|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.200.199.71
Summer read.
Follow Ups:
We're not comparing recordings or formats of similar quality. Almost all digital is produced at inferior sample rates and bit depths.At 384 kHz 32 bit, digital is fully competitive with vinyl. Even at 192 kHz 32 bit, I don't miss listening to the LP.
Typical WAV file sizes for 1 album side:
192k 24 bit -- 1.5 GB
192k 32 bit -- 2 GB
384k 32 bit -- 4 GBAD converters used in testing:
Prism Orpheus (Firewire)
Lynx Hilo (USB)
RME ADI-2 Pro (USB)Current DA converters:
Bryston BDA-3 (USB)
Lynx Hilo
RME ADI-2 ProAll audiophiles should demand high-resolution digital files! 192 kHz 24 bit is the lowest acceptable resolution. When these digital files are available as original studio production (not upsampled later), the sonic advantages of LPs will be negligible.
Happy listening.
Regards,
JerryS
Edits: 08/13/17
" the sonic advantages of LPs will be negligible."
To who?
Martin
I suggest this statement will be valid for anyone who compares the sound of an LP against a competent 32/384 recording of that LP from the same turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono preamp.
It's not to me, and from the responses from so many on this site I believe I'm not in the minority. So what's next Kemosahbee?Martin
And keep in mind, someone here is actually suggesting the digitized copy is superior to the original for the sole reason its now digital lol.
Edits: 08/13/17 08/13/17 08/13/17
Professor Martin,
Are you saying that you have done this comparison as I detailed in my post?
I have certainly not read all the posts on AA on this subject, but my impression is that most of those opinions are based on comparisons that used far less rigorous methodology. Comparing the sound of an LP played on someone's turntable against a commercially produced CD is a darn near worthless comparison: too may variables.
Regards,
JerryS
"Professor Martin,
Are you saying that you have done this comparison as I detailed in my post?"
Same list of equipment manufacturers no, better equipment yes.
Martin
Does digital have a place in my life? Yes, it's ok as background music when performing other tasks, but for dedicated listening, no. As stated earlier, some of us are just more sensitive to the anomalies digitized music contains and find it fatiguing, some are bothered by fluorescent lighting, many are not. It baffles me why this is so hard for some to accept. Just accept we're not all the same and get on with listening to some music, digital or otherwise.
I agree with you. Just as some are turned off by LPs problems like ticks and pops and background noise, which are recording specific, others prefer these to digital's traditional weaknesses.
Please note that I did not say that good digital sounds exactly like an LP. A 100 Watt florescent light looks different than a 100 Watt incandescent bulb, and folks might prefer one over the other for various reasons. Vive la différence!
I hope you weren't offended by my addressing you as "Professor Martin". I only meant to show respect for your accomplishments.
" A 100 Watt florescent light looks different than a 100 Watt incandescent bulb, and folks might prefer one over the other for various reasons. Vive la différence!"
Fluorescent lighting has been shown to cause restlessness in many, especially children, the same has not been said of incandescent lighting, it seems digital sound reproduction has the same affect in some. With either it's not a matter of preferring one over the other, it's about not feeling a sense of unease with one and wanting to leave the room with the other. Count yourself lucky you're not one of the minority that's sensitive to the issues digital represents.
Martin
I also count myself lucky I'm not one of the minority that's sensitive to the issues vinyl represents.
Edits: 08/13/17
"I also count myself lucky I'm not one of the minority that's sensitive to the issues "analog" represents"
Are we now talking analogue or vinyl? If analogue I'm curious as to what issues hearing a trumpet et al live we would be talking about. Live music is analogue so if speaking in generalities I would think all analogue music would be included.
Martin
vinyl. edited.
"I agree with you. Just as some are turned off by LPs problems like ticks and pops and background noise, which are recording specific, others prefer these to digital's traditional weaknesses."
Now, since we're referring to great digital copies that can be made from vinyl, better than commercially made digital, won't all of the issues with vinyl you're referring to above also be present along with the issues digitizing the music creates in the digital copies making the recording offensive to both camps?
Martin
Not so much. Starting with a clean record is important. Defects of very short duration, such as clicks and pops, can almost always be surgically removed or repaired using simple audio editing software such as Audacity or Reaper. Removing hiss and hum usually involves some kind of software filter which often does more harm than good. Either way, the computer mouse gets a good workout!As you mentioned, some folks just don't "cotton to" digital, so even the best, cleanest, most error free digital recording, either an original studio production or a copy of an LP, will never be satisfactory.
Edits: 08/13/17
I agree, a pristine record would be essential, but then it doesn't have all of the issues stated above. And if altered to remove the "issues" then it's no longer "exactly like the original". I still can't see any reason to transfer vinyl to digital other than convenience, and it's not enough of a reason to deal with digital's issues other than for non serious background music.
Martin
Records slowly degrade over time, although good care can make them last for many years. The other reason to leave the record in the jacket is the cost of retipping a phono cartridge. This can be pretty darn expensive.
I disagree about the "exactly like the original". I doubt the click deformation was on the original master tape. If you expand a waveform with a click or pop and can repair it (the Audacity Repair tool works great), that anomaly really disappears: the waveform is smooth and correct again. It is easy to see when you can view the individual bits.
But you're right. Probably the main reason to digitize is convenience - for those not bothered by digital.
I've said this before and will accept the flack it generates again, but I don't like digital. So much so that the few CDs I've been given as gifts have been transfered to cassette. Transferring digital to analogue smooths out the harsh digital hash, another reason recording in digital for manufacturing vinyl still sounds better than the digital release itself.I've demenstrated this affect to numerous people and all have agreed the cassette copy was more "musically enjoyable". Music flows, binary 1's and 0's do not, it's pretty simple to see why analogue is superior when it's about the music.
Martin
Edit: Our ears have had millenia to evolve hearing and processing analogue sound, natural sounds are analogue, digital only exists as a construct of mankind, it's unnatural. Our ear/brains discern this as unnatural and trigger our fight or flight response causing a feeling of unease. Some may not be as attuned to this response so claim not to hear this reality, but many do and why we just don't like digital.
Edits: 08/06/17 08/06/17
"Transferring digital to analogue smooths out the harsh digital hash, another reason recording in digital for manufacturing vinyl still sounds better than the digital release itself. "
Think about that for a moment....isn't that just telling you that the DAC used in the cutting process is superior to what you have??
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
"Think about that for a moment....isn't that just telling you that the DAC used in the cutting process is superior to what you have??"
So, you're saying the DAC used in the recording process is better than the DAC in my turntable? Last time I looked my tables didn't need one lol. Obviously you didn't understand the part you quoted.
It's been mentioned as part of the digital is better camp that most master tapes used to master records are digital. As such, the argument that vinyl is superior to digital doesn't make sense as its origin is digital. It's this erroneous thinking I was addressing, that an analogue copy of a digital signal will carry over the digital artfacts, this is not the case.
As for returning the original digital signal from analogue back to digital without these artifacts reappearing is naive at best. Binary 1's and 0's are what they are, an unnatural construct of man, nothing can change that. And if you think that with close to 5 decades of interest in this hobby I never recorded a cassette, or lp to digital you would be mestaken. I was one of the earliest adopters of everything digital, even spending $1000 on a laser disc player to rent discs to record on VHS. Making copies of my music has always been a high priority on my list.
Martin
"Obviously you didn't understand the part you quoted. "
Nope, not at all.
How else were you comparing the Digital copy to the LP?
"I was one of the earliest adopters of everything digital, even spending $1000 on a laser disc player to rent discs to record on VHS"
Althought the soundtrack on NTSC LD players was in PCM (analogue for PAL due to bandwidth restrictions resulting from the available storage capacity), the video content was analogue.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
"Nope, not at all.
How else were you comparing the Digital copy to the LP?"Apparently you didn't understand.
If you want anecdotal evidence I could sit here and list "all" of the different digital sources I've heard, then list "all" of the analogue reproduction equipment I've heard, but the lists would be loooooooong. In every case I've preferred analogue, and not just a few here have expressed the same, I guess we all have inferior equipment. Again, as I stated, not everyone is bothered by the unnatural quality of digital, then again many like the sound of the accordion too lol.
Not everyone is bothered by fluorescent lighting either, but many are. It's been shown to cause a sense of unease, restlessness, etc., this is especially bothersome to some children as most schools use this as the primary means of illumination.
If your not bothered by the issues with fluorescent lighting then you're among the many rather than the few. But just because you're not sensitive to this issue doesn't mean others can't be. The same is true with the reproduction of an analogue source (the original event) reproduced digitally
This horse has been beat to death. Those that aren't sensitive to digitals issues will never be able to understand why those that are, are. It reminds me of attempting to describe to someone what a banana tastes like.
Edits: 08/06/17 08/06/17 08/06/17 08/06/17 08/06/17 08/06/17
Here's what you didn't demonstrate to yourself or anyone else. You didn't take your newly recorded cassette tape and then re-record it back to digital using a high-quality digital recorder. If you had done that, you would know that the digital copy of your cassette sounded exactly like your cassette. Try it! You'll understand what I'm talking about.
It's easy to make a digital recording sound just like a cassette tape if you want. It's also easy to make a digital recording sound just like a vinyl record.
Good luck,
John Elison
I was not expecting an overwhelming response and debate to the news article.
Are you saying that somebody actually read the news article?
Power is always dangerous. It attracts the worst and corrupts the best ... Ragnar Lothbrok
So sure I could go ahead a read it. Either is it praising vinyl or praising digital. either way I got over that arguing YEARS AGO.
SO I see something like 50 posts about the same old same old. Geez, don't you guys every get tired spouting about this drivel???
No.. well have fun.
> Geez, don't you guys every get tired spouting about this drivel???
Apparently not! There seem to be quite a number of posts in this thread. ;-)
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
I have to say this article is clearly written by someone who knows little about sound quality, has no meaningful experience with high end audio and is just telling a personal story. The thing she likes the most about vinyl is the thing I like least about it. Vinyl is a PIA. And this nonsense about "vinyl only" audiophiles? Are there any such beasts left in this world? There are plenty of digital only audiophiles but only a handful of vinyl only audiophiles.
those who never bothered with CD etc due to a plethora of recordings already owned. I have CD's but, many more records that I bought over a lifetime.
But you do have CDs. And I would think anyone with any interest in music produced in the last 30 years would at least have CDs even if the bulk of their music collection was vinyl.
> I have CD's but, many more records that I bought over a lifetime.
I think most of us are in that same boat. I know I am.
Provocative statement, I know. But one based on my own experience, which includes lots of analog and digital, in many formats, and also a lot of exposure to live music. IMO, the only reason to love digital is the convenience factor. In fact, issues with LPs drove me to digital originally - I wish I had owned a RCM back in the 70s and early 80s. I did like the longer playing time, the fact that you didn't need to dust them, and the ability to access tracks easily. But after going for CD in a big way, I ultimately found it to be flat and uninvolving compared to records. I then went to SACD, again in a big way, and discovered something very interesting, which was that, in general, the best sounding recordings were originally analog-sourced, followed by DSD sourced, and bringing up the rear, PCM sourced.
One of the things I don't like today are digitally sourced LPs - man, they just don't sound as good as analog sourced LPs. Too bad so many of them are made this way these days. Listen to John Fogerty's "Wrote a Song for Everyone" vs any LP that CCR or Fogerty did in the analog period to hear what I am saying. I love "Wrote a Song for Everyone", but the sound is completely inferior to the old days.
Not a lot of people read the magazine Fanfare, but I have been subscriber since the 70s. Lately we have seen a lot of CD remasterings and reissues of Decca recordings made in the 50s - interesting to hear the reviewers state how GOOD these sound vs. more recent recordings. Progress in 60 years -not there, if sound quality is your touchstone.
It is a lot cheaper and easier to record and edit with digital. Too bad it results in an inferior product.
It was a lot easier to listen to all those backwards "Paul is dead" clues via digital, without the danger of popping your stylus out of your cantilever.
"Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be. 'Cause now I'm an amputee" J. Lennon
Oooops!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Heaven forfend we might start talking about the state of inferior blankets, either... :^)
I think I've had a thorough audiophile shake down now. Just need a cable debate to round it off.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
"..followed by DSD sourced, and bringing up the rear, PCM sourced."
The original digital files for SACDs are created after editing is performed in PCM then converted back to DSD after mixing and mastering since it isn't possible to edit natively in DSD. I am not aware of any commercial "direct DSD" recordings which have not been edited and mastered prior to authoring.
Linn is one such company that record in 24/192 then convert the final mix to DSD.
As to the argument for "flat and uninvolving", that is highly dependent on the quality of the decode chain. However, what is indisputable is that digital replay (on a specific playback setup) is consistent in a way that vinyl can never be and has distortion levels many orders of magnitude less than vinyl. The best cartridges when "fresh" and "correctly aligned" give distortion levels of 10%+ at 15kHz which is a comical level of distortion compared to the digital system if you want to talk about accuracy. Temperature, humidity, warps, stylus wear all affect the repeatability of the replay system. Every time a record is played it will wear (as does the tip). Therefore the record will not be replayed identically on subsequent plays. The effect is so gradual, that everyone ignores this fact. However, if one wants to talk about accuracy and replay quality, you need to consider this effect!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Several problem with this player:MCH default play mode seriously affect 2-ch SACD and redbook CD playback sound quality. Switching to 2CH playback mode (via menu) avoid unnecessary drain on the power supply section, allowing the player to sound more robust, less flattened, and overall more musical sounding.
The iLink circuit board (located directly behind the iLink output) is another source of degradation. To totally erradicate the problem it poses, the 2-cable power supply cable feeding this circuit board needs to be unplugged from the motherboard. But before doing this, you need to deactivate the iLink output from the front panel button. After the iLink board is removed, you must never touch the iLink again. If you accidentally activate the iLink output while the board is not connected, there will be some degradation. You will need to connect back the iLink board, then deactivate the iLink output to fully ensure no more interference to the player's power supply.
Thirdly, switching to slow filter will cause interference with power supply. This will affect sacd playback even though this digital filter is designed to affect redbook cd playback only. With cd digital filter set to slow, sacd playback will sound leaner and less extended at the bottom frequencies.
The XA9000ES is a totally diffferent animal with each setting changes. Accumulatively, all 3 setting changes together, improve this player beyond recognition.
Edits: 08/01/17
Provocative statement, I know. But one based on my own experience, which includes lots of analog and digital, in many formats, and also a lot of exposure to live music. IMO, the only reason to love vinyl is the nostalgia factor. In fact, issues with LPs drove me to digital originally - I wish I had owned a RCM back in the 70s and early 80s. I did like the longer playing time [of CD's], the fact that you didn't need to dust them, and the ability to access tracks easily. But after going for CD in a big way, I ultimately found it to be dynamic and liberating compared to records. I then went to SACD, again in a big way, and discovered something very interesting, which was that, in general, the best sounding recordings were originally PCM, followed by DSD sourced, and bringing up the rear, analogue sourced.
It is a lot cheaper and easier to record and edit with digital. I'm so glad it results in a superior product.
Well. . . as Lew says below, these discussions go round and round, and never lead anywhere. But I'll bet it feels good for you to get your assertions out there! ;-)
For my most recent vinyl experience (day before yesterday), check out the link to my CAS post on the Music Asylum below (the next to last paragraph).
I come down on the opposite side of the fence. In fact, every time. In fact, I only WISH digital could excite me as much as vinyl. (That's the key, for me, the visceral excitement of live music, which I just don't often get from digital reproduction.) But your opinion vs mine is why I would rather not argue about it. To each his own.
And I DO agree with your "to each his own" sentiment! I was just having a bit of fun wth the earnestness and piety of a couple of the posts here! ;-)
Of course, in this case we are talking about religion with a small "r".
Also a provocative statement. But it is true. that does not invalidate your personal experiences or tastes. But perceptually speaking, all else being equal, same recording, same source feed and same mastering using a very high quality vinyl playback rig you will get greater sense of dynamics and spaciousness and 3D imaging from vinyl. And all for technical reasons. That perceptual difference is not a matter of taste or preference.This post ought to get a lot of folk riled up. But this is stuff that has been researched. If anyone has any doubts about the above assertions of fact I suggest they contact JJ Johnston about these perceptual euphonic colorations of vinyl. One does not have to like them but they are real and the effects really are greater percieved dynamics, more spaciousness and more palpable imaging. There are other euphonic colorations to be found in individual products, Turntables, Pickup arms, cartridges and preamps. So there is also greater flexibility in one's ability to tailor the sonic signature to their liking. I would say this is more of a practical superiority though rather than a straight up technical one.
Personally, due to so many variations in source material and mastering I can't imagine being without vinyl or all the different digital formats. You can't fix a poorly mastered CD and there is all too often an LP or SACD or DVD-A that has much better mastering of a given title. The only reasons I can see to abandon vinyl is cost and convenience.
Edits: 08/01/17 08/01/17
I agree about vinyl's euphonic colorations though!
How many times have you actually directly compared vinyl and digital sources that were derived from the same tape feed and not tweeked in any way by the mastering engineer? Without that any comparisons are poisoned by other variables. Not a lot of those kinds of things out there. James Boyk actually released a comparison package years ago of an LP and a CD of his recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. If you can survive the performance (sorry James if you are reading this but I don't like it) you can make this comparison with all other variables removed. There are a few other releases that do the same thing. I have seen one here at a local record shop in Hong Kong that is an everything comparison package. LP, CD SACD, hi res file and DVD-A. I think I might buy it. There's some really amazing cool stuff for music lovers/audiophiles here in Hong Kong
How many times have you actually directly compared vinyl and digital sources that were derived from the same tape feed and not tweeked in any way by the mastering engineer?
In the commercial world, perhaps few to none. On the other hand, I have about a dozen different recordings that seem to have the same master on vinyl, CD and higher resolution digital.
Comparing vinyl to Redbook, I find each has strengths and weaknesses. Redbook wins at the bottom exhibiting less noise with vinyl demonstrating a more natural and extended top end. Dynamics can be good with either depending on the recording.
True high resolution recordings bridge the gap and provide the best of all worlds, IMHO.
But you're right that few of us have engaged in apples to apples comparisons. But even if you DO have parallel digital and vinyl sources, you STILL can't get a valid comparison, because your perceptions will always be affected by the very equipment you yourself are using (as opposed to the equipment someone else might be using)! So no matter what, comparisons are ALWAYS going to be "poisoned by other variables".That's the real world - we've got to live in it. ;-)
Edits: 08/01/17
As a person? As a recording engineer? As a teacher?
Just curious.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Take a look at this LP of Boyk's performance of Prokofiev's Sixth Sonata:
Ooh! He's so intellectual! What a magnificent artiste! You MUST think of "What kind of sound?" you want! Ooh! He has to keep track of all this stuff while he's playing - and he damn well wants to make sure YOU know it too. (As if anyone playing that work doesn't keep track of the same details - and more!) Basically, it's a lame attempt to take advantage of and impress the musically unknowledgeable.
Or. . . look at his uTube videos he's posted. They have titles like "MASTER TEACHER James Boyk REVOLUTIONIZES [someone else's] playing". (OK - my caps!)
I guess what I don't like is the self-aggrandizing aspects to his personality - it might be OK if he were a better pianist, but he's merely a good pianist IMHO.
Good? You give him more credit than I do. He's a minor league player at best IMHO. And I would not want to tell him that because I think that performance is what he cares most about. But he is excellent at recording piano. I think in terms of sound quality alone his records of piano are among the very very best. I enjoyed talking to him in person and even in emails. He has a great deal of passion for music and for recorded sound. But I can see how some of his self promotional material could be a bit over the top. And he does know piano sound really well.
as a pianist
Digital done with the intent of being transparent is transparent. There maybe some trace inherent colorations in CD but just barely but certainly not hi res or SACD. And the differences in sound of vinyl playback gear is IMO one of it's advantages. You can pick your "poison"(your colorations) so to speak so I do think the comparisons are fair. But I don't think they are the most important thing. Variations in mastering and source tapes matter more in many cases and that is why there is value in having all formats.
I think we can all agree with this statement!
nt
Micro-seiki, Dynavector. . . I can't remember the tonearm manufacturer. I don't remember the model numbers either, but they were in the middle of each of their manufacturer's range. But, as my recent CAS post shows, I do still like to keep in touch with the vinyl world and appreciate what I'm missing. ;-)
nt
This is a confusing, if fascinating subject. I have LPs that sound better than the CD versions of same. Conversely I have CD versions that sound better than their LP versions. I have new re-issues of LPs that compare favorably with older original versions of same, but the reverse is true too. One of the most perplexing contradictions is the remaster of older analog recordings. Some remasters are digital, some are analog, and either way the remasters usually, but not always, sound better than the original versions. How can an original analog recording be remastered digitally and then recut as a new vinyl LP and have it sound better than the original analog LP? But this is common.
A separate, but related factor in all this is playback equipment. As we know, playing back vinyl involves crossing a deep river. Turntables, cartridges, tonearms, wires, and phono-preamps all affect the sound of the LP being played. I have also found that CDs sound better on my Sony HAP-Z1ES than they do on any CD player I have tried and they even and often sound better than SACD versions of the same recordings on my Sony SACD player.
The bottom line for me is that it is impossible to draw blanket conclusions about these matters.
I've never heard an example of that.
Edits: 08/01/17
IMO they are the very best versions and beat every all analog cut I have ever heard
nt
that sounds damn good on vinyl.
..."producer Neil Dorfsman says the digital multitrack was mixed on an analog board with the resulting two track mix redigitized via a Prism A/D converter and recorded on a DAT machine, so really the recording was DAD."
My favorites include Trio Jeepy by Branford Marsalis and The Trinity Sessions by The Cowboy Junkies.
-Wendell
What I find hard to believe is that a digital remaster of an LP originally recorded/mixed/mastered in analog could sound better --- unless the original mastering job either really sucked or the recording is old and the mastering accounted for limitations in equipment in those days that our equipment doesn't have nowadays.
though I don't know the details. It's the best I've ever heard this LP.
All things being equal I prefer all analog recordings but don't dismiss digital out of hand.
-Wendell
the very few digitally remastered LP's I have that were originally all analog are not great sounding LP's. Only got 'em because I couldn't find the original LP's.
Yeah, love my 2 LP set of Trio Jeepy. Great sound. Amazon has it used for $150.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I've bought copies from $1 to $30. Great LP!
-Wendell
Of course, it helps that Bob Ludwig did it.
Opus 33 1/3
That's a good one. Johnny Cash's American Recordings was also digital and one of my most played LPs.
-Wendell
I have several, but I am on a business trip all week and can't pull out specific albums to confirm exact examples right now. All would be jazz. Labels would be Columbia, Fantasy, Riverside, Contemporary, Verve, RCA, etc. Artists are all over the map. I am thinking of MJQ, Miles, Anita O'Day, Ella Fitzgerald, Nina Simone, Julie London, Dave Brubeck, Andre Previn, Louis Armstrong to name just a few. I could go on and on and on. I must have 10 copies of Time Out, Kind of Blue and like that. Believe me in the mix there are digital remasters that sound better than the original analogs. If you have any, listen to some of the many Mosaic sets and you will hear some examples. Let me see, try the Complete Commodore series for example.
Bill
None of us ~
hear the exactly same things, nor
process sounds exactly the same way, nor
append meaning to what we hear in an exactly similar fashion.
So we don't agree. How could it be otherwise?
While it's fair to assume you hear no difference or even detect an improvement (to your mind, which is the final arbiter), as I was trying to indicate to John Ellison elsewhere in this thread, the converse is true for others also. No one specific person's experience obviates another so none of us need feel fragile about any of this, surely?
The digitally produced LPs I have can sound noteworthy but put me at one more step removed from the performance than analogue ones seem to do. To my ears/brain/musical acculturation. Notwithstanding the additional variables that are injected into the mix (pardon the pun) when albums are digitally remastered, I have my preference and you have yours - and neither of us are alone. :^)
What might be more fun, is if we had more interest in the experience of others, rather than simply their anecdotal claims. But even interpretation of those encounters are fraught with complexity. C'est la guerre.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
> What might be more fun, is if we had more interest in the experience of others, rather than simply their anecdotal claims.
I fail to understand what you mean by that statement, but I'm always interested in having more fun. Can you explain what you mean in more detail?
Thanks,
John Elison
'bNotwithstanding the additional variables that are injected into the mix (pardon the pun) when albums are digitally remastered, I have my preference and you have yours - and neither of us are alone."
I have no preference one way or the other with respect to analog or digital mastering. In any given recording, either can sound best at least in my system and to my ears. It is impossible for me to make any blanket statements beyond that.
:^)
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
I think the introduction of digital at *any* stage of a formerly all analogue vinyl process spoils it permanently. Although it's not convenient from a manufacturing point of view, I suspect our auditory systems are far more sensitive than we can presently account for.
Digital systems are efficient ways of managing data and information loads, but digital recording continues to further alter the original musical event in ways we find hard to describe and articulate, but not always that hard to experience and on which to report.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
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
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: