|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: Vinyl article posted by Ryan T on July 31, 2017 at 19:24:02
I also love vinyl and I have a fair number of LPs. However, when it comes to digital, it's just so much more convenient than vinyl.
Now, if you think vinyl sounds better than digital, I've found a simple solution to circumvent that issue. I find that digital copies of LPs sound basically the same as vinyl -- so much so that I'm just as happy when listening to a digital copy of an LP as I am when listening to the LP itself.
Copying vinyl records to other media formats has always been an integral part of my audio hobby. I originally used open reel tape recorders. Then I graduated to cassette even though cassette tape didn't sound as good as open reel. It was simply more convenient and just about everyone I knew owned a cassette tape recorder. Furthermore, the Nakamichi Dragon cassette tape recorder came pretty darn close to sounding as good as open reel.
When digital audio tape recorders hit the market I discovered just how accurate digital was after making my first digital copy of a vinyl record. I was basically blown away. My first digital recording of vinyl didn't sound like digital at all. To my ears it sounded just like vinyl. Nowadays, I copy vinyl to 5.6-MHz DSD and it sounds perfect to me. I'm really amazed at just how close it sounds to vinyl. Well, to be perfectly honest, I can't tell the difference. Therefore, if you're one of those audio enthusiasts who thinks vinyl sounds better than digital, you can actually have your cake and eat it, too. All you have to do is make digital copies of vinyl.
Best regards,
John Elison
Follow Ups:
actually it's even better than that. We now have some very sophisticated declicking gear that can eliminate a lot of noise without degrading the sound in any way whatsoever. And when one records an LP digitally they can do so without the speakers playing which causes some level of acoustic feedback. So really we can make superior digital copies of our vinyl.This post will also likely rile up a few folks
Edits: 08/02/17
I haven't used declicking programs but I've heard digital recordings of vinyl that have had noise removed and they sound very good. With regard to acoustic feedback, I do notice a significant improvement in the clarity of deep bass when playing a digital copy of a vinyl record. It's impressive to be able to turn the volume up and enjoy tight, clean bass response without the slightest hint of acoustic feedback.
Thanks,
John Elison
"With regard to acoustic feedback, I do notice a significant improvement in the clarity of deep bass when playing a digital copy of a vinyl record. It's impressive to be able to turn the volume up and enjoy tight, clean bass response without the slightest hint of acoustic feedback."Must need some further room treatments, or maybe isolation for the table, I have no such issues with vinyl playback. The db meter above I believe at the time was Van Halen without a hint of feedback issues.
Martin
Edits: 08/10/17
You won't really know if you have any problems unless you copy a familiar LP that contains a lot of deep bass and play the copy back at a loud volume. Be sure to copy the LP with your speakers turned off. I didn't think I had any problems until I did that. In fact, bass actually sounds more robust with acoustic feedback. It sounds tighter and less pronounced from the digital copy.
I have also copied vinyl with my speakers turned on and playing very loud. Under these conditions, the digital copy sounds exactly like the LP so I know my digital recorder is very accurate.
Another test would be to turn your speakers off and listen to your LP using headphones. Then turn the speakers back on and listen to them playing very loud. If you notice more pronounced bass through the speakers, it might be the result of acoustic feedback. However, the real test is to play a digital copy through your speakers and see if you hear a difference in bass performance.
Best regards,
John Elison
"I didn't think I had any problems until I did that. In fact, bass actually sounds more robust with acoustic feedback. It sounds tighter and less pronounced from the digital copy."You need to damp your platter better.
Martin
Edits: 08/10/17
> You need to damp your platter better.
Not really! My solution is to copy my favorite vinyl to 5.6-MHz DSD. The digital files not only sound better but they are much more convenient to play. I have never enjoyed the meticulous process involved in playing vinyl. For me, it has always been the music that matters most. If I can reproduce the music in a more convenient manner, I'm all for it!
To each his own!
"I have never enjoyed the meticulous process involved in playing vinyl."I'm sorry you don't enjoy playing your vinyl, many of us do, it's about the music for us and why we don't mind the little extra effort it takes to listen to the original not some digitized facsimile.
