|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.11.33.151
I don't know whether the debate of whether the best digital recordings (SACD or DVDA) are finally equal to LP sound is over.
My question is whether anyone ever did a careful comparison, say with a signal analyzer, of the number and balance of fundamentals and overtones in recordings of acoustic instruments or groups of instruments by these technologies. Of course my assumption is that if the acoustic "signature" was incomplete with digital that one could argue, as many have, that analog LP recordings still "sound better".
I don't have a stake in this; I am just a scientist that wonders if the experiment was ever run. I would guess that the original CDs were not a match but I wonder if there was a time when the differences were technically inaudible to human hearing.
Follow Ups:
What a crazy industry that simply cannot get beyond its infancy stages from a performance perspective.
Several years ago, I exhibited my wares at an audio show and spent some time at a distributors home where many silly reviewers rant and rave about his $300k - $500k system and his $200k room. One reviewer exclaimed, only money can get this level of performance.
We listened to some vinyl on his system and it was so unmusical, frankly it sounded like crap. Pure and simple.
During the exhibit that same distributor who had his own exhibit on the main floor brought several dealers up to my room to hear his amplifier and throughout the show he was routinely sending his visitors up to my room telling them if you really want to hear how this amp sounds go to room 2017 or whatever my exhibiting room number was.
And my exhibiting system retailed for about 1/10th of that POS sounding $300k system he had in his $200k room.
Amazing is perhaps the best word I can use.
Walk into the typical audio show exhibiting room and whether digital or vinyl, they generally sound quite a bit alike. However, digital has the potential to soar to levels vinyl could never attain. Not even a handful are able to extract these extreme levels of performance from digital but it can be done. And it never could be done with vinyl.
Analogs MANY variables; in terms of varying setups, room interaction, dissipation/resonance control, equipment quality, LP pressing quality, mastering, etc ... its SQ/measurements change with the wind ...
Analogs potential sound quality is very much a moving target, in my opinion, it cannot be defined as an absolute whole for scientific comparison with any digital format.
I would think that we all agree that we all have great, recorded music on lps and digital, now the high rez everywhere, but I have some great sounding cds so it is not just that. If engineers really care about proper tracking and not compress and limit the music to death it can sound great.
I have created a short list of mastering engineers that seem to do the best work to me and I can usually pick out a Ted Jensen work right away, a very good thing as I love his work. Sterling Sound is great. They are our host would be my first choices if I was an artist.
Jim Tavegia
I have some great, good, and bad sounding lps. It all depends upon the cutting engineer and if he is too careful to not put the full low end on the disc or not. Plus if they are limited in play length the lows will be less to squeeze in all the tracks. That is why many reissued are on 2 dics to keep the low end full and enjoyable. CDs don't have this issue.
Jim Tavegia
Not to take away from your point, but the mathematical proof that high rez is better than MP3 is really not swaying the masses to buy in. And until they upgrade their earbuds, headphones, and playback devices they will never know.As for me, I have been living and recording almost exclusively in 2496 and love that format. I find it moving very close to analogue. The newest 24/192 files I have downloaded from Linn are spectacular and are all that I could ever hope for in playback media. I also love my SACD collection. My enjoyment of those files is only diminished by my own playback gear and my reduced hearing.
The only issue for me is that I can burn my 2496 files onto DVDs and play them in almost any DVD player. The 24/192 files cannot and must be played back by my computer, but tremendously enjoyable none the less.
I know many of you have spent considerable sums on USB DACs for computer playback of your files. I just bought a Steinberg UR-22 that handles up to 24/192 files and sounds amazing with separate controls for headphone out and line out to my stereo. It sounds way better than it has any right to sound for $149. I mention this as for me, no one can complain that the cost of listening to highrez music is foolish due to the cost, as this Steinberg device flies in the face of that. Listening on my AKG 701 is wonderful, but my new $99 Shure SE-215s are crazy enjoyable for almost no money. Those ear-buds would be a huge upgrade for many MP3 lovers and reveal to them what is missing in their current playback methods, but given a chance to hear something better, those new buds could reveal something new to them. The fact that this Steinberg unit also has 2 decent microphone preamps, switchable as line inputs, for getting audio into my computer is a plus, but one I will probably not use.
I was not sure what to expect from a $149 device, but it may be the best thing I buy in 2015. The sound of 24/192 downloads is so good that I am not going to worry about DSD downloads and their long load times. 24/192 is excellent and I'm glad I'm in. Linn will be getting more of my money, and they are usually less than many of the new vinyl releases, some of which had gotten very high priced.
Jim Tavegia
Edits: 04/24/15 04/24/15
You need to define what you mean by "equal to" LP sound.
The two are not equal and can't ever be defined to be equal by any metric used in information theory unless you consider a digital recording made FROM an LP. In which case the sound can be equal to the LP but a digital recording taken from the master is never equal to the sound reproduced from an LP simply because of the additional complexity involved in producing the LP in the first place and the additional EQ and other distortions added during the cutting phase. Once you add in the variability in the parameters used to replay the LP with respect to the cutting parameters, it is obvious that the recovered signal from an LP can NEVER be the same as the original source or even "close" to the original source given the typical level of harmonic distortion at high frequencies from a typical MC transducer (typically 20% at 15kHz).
People may "prefer" the sound of an LP, but it is simply an unverifiable claim for anyone to prove that the LP is "better" given the subjective nature of the listening experience.
I personally "enjoy" listening to my LPs, as well as my digital sources but the end goal is to enjoy the music.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
No, there are two religions, and you believe one or the other. I don't think science ever enters the picture. All those measurements mean nothing compared to listening. You CANNOT approach topics like this scientifically. Please check your lab coat at the listening room door.
In my mind, there is no question of the superiority of digital media. Not all of it, but the best is equal to if not superior to analog in every respect, especially cost and longevity, and fidelity is no longer in doubt.
Records were great for a long time, but I hated every tick and pop and noisy groove and warp. I spent tons of money on Japanese and European pressings, and sold every one as fast as I could after I got my first CD player. Occasionally there was some regret, but not now. Hi-rez goes far beyond anything LP's could ever do. Redbook has improved immensely. Still, the dinosaurs and the tragically hip cling to their LP's because they once heard a crappy CD on a crappy CD player.
But the vinyl guys think we're nuts. Oh well. Maybe there is a debate.
Peace,
Tom E
When CDs first came out I already had over 5000 LPs. I stayed with LPs for the simple reason that CDs were very expensive and I wasn't interested in spending a fortune to replace them, better sound or not. Of course, I had the opportunity to hear many early CD players and CDs and I don't think it was even close; vinyl was better.Much has improved over the years. I now have many CDs (newer music not available on vinyl), good CD players and I enjoy the sound, especially the SACDs and better CDs but still prefer my LPs. I believe I understand the reason but that's for another thread.
With that said, a good friend of mine has an incredible recording studio. Totally high end audiophile for the pro world (both tracking and monitoring), with $14k mikes, vintage pres (he prefers the API flavor for what he's doing), eq and other front end processing and a RADAR 24 digital recorder. He takes the opposite approach of most modern engineers, never fix it in the mix or mastering. Get the instruments and vocals down right without any processing (very tedious and probably doesn't make a good business model these days; he's loaded and doesn't care, very passionate about what he does) and only add processing later if absolutely necessary. Last month I was at his place with another friend who was tracking some of his songs, playing all the instruments. We spent a lot of time fine tuning the drum mics and trying a bunch of guitars/boutique amps looking for the best combo, etc. After each instrument or vocal, we would go to the control room and listen.
Long story short, you will never hear anything that realistic with an equivalent analog rig (he also has a highly modified vintage Ampex 16 track and Ampex 2 track for mix down; he rarely uses them unless a customer insists).
What you learn in this situation is how much is lost between those raw tracks and the CD or even SACD you listen to at home, especially with most modern recordings that are heavily processed and compressed. This is along the lines of what another poster said; record your vinyl on a good, high resolution digital recorder and you will have a hard time hearing the difference.
I think if every audiophile could experience the entire recording chain (tracking, mixing, mastering, manufacturing) with SOTA recording gear, a good engineer and hear what's going on at each step, our hobby would be much different today. I think the difference between LPs and CDs, most of the time, is really due to the entire process (tracking through manufacturing) for each format and the recording philosophy of the time.
So both formats are great. It all depends on the application and the guy in charge.
Edits: 03/05/15 03/05/15
I think you're wrong.
In my mind, there is no question of the superiority of analog media.
"Familiarity breeds contempt, and children."
-Mark Twain
I think you are referring to a preference for analog media. All you have to do is take a TASCAM DA-3000 digital recorder and make a high-resolution digital copy of any of your analog media and I seriously doubt you will be able to distinguish any sonic difference between the original and digital copy. Anyway, I certainly can't. I've been making transparent digital copies of vinyl for many years.
Best regards,
John Elison
I think it's a preference for good production values.
Overall, I think music production quality declined hugely in the 1980s, then recovered in the 1990s, and then declined again with the loudness wars and MP3s. Those trends primarily affected digital formats.
It's no use having a technically superior playback format if the "professionals" keep butchering the music. Aside from a small handful of classical labels and audiophile remasterings, there aren't many well produced albums anymore. Especially in the pop & rock genres.
A case in point is Daft Punk's Random Access Memories. This is widely considered to be one of the best recorded & produced pop titles to come out in a long time, and the LP release has greater dynamic range than the CD and hi-res releases!
As a hi-res digital fan who long ago gave up a vinyl rig, I feel like a chump having to sift through the piles of chaff on HDTracks searching for kernels of wheat while the vinyl guys seem to get all the love and care.
Ntntnt
You basically said the same thing I said (we were probably typing at the same time) but with far less words. Well done.
......with everything stated by madisonears. Same experiences and reactions, same conclusions over time.
Back in the 60's and 70's when I was an analog guy like everyone else, I absolutely HATED the 'clicks and pops' of records, especially during quiet sections in classical piano, etc. It really could yank you out of 'the zone' audio-wise, with those small firecrackers going off on a particularly noisy album.
I was always returning my DGG/London/Philips/Archiv purchases for this reason, which was a real PITA then, as the record shop employees would always say, "Nobody else brings these back complaining about surface noise.... ", and then they'd fight me about replacing the disc with a new (hopefully cleaner) pressing. I was basically bounced around from Licorice Pizza to Music Plus to Wherehouse and (finally!) to Tower Records Classical Annex on Sunset Blvd. where they 'understood' a bit better and gave me reasonable return privileges in exchange for my business which involved many thousands of dollars in purchases over the years and great customer loyalty. Tower personnel were awesome to work with. I loved making the pilgrimage twice a year when I would stock up and buy dozens and dozens of titles.
When digital came out, I never looked back after I sold my modified Sota Sapphire in 1985. 30 years later, no regrets.
But if vinyl still floats your boat, hey, knock yourself out, of course. For me, though, the answer was digital (AND a lot of hard work making digital sound superb, which in the beginning of the format was much more difficult than now.)
Aww, Tom, give 'em a break. Unlike religion, LP fans seem to have a reason to call the sound "warm" and "euphonic". I think it is interesting that the distortion is harmonic (in the musical sense of the word).
So the LP sound is an extra, just like the pops, skips, ticks, side-changes, and extra cost of the hobby.
You and I may be fans of high-resolution (and multichannel) SACD but the trend is streaming mp3/4 music. Don't look now but we are dinosaurs too. Fortunately, independent labels are still making more MC-SACD recordings than I can buy.
Now post on the vinyl asylum and compare the responses.
I can imagine! Because there are so many avid lovers of vinyl, I am occasionally tempted to bring out my old Thorens turntable to give another listen. That was why I asked this forum, which is more technically oriented, for some data, essentially on the details of the two "sounds".
Assuming those articles by J. E. Johnson were correct, and it seems creditable, I have my answer. The "magic" of the LP is very real, and I can understand its appeal. It is more than real; kind of an artistic enhancement of the music. I imagine that the original artists expected the additional strong overtones (I think "distortion" is incorrect) and welcomed it. An analogy is what happened with organ music in the Romantic period. The pipe organs were covered with boxes with panels that could be opened to produce a very mellow and smooth sound. It is the only way to listen to the music of Vierne for example. NOT for Bach.
Since my preferences are for baroque and classical period music, I want to hear the primary overtones produced by the instruments only, as intended. It best matches what I hear live. For the small amount of jazz I listen to, it is not worth the hassle of the extra equipment and annoyance. At least I now know what I am missing.
I probably do enjoy classical more on digital, w/ my current DAC than on viny (I will have to compare my DG Beethoven records to CDs one day), but I keep a TT setup now mainly for the albums which I do not have on CD (when I want to hear one and feel like the extra hassle). I do like my Brandenburg concerto vinyl set, but have not spun that in a while.
I do like Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here on my Japanese half-speed master record much more than on the SACD on my system
Edits: 03/05/15
Every time I go down to my storage room, I get the urge to set up my Rega P3 again. But I would need a phono stage and room to set up a turntable stand. Then I go up and fire up the Macbook and play my music via the remote appp from my phone on my couch and forget all about it. The Rega sure looks nice though and I miss cleaning the LPs.
This all comes down to personal preference, never mind the scientific facts.
I mainly listen to classical and have totally given up vinyl for ONE reason only; surface noise.
Loud passages mask off the noise but in classical there are many whisper quiet passages where the surface noise effectively overtakes the music.
In my experience better and more transparent playback systems make the matter worse, no matter how well one cleans the LP the surface noise remains and continues to increase with each play.
Vahe
Well recorded mch SACD is more lifelike than old vinyl
what you hear in your rig. If it sounds right to you, it is.
a wicked disease that puts you down HARD for six months. You then learn the enjoyment of having music to play. Format will not matter anymore just play what you own as Oz Man stated.
Life is too short, enjoy what you have, and cherish the ability to enjoy it.
my friend.
If you are interested in accuracy, digital is supremely accurate. I can make a high-resolution digital recording from a vinyl LP that will be sonically indistinguishable from the LP.
On the other hand, if you have a preference for the sound of vinyl over the sound of digital, you will always prefer the LP or a digital copy made directly from the LP.
Best regards,
John Elison
Somebody mentioned having read a post you made regarding you going to mikel's room to make a digital recording from a vinyl LP that even mikel himself couldn't distinguish the difference.
Can you provide a link?
That was years ago . I used Redbook CD-R back then . Nowadays, I use high-resolution DSD(128).
Daft Punk put a lot of effort mastering RAM.
If you do a search in youtube "daft punk cd vs vinyl, you will get some answers.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles-and-editorials/technical-articles-and-editorials/a-secrets-technical-article63.htmlhttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles-and-editorials/technical-articles-and-editorials/a-secrets-technical-article64.html
Here is a multipart study including measurements. I am sure there are others. But, no amount of such analyses will end the debate.
It has been clear to me that vinyl produces more distortion. But, it does that in a mostly euphonic way. A lot of that distortion is 2nd harmonic = warmth in the bass, which many find pleasing, as also with tube electronics. Add that euphonic distortion to much higher noise, dramatically reduced bass dynamics, cyclical speed variations, inner grove distortion, and, of course, dust susceptibility, ticks, pops, mistracking, master tape print through echo, turntable/arm/cartridge setup issues, etc. and it does not add up to a pretty picture, as far as I am concerned. That, of course, does not deter vinyl worshipers.
RBCD has had its own problems, in spite of being free of most issues with vinyl. It is not as mature a technology. And, the time domain ringinging of the brick wall filters, preringing, etc., generates its own, un-euphonic signature = digititis. Hi Rez digital solves most all issues that RBCD and vinyl have, though, IMHO.
I am convinced that digital natively recorded and played in hi rez is the best, most undistorted playback possible. But, those hooked on the euphonic distortion of vinyl who are willing to put up with its other shortcomings will likely never change their minds.
Many keep referring to analog/vinyl as though it is the sonic reference: "gee, that digital sounds great, just like analog". It is not the sonic reference in my book. Live sound is. Hi Rez digital does a much better job of reproducing that.
Edits: 02/26/15 02/27/15
Thanks for these very interesting articles. As I mentioned, I was not interested in a debate but in learning what differences there are between the two "types" of sources compared to live.
What I had hoped for was an analysis of an acoustic instrument like a violin or piano. What do the reproductions (analog and digital) add to the fundamentals and overtones?
Can I assume that analog would add more even order harmonics and digital would add more odd order? It would seem to me that the many orders of magnitude difference in THD with analog would add more total harmonics to the original instrument. I think Johnson essentially said this was the case and it was less pleasing with more instruments in the mix.
It would seem to me that a very sensitive listener like a violinist would prefer the more accurate and less euphonic sound. Musicians are very aware of any "extra" sonics from their own instruments. I have noticed that many professional musicians don't often have SOTA equipment probably because they are busy playing rather than listening. I have to admit that increased playing has left me less interested in listening but I feel fortunate to live in a time when we can have such recorded wonders played back so faithfully either way.
You're acting like a study could answer these questions, but study design would never allow proper testing of all the variables. For example, on multitrack recordings, each track (instrument or vocal) has a certain polarity associated with it that may be different than the polarity associated with another track (instrument or vocal) or all the other tracks. You may be testing variables such as attention to detail in recording/mixing/producing rather than simply real instruments vs recorded instrument media.Regarding the theoretical issues of SACD vs LP, I think most LPs provide up to 20 kHz upper frequency while SACD can provide higher frequencies. Many musical instruments, e.g., trumpet has overtones measured at greater than 20 kHz too. The noise-shaping of DSD pushes a lot of the garbage above this threshold so who knows how "realistic" it is, but the mere presence of it may trick the ear into thinking it's hearing a real instrument since the range is ultrasonic regardless.
See the work of James Boyk.
Edits: 03/01/15
Good points and an interesting article.
The Johnson study didn't compare instruments but the simple sinusoidal single frequency tone reproduced through LP and RBCD. I use statistically designed experiments in my work and have run as many as 26 variables at a time so I would say that it actually might be possible to do such a complete analysis of real instruments even if very unlikely to get funded. Throwing in DSD effects and frequencies way beyond our hearing range is certainly beyond my expertise.
I learned here that the simple comparison of LP and CD suggests that there is a substantial reason (in large percentages of harmonics) for the current resurgence of LP recordings of jazz music on LP. Unfortunately I just read today that ageing pressing equipment may limit the availability of those LPs to their fans in the future. Too bad because turntables have become the coolest looking audio component ever!
I read those articles late last night and this morning I realized that the euphony that Johnson talks about with jazz on LPs is very subjective. The "second" (or octave) of course might be a little more euphonic than the "third" (fifth) of the CD not considering volume.
Some composers would argue that the fifth is more musical than the octave and western music is based on that "euphony". Consider that the amount of euphonic octave is so much louder than the euphonic fifth of the CD and also includes substantial amounts of the next octave and even some of the next third. We have a lot of LP overtones here (B5, B6, F#7, B7, D#8) so I can see why Johnson only prefers this for small groups of instruments.
And I can see why many love the sound of a small jazz group as enhanced by the LP "sound". Ironically, I play the harpsichord which has a much richer set of overtones than the piano, but I never liked the sound of old recordings of harpsichords on LP. WAY too much stuff, especially for complex Bach fugues! Some people can't stand harpsichords because of those overtones but when they hear it live, it is much less overwhelming.
So I got my answer, and really appreciate all this information and the posts. I have gone to a lot of trouble with sound damping in my listening room to avoid added "euphony" so my own preference will be for digital so I only get the overtones that were recorded live. If I were a jazz fan I would pull out my old Thorens though.
No contest! LPs rule the day for Jazz and Rock!
Yeah, and hi-rez sound better also because the mastering is done with great care, to be listened on a good system in a living room, not in a car or on a clock radio. when done right on both ends, recording/mastering AND playback, digital rules ultimately.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: