is that no difference exists. It doesn't necessarily prove there is no difference, but it certainly suggests that you can't reliably hear any difference.

Anyway, if you can't hear any difference between an LP and its digital copy, then you should be able to derive just as much pleasure from listening to either. On the other hand, if knowing that you're listening to the digital copy gives you less pleasure, then you might find that listening in a double blind situation allows you to derive just as much pleasure either way. Therefore, if you cannot pass a double blind test between analog and digital, you will probably get just as much pleasure out of listening to digital as long as you think you're listening to analog. ;-)

Of course, as you say, you don't listen to music as in a double blind situation.

As for me, I enjoy listening to digital copies of LPs as much as I enjoy listening to the real thing because I can't hear the difference even when I know which is playing.

Best regards,
John Elison

RE: And yet. . . , posted on May 27, 2015 at 15:22:37
David Smith	Is double blind testing the basis of all of your system choices? Can you consistently identify each component? Pressings? Dave

RE: And yet. . . , posted on May 27, 2015 at 16:20:31

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

> Is double blind testing the basis of all of your system choices?

No! None of my system choices have been based on double blind testing or any other kind of blind testing. In fact, I've never participated in a double blind test. However, I have made hundreds of digital copies of my vinyl LPs and I listen to digital copies of LPs much more frequently than I listen to LPs played on a turntable. The copies sound the same to me.

Best regards,
John Elison

Thanks, John - my point exactly! [nt] ;-), posted on May 27, 2015 at 17:33:43
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26430 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

RE: And yet. . . , posted on May 27, 2015 at 18:34:27
David Smith	That's fine, not my experience. Maybe I'll record some more and try it again. Dave

DBT, posted on May 27, 2015 at 18:46:49

David Smith

"If your selection between the two comes out in a random fashion, the likelihood is that no difference exists. It doesn't necessarily prove there is no difference, but it certainly suggests that you can't reliably hear any difference."

...in the context of a DBT. Again, not how I listen and so not terribly relevant to me. DBT are useful with respect to short-term listening - buying decisions etc. Not to long-term listening with many repeated listening sessions over a long period of time. Many times I've bought something or began using something because I thought it was either "better" or "good enough" only to find after repeated listening that I didn't continue to have the same experience. Long-term impressions are what I'm concerned with in terms of listening and enjoying music.

Dave

What digitizer do you use?, posted on May 27, 2015 at 20:13:18
jedrider Audiophile Posts: 15166 Location: No. California Joined: December 26, 2003	Just wondering that if I get my favorite LP music and put it on digital media, maybe I would listen to it more often. One thing that bothers me is that the results come out different with each play, for both digital AND analog!

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 27, 2015 at 21:23:43

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

It depends on what your expectations are! I have owned one for nearly 3 years now.
I needed it specifically for transcription of vintage discs....
The first question I would ask for anyone considering an ELP is why they think they need one?! It is not really a replacement for your normal turntable and you will certainly be getting more surface ticks and clicks which would make it a frustrating listening experience if quiet passages are constantly being punctuated by the blemishes. This is not a problem for me since I post process afterwards to remove them.

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 28, 2015 at 03:32:54

MannyE
Audiophile

Posts: 2088
Location: Miami Beach
Joined: March 4, 2001

Interesting! That does run a little counter to the marketing I remember where it hints at the laser being able to reach down to the "virgin vinyl" (I have the cross section of a groove illustration in my head) past where the stylus has damaged the grooves.

However I did a lot of reading way back when it was first being marketed and the "Japanese fellow showing up at your door" is a paraphrase from the first article I read. They all mentioned the need for pristine vinyl if it was going to work. I listen to 78s and I collect Edison cylinders (no player yet but it's coming) and the thought of being able to restore the original recordings is very gratifying. Also I am under the impression that it will preserve new and mint originals if I want to play them over and over. Not to mention its supposed to sound very good.

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 28, 2015 at 04:01:29

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

I quite understand the curiosity to own one...as it is how I came to own one!!I remember reading the review of the Finial Laser Turntable back in HFNRR in 1989 (IIRC!) and I thought "It will be mine....Oh yes! It will be mine!"

However, I would caution anyone wanting to own it in the belief that it will sound "better" than a mechanical deck. It sounds "different" since you don't get the effect of mechanical resonances etc or tracking error. However, you do have issues in tracking very quiet cuts - sometimes the player refuses to play them or skips. You can't play coloured vinyl or picture discs.
The requirement for "pristine" discs is actually to minimise background ticks. It is actually surprisingly robust and I do actually use it to play records I have bought second hand before cleaning to listen to the music and don't get problems with skipping.

However, in general it is an extremely valuable tool for the collector for all the other reasons you mentioned and I wouldn't be without mine. I even have a disc that was split in two (literally) during postage and I carefully bonded the pieces together and the ELP is the only player I would dare to use to play it!

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 28, 2015 at 04:44:50

jeromelang
Audiophile

Posts: 2303
Joined: February 2, 2001

4 changes in my routine totally transformed the player:

1. "Climatizing" (for lack of a better word) the player to individual discs (just discovered recently)

2. Erasing servo memory before playback, and subsequently after individual tracks.

3. Contact-less cleaning and contact-less drying of vinyl records

4. Optimizing vinyl surface static condition with combination of different water.

You are not hearing what this player can really achieve.....

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 28, 2015 at 08:07:06
MannyE Audiophile Posts: 2088 Location: Miami Beach Joined: March 4, 2001	Have you noticed whether it pairs better with one type of setup or another? I realize that's a very subjective question, but I think sometimes there can be a consensus particular combination of components. (yes...even among audiophiles) OR... would you say that amp/speaker pairing is independent of the player?

"the results come out different with each play, for both digital AND analog", posted on May 28, 2015 at 08:50:54
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26430 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	I find this too (in a subtle way to be sure), but I've always chalked it up to factors such as changes in listening position (maybe I'm slouching in my chair!), temperature, humidity, my own psychology. . . ;-)

Yes, I do think that speakers/amps pairing is independent, posted on May 28, 2015 at 08:56:31

jeromelang
Audiophile

Posts: 2303
Joined: February 2, 2001

I would like to think this player exhibit very little sonic signature of its own....

I'm using a pair of sony speakers driven by sony amps.

I've always used stand-alone digital recorders..., posted on May 28, 2015 at 12:56:26
John Elison Audiophile Posts: 23900 Location: Central Kentucky Joined: December 20, 2000 Contributor Since: January 29, 2004	> One thing that bothers me is that the results come out different with each play, for both digital AND analog! I don't think that has any bearing on digital recording of vinyl. Of course, I don't hear this in my system, but if that's what you hear, how would digitizing vinyl have any bearing on it? ;-)

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 28, 2015 at 19:51:31

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

The only advice is to ensure the lowest capacitive load for the output of the ELP. You can choose to have an ELP made with line level output with either unbalanced or balanced connections. I opted for non-equalized so I could still use my phono stage. If you have a phono stage you particularly like, I would choose the non-equalized version.

..and no, the ELP does not require special water or "disc training" to work properly. You are at liberty to do so of course.... ;)
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

NIce Speakers! , posted on May 28, 2015 at 20:14:35
MannyE Audiophile Posts: 2088 Location: Miami Beach Joined: March 4, 2001	Those are the SS-M9 ED? Wow. Rare. I remember reading about and really wanting them. And it seems you also have all the matching ES components. I would love to hear how it all sounds. Nice!

RE: Simple. Shut down the player to erase memory first, posted on May 29, 2015 at 01:15:10

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

""Climatizing" (for lack of a better word) the player to individual discs (just discovered recently)"

I'm not sure what you mean here... The ELP is very sensitive to small changes in temperature - the wavelength of the laser shifts with temperature and therefore requires temperature compensation otherwise the detector will get a reduced signal at the reference wavelength and result in a reduced SNR. The calibration disc needs to be used if the ambient temperature in the room shifts by more than a couple of degrees. However, if you are noticing that the sound is shifting after playing a disc for a period of time, that may indicate a "significant" change in internal case temperature for operating parameters to shift in an audible way. Remember that if you turn off the ELP, you reset the calibration parameters (to the factory defaults) that are set after using the calibration disc.

"Erasing servo memory before playback, and subsequently after individual tracks."

I think you may be getting confused about what a "servo" is. Servo is short for Servomechanism and is a term (used in control systems) to describe a feedback system in which an input signal (such as motor voltage) is adjusted so that a measured output signal (such as platter rotation speed) is maintained at a desired output level (ie. the required platter rotation speed).
It is a dynamic system and doesn't have a memory in the sense you mean. You may have a response lag time, but the term is applied to the optical block positioning system (for example) and is NOT related to the output sound (which is made possible by the servo positioning system and motor control).

In a digital system (which is where you first mentioned it), the phenomenon you report does not exist. It is a continuous streaming process (apart from a delayed sample on one channel to synchronise L and R data from the serial stream). Even for those that do utilise a buffer for jitter reduction, the memory management is carefully designed so that the buffer fills and empties in a consistent way. If this weren't the case, the system would simply fall over and you would hear complete garbage or glitching while waiting for the buffer to fill. In short, for a digital system, you don't get "sound overlay" which is what you appear to imply by thinking of memory in analogue terms due to "incomplete erasure".
The routine you follow may work in your situation, but I suspect not for the reasons you attribute them to!

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

Use your ears and listen, Anthony, posted on May 29, 2015 at 02:15:07

jeromelang
Audiophile

Posts: 2303
Joined: February 2, 2001

You mean you haven't already done that yet after writing all that above....?

What's wrong with people these days?

Now do that memory erase thing I mentioned.

RE: Use your ears and listen, Anthony, posted on May 29, 2015 at 03:16:48
flood2 Audiophile Posts: 2558 Joined: January 11, 2011	I appreciate your concern that my listening experience is suboptimal Jerome! Regards Anthony "Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: OK, I think I understand.., posted on May 29, 2015 at 03:57:59

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

I agree with you about the emotional involvement one gets when listening to analogue. I remember talking to one recording engineer who said that in the early days of digital recording that the replayed master sounded quite removed from the original monitored version.

I believe this and some of your experience may be attributed to jitter on the reference master clock used for the A/D stage. Any jitter on the reference clock will forever "contaminate" the coded signal and can never be removed subsequently. Hence, irrespective of the quality of the playback DAC etc, I can understand some of your perception.

I have used the Apogee Big Ben, which is already very good, but acquired the Grimm CC1 some years ago. The CC1 is claimed to have the lowest levels of jitter possible. However, I have no way of verifying the claim with my test equipment. Suffice it to say, the result of using the CC1 is to give a very "analogue" quality to the sound - totally grain free and preserved timbre of instruments.

I note that you don't permit emails. However, if you are interested, drop me an email and I can share sample files (on Dropbox) of vinyl transcriptions for you to assess.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

Actually these speakers were voiced with pass labs, posted on May 29, 2015 at 04:06:28

jeromelang
Audiophile

Posts: 2303
Joined: February 2, 2001

The designer, Dan Anagnos hated these sony amps that I'm currently driving them with in the living room.
In a way, it was quite funny, how he would have epic battles in those days with engineers from japan while setting up to do sacd demos, choosing between pass labs aleph mono blocks and sony amps to drive these ss-m9eds.

I have another pair in another room driven by a pass lab amp combination.

My junk system

RE: Actually these speakers were voiced with pass labs, posted on May 29, 2015 at 07:52:56

Jabs1542
Audiophile

Posts: 90
Location: Virginia
Joined: December 18, 2014

My experience - there's good digital and there's bad digital, much like good vinyl and bad vinyl. I don't think anyone could really declared one or the other as KING.

Many CDs these days are overcooked and sound terrible - heavy listening fatigue. You can see this with any number of online tools (Audacity is free, MusicScope, Izotope, etc.). High res is great when the recording is done right, otherwise it can be a more expensive version of the CD you already have.

I noticed that no one has mentioned PCM versus DSD. Poorly implemented PCM can have noticable ringing, pre or post (this is the fagituing part of digital, that little thing you can't quite put you finger on, that sound that is just not quite fluid or natural). DSD has a more analog sound to it. Note that there are near religious wars among the digital folks regarding PCM or DSD being best. Once again, there's good and bad PCM and DSD.

We all have good vinyl and bad vinyl, it's the nature of the beast. Sometimes it's the recording venue and there is nothing you can do about it. Other times it's just a bad pressing or bad quality vinyl - noisy, static, etc.

In both cases, the technology has improved greatly. Vinyl has really come around in the last 15 years and digital is now making another technology resurgence as the designers and engineers learn more about the processing of the trons. The beauty of all this modern technology is that we have choices. I have albums that blow away their CD counterparts, and I have digital files that blow away their vinyl counterparts - neither are specifically KING.

I have noticed lately, with newer music, that the vinyl release is more dynamic and the digital release has been cooked (volume wars). This alone is helping wit h the vinyl resurgence.

I've always wondered if..., posted on May 29, 2015 at 08:37:12

genungo

... the second or two it takes to stop and replay a given track simply gives the mind a chance to reconsider whatever it is we are listening for. Actually, something similar might be happening to the vinylphile when he/she is forced to get up out of the listening chair every 20 minutes so in order to change sides.

For some, that brief time interval could refresh the mind and improve the listening experience. For others, the process could prove distracting. It's the latter rather than the former for me. If you think it helps, keep on doing it...

RE: OK, I think I understand.., posted on May 29, 2015 at 08:58:05
David Smith	I think what you are describing could explain a particular recording, but not the entirety of my experience. I didn't realize about the email settings, I just changed them, I'd love to hear your examples. If the email isn't working pm me and I'll send you my email. Dave

Why does it have to be "a first pressing disc released in the home country of the label/artiste" for this tweak to work?, posted on May 29, 2015 at 10:53:52
genungo	Curious as to why this might be.

No if , posted on May 29, 2015 at 22:58:34

jeromelang
Audiophile

Posts: 2303
Joined: February 2, 2001

I have had 3 separate units of ELP setup in my system while my two friends (who own the other 2) had their system downtime.

All 3 units exhibit the same memory retention issue.
Both my friends acknowledged it.
They now use the same playing/cueing methods that I use.

The unit that we heard while auditioning the player in ELP factory also exhibit this problem.
The sales manager who was then sitting besides me heard it and acknowledged it.

I then learnt that there was an earlier unit sold to a Singaporean gentleman who was a singapore airlines ex pilot (listed on ELP website as a distributor), and I paid him a visit to listen to his unit in his system which consists of an av amplifier driving a pair of old bose 901s across the other side of his living room. Despite the very poor quality of his system, the same problem can also be heard.
This gentlemen heard it and acknowledged it.

So, I have heard 5 different ELP units to date that exhibit this memory retention problem.

RE: What digitizer do you use?, posted on May 30, 2015 at 16:25:26

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

With LP playback (being mechanical in nature), it is distinctly possible that things may sound different from listening session to listening session given the variations in ambient temperature etc.
This is far less likely with digital playback unless the electronics in your particular are prone to drift even after the internal case temperature has stabilised. Normally electronic drift is irrelevant after a few minutes from switch on.

Any other variations you hear will be undoubtedly related to mood...and the number of drinks consumed since the start of the listening session! (In my case....)

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 31, 2015 at 21:58:05

learsfool
Audiophile

Posts: 1001
Joined: August 4, 2008

I am late to this thread, but flood, you and David are having an interesting dialogue here. Allow me to put in my two cents. There are two more big differences that have not really been addressed here. One is that while analog does have "more distortion" than digital, this is very misleading. The distortions in analog are mostly to the even-ordered harmonics, and are nowhere near as objectionable to the human ear as the mostly odd-ordered harmonic distortions present in digital. This is why digital has that brighter, often harsh sound that so many analog lovers (IMO rightly) complain of. There are numerous threads about this on audiogon, where the designer of the Atmosphere amps explains it much better and more scientifically than I ever could. The difference is very obvious to the ear, and is still there, despite admitted improvements in digital technology in the last couple of decades.

The other very big difference is how digital recording is done vs. analog - specifically the miking. You may immediately object that this has nothing to do with the two formats, but you would be wrong - almost never are digital recordings made anymore of say a symphony orchestra in their hall where they just hang two good mikes out in the hall and record what the space actually sounds like, as they did back in those 50s and 60s recordings you mentioned, many of which are rightly still considered some of the finest sound recordings ever made. Several different recording engineers have told me that they would be fired if they tried to make such a "simple" recording that did not take advantage of all of the capabilities of the technology. Quite simply, the "absolute sound" is not the goal anymore of digital recording. It is all homogenized by the multi-miking to the point where there is absolutely no sense of the actual space the musicians are performing in, and what their sounds actually sound like in that space. It simply is not a priority anymore, and this is why so many of us musicians do not like it.

I myself participated in some experiments a couple of decades ago now in the Bay area where I was recorded playing in a good hall (I am a professional hornist), and hands down the analog recordings were much more faithful to what I sounded like in that hall - everyone who heard it both live and via the recordings agreed (about 30 or 40 people, if I remember right, and I was not the only musician/ensemble recorded). There are subtleties in every musician's individual sound which are lost in digital recording. Why I am not sure, and neither are the engineers, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Digital has come a long way, but it is still nowhere near as accurate in the sense that a musician means. My personal opinion is that the processing that happens eliminates too much of what it considers non-essential. Audiophiles have tried to coin terms for these things - "bloom," "air," "imaging," etc. Most musicians do not like these terms, as they are not really very descriptive; but nevertheless, digital recording and processing removes too much of these things IMO.

Another objection you may have to the above is that digital has greatly improved since the time these experiments were done. While this is undoubtably true, the basic objection is still there, and that has not gotten any better. I have heard some of the latest greatest high-res files, and while they are a step forward, give me a great recording from the golden age of the analog era any day as far as how it reproduces instrumental and vocal timbre. This is the bottom line for me and all musicians, not the numbers.

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on May 31, 2015 at 22:42:21

flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011

Hi
I have an open mind in these discussions. Whilst the scientist in me challenges the perceptions from a logic/technical perspective, I am a classical musician myself (clarinet and piano) and know only too well the effect that one's personal mood has on subjective opinions. For example I have spent countless hours adjusting my mouth piece and reed and been thoroughly frustrated at the tone quality I was getting. After doing NOTHING to the combination and coming back to it fresh, I found I didn't sound anywhere near as bad as I thought I did on the recordings I made of myself!

I agree with what you say about the mic placement and recording technique changes over the decades. I am constantly astonished at the realism and sound quality of recordings made in the 60s.
Since Mastering involves tailoring the sound to the preferences of the target audience and playback equipment, I can't help but agree with you, that some digital recordings made "today" sound absolutely terrible. For example the recording engineers clearly had little understanding of the instruments and I myself have argued with engineers who wanted to stick the mic right in the bell of the clarinet even though I tried to explain that the sound doesn't come OUT of the bell! I have seen sax players recorded in this way and the sound comes out very "honky" and bright. Other times the balance between soloist and accompanist is skewed so that sometimes the accompanist overshadowed the soloist - I suspect that with a "big name" accompanist sometimes the producer may opt to give them "equal billing" in the sound stage!

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

RE: Yes and no. . . ., posted on June 1, 2015 at 10:07:17
John Elison Audiophile Posts: 23900 Location: Central Kentucky Joined: December 20, 2000 Contributor Since: January 29, 2004	> The distortions in analog are mostly to the even-ordered harmonics I'm not sure that's true. Here are some measurements I made from a Sota Millennia Vacuum turntable with SME V tonearm through a Pass Labs XOno phono stage. There appears to be plenty of odd harmonics. The level of IM distortion in the bottom two graphs is quite high. . . . . . . . .

Vinyl Asylum

Found the problem with Digital

76.126.254.2