To each his own.
Martin
Edits: 08/11/17 08/11/17 08/11/17
You don't have to feel sorry for me. My "digital facsimile" sounds either identical to vinyl or better than vinyl. For me, it's the music and sound quality that take priority. Therefore, if I can have both of those along with a more convenient delivery method, what's there to feel sorry about?
Good luck,
John Elison
"it might be the result of acoustic feedback."
Yeah, it might be.
It might be a whole lot of other things, too, the room, the woofers, the amp, the headphones, the headphone amp ....... well, you get the idea.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
John, not questioning your choice to listen to digital copies of your vinyl records but do you make new copies whenever you upgrade your turntable, cartridge or phono stage?
I ask this question as like you, back in the 70s I made cassette copies of my vinyl records and listened to the copies rather than wear out my vinyl record. However one problem I had is that whenever I upgraded my turntable, cartridge, or phono stage I felt I needed to make new cassette copies. Therefore, no longer make copies and just listen to vinyl records and not be concerned with record wear.
In many cases I do make multiple copies of the same LP after upgrading my cartridge or phono stage. It provides an excellent means of comparison for different vinyl front-ends. It's also fun to be able to demonstrate these differences to my audio buddies during listening sessions.
Best regards,
John Elison
A digital copy of vinyl IS digital and will sound like digital. There will still be a little info missing in between the digital snap shots. That may be ok, but it will still be digital.
Edits: 08/01/17
A tired old audio myth. To be sure there were issues with digital recording and playback back in the 80s and early 90s. But hi res digital that is designed to be transparent and is properly executed (and this is not a rare thing) is absolutely audibly transparent.
If you can show me one bias controlled lsitening test that shows otherwise I'd be very interested in seeing it.
> There will still be a little info missing in between the digital snap shots.
Not always true!
It depends on the resolution of the specific digital format being used. I believe I can capture everything on vinyl with 24/96 digital or higher resolution. Currently, I use 5.6-MHz DSD and it is very transparent. It doesn't miss a thing and it sounds every bit as analog as vinyl. ;-)
Best regards,
John Elison
John Elison says that the difference cannot be ascertained. You say it will sound like digital. He has undertaken recordings from vinyl and has compared them with the original. You, on the other hand, are making an assertion without any supporting evidence, even anecdotal.
So, have you ever made a hi-rez digital recording from a vinyl record ? If so what was the result?
Whenever I read someone reporting on the obvious convenience aspect of digital I become skeptical of assessments.
If convenience is the most important thing for someone then that is understandable though the one thing that separates an involving music system with one that simply plays is that a refined system requires work.
To each his own?
Actually, sound quality is the most important aspect of digital as far as I'm concerned. In other words, it's not only the most convenient format, it's also the best sounding. However, if you prefer the sound of vinyl over the sound of digital, you can actually get digital to sound just like vinyl by using a digital recorder to copy a vinyl record. I've been doing that since 1991.
Good luck,
John Elison
Most of us are happy for you, John. I know I am.
Thanks for posting your opinion and knowledge. I almost always read what you have to write about even when it's over my technical head.
I spend my recorded music time listening to the music (ceedee amd elpee) but never copying it from vinyl to digital files and comparing it and then maybe listening to it again and posting the results. The results always seem to be the same, no difference. This may be helpful and encouraging to some.
I also enjoy the process of playing a record or a CD, the artwork/album notes/the physical aspect of handling those media and afterwards, the putting away. It's all part of my recorded music listening experience. That other folks do not particularly like this process is clearly their perogative.
Thanks again and cheers!
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I play vinyl because I have few thousand deeply-loved LP's. I can't afford to replace them with anything, don't WANT to replace them, and I like the way they've sounded my whole life. I'm here in VA to get the most out of that precious stash.I copy all CD's in lossless files and play these back from my dedicated music-PC and, man, they sound good- relaxed and clean. Different than LP's? Sure- but I'm not making sweeping claims any longer. I stopped straining to hear the digital nastiness years ago and glad I did. Its like straining to listen to every little pop and tick on an LP, shouting "DAMNED inner-groove distortion!" every 23 minutes or so. It's not a path to musical peace and pleasure.
Vinyl-versus-digital debate has become an institution, heck it's an industry. Don't play into the hands of various meat-heads in the general press who've jumped on it or you'll appear quaint and amusing.
Edits: 08/02/17
I don't replace my LPs with anything either. I still own all the LPs I've ever purchased. However, I like to copy my favorite LPs to digital so I can play them on my dedicated digital music player just like all my CDs I've burned.
Hallelujah!
John Elison
.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
> Thanks for posting your opinion and knowledge. I also enjoy the process of playing a record or a CD.
> That other folks do not particularly like this process is clearly their prerogative.
I agree wholeheartedly! Audio is a hobby and we should all enjoy it in our own way. I just think it's unfortunate that some vinyl enthusiasts seem to have such an erroneous understanding of digital that it impacts their potential enjoyment of a major audio format. Like you, I enjoy vinyl as well as digital and I think that doubles the pleasure I derive from my audio hobby.
Thank you for your kind comments. I appreciate your support.
Best regards,
John Elison
Do I refer to convenience anywhere in my posting?
and adding on
The difference is not only in the quality of our equipment, but in the quality of our hearing. There is no doubt that "can't hear a difference" to one may be "a clear reduction in quality audio" to another.Some people promote their own listening experience as universal and their own equipment as without peer.
Edits: 08/01/17
Yes, I go back to the days of vinyl and reel to reel copies of vinyl. I too shirted to making copies on cassette's to listen to my vinyl collection in my car. I really held off buying a cassette until I started collecting and taping live concerts. I shifted to DAT's back in 1989, and too, was blown away by the copy quality. Next I moved to CDR and finally to a hard drive.
During the process I switched from live recording hobbiest to part time recording engineer, so the switch to digital was needed to record, mix and store.
I still make digital copies of my vinyl for casual and on the go listening access. I do it at 24/96 and agreed that what I hear is the character of my playback system and less of my recording system. Retipping a cartridge can get expensive, so, when I listening but multi-tasking a digital, high rez file works great.
It also gives me a great collections of what different cartridges sound like, as well as, tables that I have used and owned.
IMO, if care is taken through all steps of the recording, mixing and mastering processes a very, very good product can be made. At this point in time, the biggest issue is not the medium used to record on but, rather, what happens in the studio by ham fisted engineers.
I love analog and I love digital. Both have their greatness and both have their blemishes. When used properly both can be stellar.
BTW, I have still yet to hear anything that has approached "Direct to Disk".
There are valid points on both sides. In the end, it's a subjective judgement to which we retrospectively ascribe "scientific" explanations. We have correlations but no proof of causation. I have no beef with what John claims; I just know I am not interested in making digital copies of my LPs, in the first place. I have no problem getting off my butt to turn an LP over or to choose another one to play. Hi-rez digital has its place for sure.
you'll be happy to see John part with his vinyl collection? Would you part with yours?
Anecdotal evidence is what John has presented. Nothing reasoned or specifically measured as such - and you know this PAR. It's what audiophiles argue about continually, that we don't measure what seems to make a difference to sound quality, we just measure what we can and extrapolate from there.
Seems perfectly reasonable to presume that in digitising analogue sound, one ends up with digitised sound. Where's the controversy there?
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Please explain yours? Why would someone part with their vinyl collection and vinyl playback gear because they can make transparent digital copies from it?
Frankly, my argument is poor/poorly made and laden with shortcuts.
Nevertheless, in essence the thinking is that if digital recording is perceived to be so transparent, why bother with another delivery format in the first place? This does not account for historical availability, sheer experimentation, nor a listener's predilection for making digital copies of their analogue material for whatever purposes they want - as perverse as that may seem to some (like me).
I grew up with the notion that unnecessary generative activity takes one further away from fidelity. Or, the more processes one inserts between the event and reproduction, the further away one gets. That there will be losses along the way, no matter how small or insignificant/crucial. Perhaps that's an unfashionable idea now, and digital is without peer.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
"Nevertheless, in essence the thinking is that if digital recording is perceived to be so transparent, why bother with another delivery format in the first place?"
Two reasons.
1.The euphonic colorations of vinyl and specific colorations of particular vinyl playback gear.
2 Better mastering that is often found on the vinyl versions of various recordings.
I don't buy into the whole accuracy philosophy. For me it's about aesthetic excellence and IME more often than not that comes with the vinyl. Accuracy and excellent sound are not synonymous. Plenty of cross over but not interchangable at all.
> Accuracy and excellent sound are not synonymous.
Very true!
On the other hand, once excellent sound has been achieved, accuracy in the duplication and storage medium is required to maintain excellent sound quality.
Digital is extremely accurate when copying the sound of vinyl. This can easily be heard. Digital is also extremely accurate in audio measurements as opposed to vinyl, which exhibits at least 100-times higher levels of distortion than digital. The logical conclusion would be that distortion is responsible for the characteristic sound of vinyl whereas digital is basically transparent. At any rate, hi-res digital can be made to sound just like vinyl by simply copying a vinyl record.
Another logical conclusion is that recording engineers and record producers do not value the sound of vinyl. If they did, it would be very easy for them to produce CDs with the characteristic sound of vinyl. All they would need to do is make a playable master lacquer from their finished master and use it to make their CDs. I once heard a playable master lacquer made by Peter Ledermann played on a high-end vinyl system and it sounded absolutely awesome. Hi-res digital could easily capture that sound quality and even 16/44 Redbook could come pretty close, but record producers don't seem to be interested in doing that. The market must not be there for such a venture.
After all, many of the vinyl enthusiasts have formed a prejudice against digital. On the other hand, digital oriented audiophiles know that digital, when mastered properly, can sound better than vinyl. Therefore, there must not be a market for digital recordings that sound like vinyl because it would be pretty easy to make them. I've been making them since I bought my first DAT recorder in 1991.
Best regards,
John Elison
"Therefore, there must not be a market for digital recordings that sound like vinyl because it would be pretty easy to make them"
Very true! iZotope even make a plugin for that! Although they are clearly more focussed on recreating the blemishes....
Seriously though, most interviews I have watched or read with mastering engineers suggest they are focussed on accuracy and realism (for classical and jazz that is) for the recording. Cutting engineers specifically EQ the sound according to the target audience and what the customer wants so all bets are off with accuracy.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
You get more for your effort if you go out and slay windmills than if you persue accuracy and realism in audio. I could write a book on all that is wrong with these ideas in audio.
I remember a dealer in North Carolina who used to take some of his customers to the symphony so that they could experience live music.
During intermissions, he would ask what they thought of the sound.
Strings are MUCH too bright, they would say. Bass is muddy. Imaging is terrible from our seats.
So they kept buying ever more expensive gear from him. Smart guy.
That's funny! Although....it may have also been true.Probably not but might have been. Live music can sound absolutely beautiful. But it can sound pretty bad too and everything in between. That's the problem with realism as a measure of excellence in audio. A middle school marching band playing out of tune instruments overloading some gymnasium has just as much "realism" as a world class orchestra playing in a world class concert hall. But they sure aren't equally excellent in sound quality.
funny that you brought up the imaging. High end audio systems and recordings image much better than real life. And that's a good thing! We don't have the visual cues in home audio that you get with a live concert.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote....
I'm in total agreement (from a philosophical perspective) that the act of "recording" an event is never going to be identical to the live aural experience since that involves so many aspects of the brain.
However, in the context of the "act" of recording...the process of recording is to accurately record what the mic is picking up. Accuracy of the original "experience" is a completely different matter which is down to the skill of the tonmeister to position the mics correctly and is unlikely to be equivalent. However, it is the mastering engineer and cutting engineer who affect the sound of the final product. So the final product is far removed from what the mics were picking up in some cases. In the case of vinyl, the deviation from the original will always be far greater. Digital recording of an existing recording on a tape or record these days results in a "copy" that is undetectably different with equipment of a suitable technical quality. In the past this may not have been true, but certainly now the technology is very affordable and within reach of consumers.
Those who insist that digital is "inferior" usually lack the technical knowledge required to understand the process or base their opinions on experience gained on inferior equipment. Those who insist vinyl is "more accurate" clearly lack the technical understanding of the cutting and replay process.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
You base all your conclusions based on the premise we know all there is about energy and music and can measure it. I realize this is not what you want to hear. It is no fun for science to be told you can not explain the infinite in the finite.
All the debate is silly just listen. Most people can be sold on about anything, including numbers. The only conclusion I can come to is most people have no real exposure to live instruments, can not hear, or do not care that much.
Enjoy the ride
Tom
Do you think one needs exposure to real instruments to have a legitimate opinion on soudn quality? I don't
Only if you want it to sound like real music. Now if rap and hip hop is your thing you may have a point. Even using a electric guitar, for reference, is a moving target. Well I have to admire you honesty. For me I want the French horn to sound like a French horn. With out being exposed to one, I would have a hard time knowing if my play back system was even close.
Enjoy the ride
Tom
This realism thing again. What does a French horn sound like? That's a trick question by the way but feel free to answer it.
I want music to sound good. Real isn't on my radar. "Real" can sound real bad. Talk about a moving target, realism is the poster child for moving targets as any kind of reference for audio.
I understood what you wrote. I just wanted to express my personal views on accuracy and realism in audio since you mentioned them. But since you made a thoughtful post on the subject I will offer some responses to your points.
"However, in the context of the "act" of recording...the process of recording is to accurately record what the mic is picking up."It certainly can be but it doesn't *have to* be. There are options.
"Accuracy of the original "experience" is a completely different matter which is down to the skill of the tonmeister to position the mics correctly and is unlikely to be equivalent."Tonmeister has nothing to do with it. The experience of live music is so intrinsically different than the experience of audio recording and playback that the comparisons are absurd. Truly apples to oranges.
"However, it is the mastering engineer and cutting engineer who affect the sound of the final product. So the final product is far removed from what the mics were picking up in some cases."That is true. The final commerical release often gives us an electrical signal that is very different than the ones that came off the mics. I'd say this is almost always true and for many reasons.
"In the case of vinyl, the deviation from the original will always be far greater."No, not "always." Not even close. Deviations from the signal leaving the mics is far more a matter of recording engineers tweeking and mixing and mastering engineers doing more tweeking than it is a function of vinyl vs. digital. Now, all else being the same, yes a sufficiently hi enough resolution digital transfer will be more accurate on most parameters than vinyl.
"Digital recording of an existing recording on a tape or record these days results in a "copy" that is undetectably different with equipment of a suitable technical quality."It *can.* Digital *can* be audibly transparent and often is.
"In the past this may not have been true, but certainly now the technology is very affordable and within reach of consumers."I totally agree with thsi point.
"Those who insist that digital is "inferior" usually lack the technical knowledge required to understand the process or base their opinions on experience gained on inferior equipment. Those who insist vinyl is "more accurate" clearly lack the technical understanding of the cutting and replay process."IMO digital is inferior to vinyl(I don't "insist" although I do think it is objectively technically superior) but digital is for the most part audibly more accurate. I am confident that my digital components are audibly transparent so this is not an equipment issue. Remember what I said about accuracy? That it was a misguided concept in audio? This illustrates that quite nicely. Equating accuracy and excellence. Bad idea. Sends most audiophiles in eroneous directions that are not paths to better quality sound or better understanding of audio. There certainly is overlap between accuracy and excellence in audio but they are not synonymous.
Edits: 08/03/17
"Another logical conclusion is that recording engineers and record producers do not value the sound of vinyl. If they did, it would be very easy for them to produce CDs with the characteristic sound of vinyl."
I'm not so sure that is really such a logical conclusion. I think the production of commercial CDs and LPs involve a lot more than the personal preferences of producers and engineers. Clealry commerical interests come into play too. I doubt that highly compressed CDs are really a representation of the tastes of most recording engineers or even producers but it does represent what most of them are actually putting out with pop/rock music. I think even in classical music there are more considerations that go into how the music is recorded than purely sound quality.
There are very few studios around nowadays which even have the equipment necessary to record in analog. So are you saying mastering engineers should eq digital masters in an attempt to get an analog sound? Am I not understand something?
Was the Ledermann master from an analog recording? If so, where was it recorded?
> So are you saying mastering engineers should eq digital masters in an attempt to get an analog sound?
>
> Am I not understand something?I don't think you understood much of anything I wrote. You might want to try reading it again.
> Was the Ledermann master from an analog recording?
Presumably, but you'll have to ask Peter Ledermann. He used to sell them online for $100 each. I now wish I had bought several because the one I heard sounded wonderful.
Best of luck,
John Elison
Edits: 08/02/17
"All they would need to do is make a playable master lacquer from their finished master and use it to make their CDs."Since the actual recording and master of 99.99999% of recordings made in the last few decades is digital, what you are saying amounts to: what makes analog sound like analog is playing a record. Apparently to you whether the original RECORDING and master were done via analog or digital is of no consequence.
Nevermind.
Edits: 08/02/17
I think this idea way off. A lot of artists are recording analog. Be it pop/rock or jazz or classical. Are analog recordings in the minority? Sure but not like what you claim. And no, I am not taking your number literally.
Can you name 10 jazz and 10 classical recordings made in the last 20 years that were analog recordings? Hope you won't list audiophile niche stuff. I know a few scattered rock/pop/blues records were/are still recorded analog, but do you seriously believe its more than 1 or 2 percent of all the recordings released? Can't think of one single new jazz recording I've bought in the last coupla decades that is an analog recording.
Edits: 08/02/17
I can probably name 10 of each that were released in the last year. Same with pop/rock. Are you keeping up on this sort of stuff?
Been trying, but so far my Googling hasn't resulted in finding out what % of recordings in either 2016 or 2017 was done in analog.
Scott, I'm all for analog recording. But reality is reality. Its been a niche thing for decades and as far as I can tell will remain a tiny % of all recordings.
Dunno how you're even gonna find out what type of recording new releases are. I just checked the last 5 cd's I bought:
Elliot Galvin Trio - Punnch
SFJazz - Music of Miles Davis
Manuel Valera & New Cuban Express - Expectivas
Adam Kolker - Beckon
Ambrose Akinmusire - A Rift In Decorum
Not a word indicating whether the recordings were analog or digital.
I think Tacet just dropped at least 5 or 6 new LPs that are all analog
https://www.tacet.de/main/seite1.php?itemsPerPage=300&language=en&filename=katalog.php&type=LP-180g&search=yes
Fone. These guys are putting out new jazz and classical every year
http://fone.it/
There was this big one from the Berlin Phil.Brahms symphonies recorded direct to disc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBf3OBMjRAg
There's Jack White and everything he puts out
http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/inside-track-jack-white
Gillian Welch is making records
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/gillian-welch-analog-artist-living-digital-era-article-1.3372686
Pink Martini has recorded many of their albums on analog tape. Not sure how recently they have done that though.
These guys are constantly releasing new recordings.
http://www.berlinermeisterschallplatten.de/en/direct_to_disc
These guys
http://www.chasingthedragon.co.uk/
http://www.handdrawnrecords.com/coming-soon-new-all-analog-vinyl-compilation-record/
There are plenty more if you want me to dig them up.
I personally wrote to Andreas Spreer a few years ago regarding Tacet's Ravel Bolero etc. album, and he confirmed in his reply to me that the master was 24/96 PCM. So unless he had some kind of parallel analog tape recording going on too, I'm not sure you can count that title (or indeed most of the titles on your Tacet list) as an analog-originated recording (even though he did use tube equipment on some of them).
""Tube Only" means: only tube microphones and amplifiers were used for the recording. For transfer to a digital disc (CD, DVD or SACD) a connection to an A/D- or a DSD transformer must be activated. For the LP, however, (except for rare exceptions, justified for musical reasons) the signal is even stored on a tube tape recorder and then mastered with valve equipment, so that one would be right in saying that for the entire production not a single transistor was used."So maybe that was the "rare exception?"
Also, it is not uncommon for modern analog recordings to have a hi res digital recording made off of the same mic feeds. Why not?
Edits: 08/04/17
nt
All analog. Killer music!
.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I think you're getting hung up on the word "analog." I didn't use that word in the posts to which you are responding. I thought this thread was about "digital" and "vinyl." What I said was, "If you want digital to sound like vinyl, all you have to do is copy a vinyl record with a digital recorder." Then I modified that to suggest all that would be necessary is to cut a playable master lacquer from the "finished master" and copy it using a digital recorder. Then, produce the CDs from the digital copy.
I don't understand why you're having such a problem with this. You seem to be the only person here who doesn't understand.
I guess maybe you didn't know that a lot of CD/DVD-A/SACD package releases are actually doing just that? This pretty common practice. Look at any of the Steve Wilson surround remixes of prog rock classics. They have his surround sound remix, his stereo remix, a flat hi res digital transfer of the original master tape and a needle drop all in one package.
There's nothing wrong with logic. I stand behind logic every day. On the other hand, there is something to be said for personal experience, too.
I've been making digital recordings of vinyl since I bought my first DAT recorder in 1991 and I now have hundreds of digital copies of vinyl. In 2006 I was challenged by a guy with a three or four hundred thousand dollar audio system to "put my money where my mouth was." Although this proved absolutely nothing, the guy lost his own challenge and paid the price.
Until you've accumulated some of your own personal experience making digital copies of vinyl records, it might be prudent to leave some room for an alternate point of view on the subject. In other words, it's rather illogical to be so sure of yourself about something for which you have no experience.
Good luck,
John Elison
You have no knowledge of my audio engineering nor media production history nor my experience nor auditory acuity or musicianship history. Your assumptions are breathtaking but not altogether surprising.
And I have read about your challenge *ad nauseam*, and your opinions on the AA, so I won't take any lectures from you, John. And you're right: it proved absolutely nothing.
Please continue to digitally record (or not) your vinyl as much as you want. Keep as much room for that as you like. But please don't assume that everyone should agree with you nor assert that because they don't, that they're bigots.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
" Your assumptions are breathtaking ".You don't think that your's aren't ?
Given your comments you provide nothing at all to validate " my audio engineering nor media production history nor my experience nor auditory acuity or musicianship history" so until you do.....
Edits: 08/01/17
Precisely? Is this forum to be policed, PAR? Silence please, unless one is deemed credible enough?
Poor show.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Well, all I know for certain is that you've never made an accurate digital copy of a vinyl record. Once you do that, you'll be very surprised and also very impressed with digital.Good luck,
John Elison
Edits: 08/01/17
" Would you part with yours?"
That is a very difficult question to deal with. In terms of retrieving space in my smallish abode the answer is yes. In terms of sound quality the answer is maybe. In terms of my personal relationship with many of my discs which go back to my teenage years and carry many memories as well as the information in the grooves, for those, no.
" Seems perfectly reasonable to presume that in digitising analogue sound, one ends up with digitised sound. Where's the controversy there?"
One ends up with a sound that has been reconstructed from information stored in a digital format for sure. The argument is, however, whether or not the result is indistinguishable ( or as near as makes no differnce) from the analogue source. NB: I have done it but even at 16/44.1 resolution I am inclined to side with John Elison. BTW, I was as suprised as hell when I did it !
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
I enjoy listening to LPs I don't enjoy listening to CD's so I listen to my record collection. But I would not waste time trying to make someone listen to LPs. I hope everyone goes the CD way. I wish everyone would sell there records and sell them fast and sell them cheap and to me.
Kindablue
I've never sold any of my records. I'm surprised that so many of you decided to sell your records after the introduction of digital. Not a smart move! Of course, YMMV. What didn't seems smart to me might very well be smart for others. ;-)
Best regards,
John Elison
Just make sure the "mintest" copy of original pressing Kind of Blue goes to me. You can keep the rest...LOL
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: