|
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: You ask a good question posted by Analog Scott on August 02, 2017 at 04:20:43
> 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
Follow Ups:
"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.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: