|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.120.18.199
In Reply to: RE: Yes and no. . . . posted by flood2 on May 26, 2015 at 18:34:38
"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
Follow Ups:
..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
"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
Edits: 05/26/15
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
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
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: