Try Stockfisch records from Germany . . . great recording.
Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?
I have always been curious about vinyl and its touted superiority over digital, so I decided to try it for myself. Over the course of the past several years I bought a few turntables, phono stages, and a bunch of new albums. They sounded fine I thought, but didn't stomp all over digital like some would tend to believe.
It wasn't until I popped on some old disk that I picked up used from a garage sale somewhere that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound.
Out of the handful of albums I have from the 70s-80s, most of them have this type of sound. Problem is, most of my music and preferences are new releases (not necessarily in an audiophile genre) or stuff from the past decade and these albums sounded like music from a CD player but with the added noise, pops, clicks, higher price, and inconveniences inherent with vinyl. Of all the new albums I bought recently, only two sounded like they were mastered in the analog domain.
It seems that almost anything released after the 2000's (except audiophile reissues) sounded like music from a CD player of some sort, only worse due to the added noise making the CD version superior. I have experienced this on a variety of turntables, and this was even true in a friend's setup with a high end TT/cart.
So my question is, is vinyl only good for older pre-80s music when mastering was still analog and not all digital?
It wasn't until I popped on some old disk that I picked up used from a garage sale somewhere that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound.
Out of the handful of albums I have from the 70s-80s, most of them have this type of sound. Problem is, most of my music and preferences are new releases (not necessarily in an audiophile genre) or stuff from the past decade and these albums sounded like music from a CD player but with the added noise, pops, clicks, higher price, and inconveniences inherent with vinyl. Of all the new albums I bought recently, only two sounded like they were mastered in the analog domain.
It seems that almost anything released after the 2000's (except audiophile reissues) sounded like music from a CD player of some sort, only worse due to the added noise making the CD version superior. I have experienced this on a variety of turntables, and this was even true in a friend's setup with a high end TT/cart.
So my question is, is vinyl only good for older pre-80s music when mastering was still analog and not all digital?
147 responses Add your response
Dear Tdaudio: I posted here this: +++++ " take a direct to dic LP recording like the Shefield Labs: Dave Grusin-- Discovery Again. When this LP was sold out Shefield prssed a " new " LP that came from the analog tape recorded during the direct to disc session. You don't have to believe in nothing I posted: hear both LPs and you will know immediatly which one came from the analog tape which one came from the direct disc recording. The differences are not subtle but substantials. In other direct to disc recordings by M&K happéned the same and you be aware of similar experiences. " +++++ I own several D2D recordings, IMHO the best ones came from Sheffiel Labs and M&K labels and you could find out somewhere through ebay and even on Agon LP ads, worth to experienced. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Its unfortunate that direct to disk stuff is so rare. Its the King James Version and For Duke disks that are probably the best-known. But they are hard to record! For one thing the musician's can't mess up too bad or a whole side is ruined and they have to start over. In addition, the recording engineer has to be really careful not to over-cut! But if everything goes right, its really amazing. |
Lacee, Low was recording in a studio known locally as 'the Church' because that is what it is... It also has very good acoustics. Low's recordings on Kranky were all done at the Church and have good sound. They sound very laid back, very slow, perhaps a bit somber, but beautiful as well. The LP is on 180 gram vinyl and is all-analog. It been out for a long time but you can still find it. I don't think their later recordings on SubPop are as good. |
Yes I have all the new ones from Johnny, and I like them, even though I only have the cd's!. I do have some old mono lp's from the man, and they aren't too shabby either. I've never heard of Low, but I do like the group Lambchop, mostly for the music, again only on cd. I have listened to Sufjan Stevens on cd and vinyl, and vinyl wins out, in whatever format he chose to record in. I'm not saying that there's nothing good about modern groups or that they are less talented.They are mostly better musicians than myself and most of my peers. I also appreciate the talents of groups like Widespread Panic,Phish,etc. I just wish that the folks recording them were as talented in their trade. Neil Young is an oldie who is still investigating ways to bring high fidelity back to the forefront.I understand he may bring something new to the format wars in the near future.Time will tell. Then it will be up to the general public to pay up or shut up. I've listened to his live recordings made at Massey Hall in 1971 using a simple tape deck and a few mikes. I find them quite impressive.How much the masters were messed with I haven't a clue.If you make a mistake in a live recording we forgive you, please don't alter them.That is if you value realism. I've also listened to them in high res playback thru the full Scarlatti rig, and the detail is better than Redbook cd by a large margin.But the original was analog afterall. I've several Direct to disk recordings and always used them to evaluate my turntable setups.Still use them to this day,and I agree they are very realistic,because they were all about capturing reality not trying to create something unnatural. I would presume there must be some direct to digital recordings also, but the temptation to alter reality, to sweeten things up, add a touch more reverb,to play with more toys is always there. More is not better, less usually is. |
Mapman, Do you find any digital enjoyable when you hear it played on your gear? How about other gear?Certainly! What do you mean by 'other gear'? Raul: IMHO any single open reel machine ( and I say any. ) has several failures. Yes, it is the best analog source but imperfect too, especially against digital one: First, the R2R takes a back seat to the LP; ever hear a direct to disk?? The dynamic range, signal to noise and bandwidth of an LP can far exceed that of R2R. It just happens that often the reel to reel sounds better for other reasons- poor signal chain in the LP, worn stampers, stuff like that. In the THD spec of the digital you did not mention Inharmonic Distortion, which is very high!- enough that anyone can hear it on any kind of equipment without training. Compare that to analog which has none. You will never see the Inharmonic Distortion figure in any digital specs as it is terrible- sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes. Raul: Here is the same: why we like a faulty medium over a truer/accurate medium as digital? Well, to begin with digital is not as accurate. Do I have to keep harping: Spend some time in the studio using direct microphone feeds, compare the digital and analog recordings and don't forget to compare the lathe cuts while we are at it??? The least accurate is digital, 2nd in line is reel to reel and the best is the lathe cut. If the mic feed goes directly to the lathe, the resulting LP will be the best representation of that microphone feed. I should point out that you don't need sophisticated gear to hear what I am talking about; anyone will easily hear the differences, even if the speakers are substandard by high end standards, even if the signal is sent through a cheap amplifier. It is very obvious to the untrained ear. Lacee, have you heard any of Johnny Cash's LPs that he did just before he died? How about some of the recordings of Low on Kranky ('Trust' is a good place to start)? The sound is AAA and amazing! |
Something from my own musician point of view concerning cloning the sound of different tubes etc. If you want the "real" sound of a Hammond B3 and Leslie, go out and buy the real tubed ones made decades ago. The synth versions are just that, synthetic. The synth versions can do a good job of tricking you that they sound just as good,until you hear them side by side. Same with modeling amplifiers. There's a lot of them around that promise to recreate the sound of old Marshall, or Fender tube amps,yet in reality, they pale in comparison to the real items.Stll want to clone the sound of an EL 34? Ask Mr Carver why he uses the real tubes on his newest tube amps? There's no substitution for the real things in life. That's the reality. Lots of folks do like these clones,they make sense, they're cheap and easy to maintain and they are portable.And they can buy them.It's hard to buy the originals and definitely not cheap. They are an attempt to capture the sounds that made the original "analog" units so popular. Think of this. Technology marches on, yet it's purpose is to clone all that has gone on before. The old technology.Not chart new territories,the one exception being the Moog. People buy the newest computer gear to download music that is derivative of another generation,which was derivative of the one before it.We keep reinventing the wheel. Now that's progress. |
I've been catching up on this thread,still more to read, but thought I'd like to add. Way back ,early in this thread I stated a preference for the recording talents of the folks from the 60's,who had none of the toys that the the new crop of "educated" recording engineers have today. You know, all the stuff that can transform mediocre musicians into giants,and make live vs recorded sound a mute point to argue about. I acknowledge that technology has progressed in the last two decades. But has it given us any new classics? Where's the new Kind Of Blue? Is it Green Day? Ok so I'm old,but it's not nostalgia. I didn't like or appreciate KInd of Blue until a decade ago,when I heard it for the first time,on CD! The sonics were great,yet it was a simple recording using simple, primitive gear by todays standards. And yet something was captured on those analog master tapes,something that seems to be missing with most of todays newest all digital recordings. I have heard some pretty poor examples of modern recording techniques that even good vinyl pressings can't fix. For me, the best digital recordings played back on good digital gear,seems to be a pretty faithful reproduction of what went on in the studio. By that, I mean you will hear all the processing that went on to bring a make believe reality into your home. It's not the same as capturing the reality of a recording of real musicians playing in a real room(with real distortions)in real time. The older simpler recording of the golden age, just sound more natural because they are. There was little or no manipulation of reality. You can't say the same for many of todays recordings. They are the reality or conception of what the engineer/producer wants us to believe is reality.Or the total absence of it,depending on how far you want to alter and tinker with what was recorded. You could compare this to the realist types of painting to the more abstract versions of paintings. One strives to capture reality, the other strives to interpret it. You can choose which one suits your own tastes. There's lots of fun listening to studio manipulated masterpieces,and purist recordings. What it comes down to is, which one would you use to assemble a hifi system? Again this rests with one's experience to how live instruments sound.So that you can recognize when they are reproduced naturally or in altered form.Then judge what job your gear is doing.How much is it altering reality? Would you like tone controls,add some more bass?Just how would you like it to sound? Since few of us were there at the session, how would we know anyways if we did re-capture the same sonics? Even the end user can't resist twiddling with the mix when given the chance. Does anyone know what " real" is amnymore? Do they even want it? Perhaps it's a generational thing. I personnally have no interest in any of the "reality" type programs that are thrust at us. For me it's not a reality that I can relate to, and as such I find nothing to interest me. It's a production, someone's take on what reality is for the masses of folks who are interested in such shows. Much the way I find most modern recordings of modern groups are. The music is very derivitive, the playing can be great, but the recordings are so altered, how can you tell if they are any good? Only by seeing them live? Then again look at all the lip syncing, and voice manipulations in supposedly live performances. If oldies recordings more closely represent reality and that's what turns you on, then jump in.Buy that vinyl rig. You also may like the way vinyl can reproduce the other reality of the recording studio too on good pressings. Pink Floyd anyone? |
Dear Chadeffect: The high end audio items design job is directly related with sales. Why some electronics are not ready to today digital technology?: because almost all those designs are for the analog technology that does not ask superior/higher hardware characteristics. Is something like the phono stages that for many years were and are designed to cope LOMCs but not to fulfil the MM/MI alternative needs too. Many LOMC lovers that tested the MM/MI alternative stay hoocked with the LOMCs and do not like to much the MM/MI alternative: why? because their phono stages can fulfil the MM/MI asking needs so they never had/have the opportunity to hear what the MM/MI can really shows to them. So, IMHO all their judgement and diminished opinions on the MM/MI alternative are faulty/heavely un-true. At one side all those people have everything with the specific needs/set-up demanded by the LOMC cartridges and when in that same system tested a MM/MI cartridge the hardware is non-adecuate to fulfil the cartridge demands as load impedance/capacitance and inside electronic design for the MM/MI alternative. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Tdaudio: Please read what I posted in this thread to know which digital source I'm talking about. About my audio system you can go to my Agon virtual system where you can find out all the answers for your questions. About my Phonolinepreamp I can give you email of owners that can attest not what I'm saying but what they think of its quality performance level. What I can say about: nothing that you can heard on your today system or that you experienced in your system. In the other side: what or which is your position/opinion on that whole subject and why? Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Rual, I want to be clear, when you say digital is better what digital are you talking about, CD? SACD? 96K/24? 192K/24bit? This is in the interest of learning. And your "electronics that have the capacity to shows the best of LP/analog the best of digital where I "discovery" that superiority" again could you be more specific about what digital format and even give some examples of the music. By electronics I assume you mean your entire system. Its interesting to learn about your do it your self phono preamp. Congratulations on building one. I assume you tried to sell this product but no market developed? I think that making a buck selling audio products would be a very hard thing to do. But as a audio hobbiest I am suppose to believe that your mystery phono pre amp that never found a real market is the standard for sweeping statements? And since you brought up the "capacity of your electronics" do you rely on old ADS speakers for your judgments? Those were not the best option back in the day. Have you updated the crossovers? How old are those capacitors? If you built a phono pre you know that capacitors built now are better than the ones built in the 80s generally speaking. And I thought there were reasons why mfgs moved away from dome midranges. FWIW I have ADS 880s and L400. They are much further down the line than yours and they do have an interesting sound but nothing that would be call accurate. I don't mean to bust your chops but when people take on the position of expert and make sweeping statements it does not hurt to examine things a little. TD |
Dear Taudio: I'm not a digital expert/designer but fortunatelly I have the electronics that have the capacity to shows the best of LP/analog and the best of digital where I " discovery " that superiority. Btw, , one of those electronic items ( PhonoLinePreamplifier. ) is our self design/build and there are a few music lover friends that own it and that can attest about its quality performance: unique for say the least. You can read about on my virtual system. I think, as I posted, that for really " fall in count " that digital superiority we not only have to be unbiased to any alternative other than MUSIC but to own the right resolution audio system that can have the capacity to shows the digital reality. As I posted IMHO the today digital status supersede our systems capacity. The source is a lot better than some of our each one audio systems. IMHO I think that designers have to improve their designs thinking on what digital has to offer and not only on the " arcaic " LPs. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul, if you recognize the "digital superiority" why not focus on a digital prouduct? I must say that want to be manufactures make some of the most interesting posts on audiogon. Its always a position of the expert but yet there is usually little to show as a sucessful product. I am not rooting against you, I welcome new options. Just waiting for some one who talks the talk to do the walk. Enjoy the music. |
Dear Peterayer: Yes, I'm still on that tonearm design, in fact is almost finished. As I posted I'm in love with LPs but that fact does not means that I recognize the digital superiority and that I like digital medium too. Truer to the recording is the name of the game and in this regards digital is way way nearer than analog. What I want to know is why when the LPs/analog is so heavely faulty I like it so much as you like it too. I'm not married with any hardware/software: I'm married with the music!!!!. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Mapman, I got back into vinyl 9 years ago because I feared that high res digital would evolve slowly. Which it has and not for technology reasons. Big record companies drag their feet because as you know they are afraid of unauthorized copies and high res digital makes that easier. I believe that is one reason why redbook CD is a compromised format. There is a lot of stuff I can buy now on vinyl that is not available via high res digital. Plus all the vinyl you can find used. 192k/24bit recordings are expensive and rare. I don't know what the sales figures for high res digital (IMO that would have to be at least 96k/24bit) are but I think it is even more of a nich market than vinyl. Honestly, if anyone knows please tell. Its kind of useless to just talk about vinyl vs digital with out breaking it down. Getting into vinyl from scratch will cost some money which sucks since I think that keeps people out of it. But you don't have to be rich to put together a TT rig that will consistantly beat red book CD. But it will take money and time to get the most out of vinyl. And if you are determined a high level TT set up will distance itself from CD. Going forward, there is no doubt that digital will surpass vinyl LP. But it will take a major shift on the powers selling music for that to happen. If that happened and there was a standard for 192k/24bit or higher then that would be a sea change IMO. IF you could buy that kind of quality at current CD prices it would all but kill the vinyl market. Its possible now but why does it not happen? TD |
Rauliruegas, I completely agree. Even though I have fallen in love with an old SET for my playback! In the past we had to cover up the harsh reality of the sound that came out of DACs at the time, never mind the quality of the recording/mastering etc. The lastest DACs have a purity that needs no help. For Hifi purposes, I believe, even though I have slightly fallen from the path, that you should playback exactly what is on the source. i.e the system should add nothing. Now I do realise that in practise some recordings need some "help", but good and great recordings need none. The problem is it is so subjective. Hense a site like this with many opinions on what is best. Let alone an understanding of what the record you are listening to really sounded like. As for most people they only ever heard it on a couple of systems which could be adding or taking away all sorts of elements. Imagine listening to hip hop on a lowther with a 300b amp or even a quad 57 and quad 2. You would only hear half the record! So imagine having an opinion about the bass if that was your reference! |
Dear Chadeffect: Thinking on " loud voice " there is something that maybe has more influence in why people do not like digital when they love analog, let me explain: years ago when CD started the CDP were really " bad " and in our each one audio system we can easily aware of all the drawbacks of that digital technology. Those early and " primitive " DACs were part of the problem ( not the digital technology ". The resolution of our systems were high and the CDs can't hide no one of its problems. What happened through the years: digital technology ( DACs ) started to improve year after year, even today is almost month after month,. Today we have DACs on CDP with an incredible 32 bits on resolution with very high sampling too. What's my take down here: that many of our audio systems has lower resolution against the today top digital technology and to really appreciate what today ( and in the future. ) digital can shows us we need better audio electronic designs wirth better : dynamic range, lower a lot lower distortions of every kind, wide flat frequency response, lower noise floor, lower crosstalk, faster response, etc , etc. All these could means that today the problem is not the digital technology but our each one system that was supersede by the digital technology. We ( almost all ) live in an anachronism when we are using tube electronics ( IMHO an " arcaic " technology with no single advantage for digital. Please this is only an example and I don't want to open a window here, my words are with all respect to tube lovers and tube designers. ) that per se is a heavy limitation for today really high resolution: tubes can't cope with the today digital specs, even SS designs must improve about because several of them can't cope/mate with the digital advances. Gentlemans, please think on that. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Chadeffect: Agree with you. Now, live music has that character and transparency with a natural accuracy. IMHO that character you are talking about is an intrinsic music characteristic : or what is in the recording came just from the start with that " character " or not and in this case the added distortions generated through the recording and playback process has nothing to do/see with that music original " character ". Those added distortions ( mainly on analog. ) are signal modifications signal degradations. The whole subject could be why a heavely faulty analog alternative likes all of us so much? and my " point " here is only that we can understand not only what is happening down " there " but why I affirm analog is a heavely faulty alternative. Today digital is with out single doubt truer to the recording than analog. I'm with both alternatives but this is not the subject. The subject is that many of us claim the superiority of the analog alternative and IMHO and trhough all what I posted that affirmation is absolutely untrue, that we like it does not means is a superior medium because I repeat: it is not and we have to know why it is not. Today several audiophiles are " crazy " about R2R and these persons that in the past owned several TT and cartridges now have several R2R machines because they think is the " eden/panacea " and it is not: it is a way faulty medium with lower quality performance level that the digital alternative. As I posted, any one of us with that Shefield direct to disc recording ( Dave Grusin ) and the sample recording that came from the analog master tape can " live " on playback the huge differences huge differences because the LP that came from the R2R tape has distortions generated on the analog tape that the DTD LP has not because the signal does not passed trhough any single analog tape during the recording process, this is a fact not something that what we like. Here is the same: why we like a faulty medium over a truer/accurate medium as digital? Yes, we like all the analog make-up and nothing wrong with that. Insist why? other that because we are accustomed to. Are we all wrong?, could be. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raulirurgas, to answer your post to mapman if I may be so bold. People are synthesising these old pieces of kit because they have a sound. A sound which is familiar and much loved by many. Yes equipment is way better now as you mentioned but it has no character due to its transparency. So some want the character. In a recording studio this is very important. It brings a statement to a guitar or vocal or drum sound etc. |
Rr, Leveraging vinyl in addition to digital would be the synthesized solution leveraging both together as needed only if one has the desird to hear certain recordings on vinyl in addition to digital. Or, vice versa. If one is satisfied with one or the other only, then no dilemma exists. It all depends on the individual's wants or needs, for whatever reason. |
Solman989 said "it (old vinyl) was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound." I have also experienced this, hence my return to listening to vinyl. Dont get me wrong I still have many SACD and CDs that sound great as well. I attribute this 3D difference to various factors but I think the main two are these... 1. Compression of dynamic range. (DR) 2. Different approach to recording/mixing/mastering I find it extraordinary that in theory CD is capable of a far wider DR than vinyl, but since 1995 we have seen the DR on CDs decline from around 20 down to 6. This flattening removes the dynamic life of a recording and I am sure many of you have seen the YouTube video that demonstrates this effect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ&feature=colike Use this link or search loudness war Ive basically given up buying new releases because the listening pleasure is just not in the recordings anymore. Instead I have been exploring used vinyl and true analogue reissues and discovered some really interesting music that sounds fantastic. Many of which were recorded 50 years ago. Two examples of these reissues are both on Speakers Corner Records done purely analogue. On The Sunny Side of the Street by Ella Fitzgerald and Count Basie 1963 and Prez by Perez Prado 1958. I find the life and dynamics of these records very enjoyable and Ive never heard anything quite like it come from a modern recording or CD. You can have the highest resolution recording with extreme accuracy but this factor alone does not equate to an enjoyable listening experience. Well engineered recording and mixing is more important and far outweigh the benefit of high resolution digital. |
Dear Mapman: I can't see how we can apply Synthesis to create something new when IMHO the analog alternative ( as I posted in my very first post ) is wrong and full of " anomalies ". As I posted too, all that software/plug-inns that exist and that is used in the digital recording process has no sense to me: why " copy " something that's wrong by " definition " ?, yes the only reason is because people ask for it, we are hooked by the analog even that's absolutely non-accurate and non-neutral. Many of us even thing and support that the R2R ( master tapes. ) are de " eden " of the analog and this IMHO is non true and only a myth created not only because our ignorance but for commercial reasons: AHEE corruption !. IMHO any single open reel machine ( and I say any. ) has several failures. Yes, it is the best analog source but imperfect too, especially against digital one: some normal specs on digital recording systems gives us numbers like these: - flat frequency response from DC!!!, -THD lower than 0.004%, - signal to noise 93db RMS unweighted, - dynamic range 93db RMS unweighted, - wow and flutter: unmeasurable!! and I can go on and on. No one R2R not only can even that can't even dream about. And exist other analog problems: "" digitization of the audio signal ( ceros and ones. ) virtually eliminates the traditional analog recording problems, such as: background noise, tape hiss, distortion,wow and flutter, limited dynamic range and generation loss. Since numbers rhater than analog representations are stored in the tape, digital recordings are immune from effects such as printtrhough, tape noise, etc. Audio reconstructed from the numbers are virtually identical to the original. Furthermore, copies of digital recordings are absolutely indistinuishable from the original recording since a copy is an identical set of numbers. """" And remember that the R2R generate odds harmonics. IMHO analog is a faulty medium where till today I can't understand ( bevcause my ignorance level. ) where exist any single advantage over digital, I can't understand for sure why I like it other that because I'm accustom to heard/hear it. A 24/192 digital source as a DVDA is almost perfect and remember that today we have players that use 32bits DACs and recording machines at 32/64 with over 350khz sampling. IMHO today non-exist a battle between analog vs digital as years ago, today that battle gone because IMHO there is no contest by the analog medium even R2R. Any one can test almost all what I affirm in this post: take a direct to dic LP recording like the Shefield Labs: Dave Grusin-- Diyscovered Again. When this LP was sold out Shefield prssed a " new " LP that came from the analog tape recorded during the direct to disc session. You don't have to believe in nothing I posted: hear both LPs and you will know immediatly which one came from the analog tape which one came from the direct disc recording. The differences are not subtle but substantials. In other direct to disc recordings by M&K happéned the same and you be aware of similar experiences. The best analog tape (R2R ) IMHO: IS NO ANALOG TAPE, not only as a recording tool but as a playback source. Can I be wrong?, vertainly but I need and I woul like to learn from some of you why I'm wrong. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
To follow on from Mapman's point, there are many attempts to copy the analogue effects in the digital domain as plugins. Some are very good and not far off, and I can only see them getting more effective. I dream of a world where you plugin your system and with the press of a button you have an exact 300b sound, or a 45 tube, or whichever sound you like all in the digital domain without any of the expense or hassle of the real gear. You could have all the power you want. 1000w 45 tube sound to drive any speaker. There would be libraries of various tube types, TT types with mind boggling accuracy. No that would be truly awesome. |
The vinyl/digital debate is a perfect example of a classic Dilemma. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses. Neither solution alone is perfect to meet the needs of many. Modern strategic thinking says that one can not analyze their way out of a dilemma. Attempts to do so by definition will always turn out to be futile and just re-inforce the fact that the dilemma exists. The solution is to apply Synthesis to create something new from both that is leveraged effectively to meet all needs. |
Dear all: I forgot. Main advantage on those recording manipulations is that in the digital alternative everything happen in the digital dominium: ceros and ones, that permits that the audio signal stay " untouchable " with out phase shifts, distortions, noise and the like that in the analog alternative are added through those recording manipulations. With out touch the recording signal IMHO in the digital dominium/alternative there is almost nothing you can't do it leaving the recording signal " untouchable ". Today exist designs ( Phono stages. ) for LP playback that everything " happen " in the digital dominium including the RIAA eq. where this RIAA eq. has no single frequency deviation and distortions as happen in all analog alternatives. IMHO we can't close our eyes against the digital technology and its several advantages inclusive to help analog. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Chadeffect: +++++ " But the software used to master and record with is much more sophisticated, clever and transparent now. " +++++ between other things software on digital medium is a tremendous " advantage or disadvantage " ( depend how it's used. ). Digital is a computer like and today exist a lot of software/plug-inns for the digital producers can choose what ever they want be the kind of performance of any recording, they can inclusive make that a digital source sounds exactly as a LP and many producers made it. That kind of manipulation but in different way can do it on the analog side too and that's what recording enggeners did and do it. As you and as I posted in this thread both alternatives: digital and analog, have its own trade-offs. My point is which one in its own medium is truer to the recording more accurate and not which one likes me more. I like both. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi mapman, I think as ever some recordings are worse than others and some genres are worse than others. But the software used to master and record with is much more sophisticated, clever and transparent now. The name escapes me but there is a fairly new limiting software that was designed to limit in away the ear couldn't detect! Yes you read correctly. I think it was made by izotope. But it was amazing the levels you could get out of it without any pumping effects or nasty side effects. If you wanted a hardware limiter of that standard it would cost thousands. But it could never compete with the software for the transparency or speed for several hundred. |
Chad, My background is more digital image processing than digital audio but I recall even back in the 80's implementing image enhancement algorithms that increased information content in digital imagery without peaking out or saturating teh brightness levels. When I see spectral visualizations of many modern digital recordings that sound pretty good to me, I believe I see a similar kind of approach. The few that are truly earbleed material (mostly newer core pop stuff + an occasional remaster) appear to clip loudness levels/waveforms but I am not sure this is as prevalent in modern recordings overall as some seem to think. Just my observations. I enjoy many newer digital recordings and remasters, but not all. Not much different than back in the golden age of vinyl even.... |
This is a tricky subject. Tricky because there are so many variables. But all things being equal we are still screwed! This is because there is usually a different master for vinyl and another for the digital master. This is because of the recording level and EQ that can be squeezed on to digital formats. We are suffering a limiting or compression war to get the most level out at the mastering process. This usually cuts the peaks in the waveform so you can get more on. Many pop records if you look at the wave form is almost ruler flat at 0db to use every last bit. I wouldn't want to start the old analogue vs digital war, but they both have their pluses and minuses. Vinyl has a nice sound. But it is a coloration. Digital apart from brick wall filters has less colouration & massive signal to noise ratio compared to vinyl. The uber samples rates available today are capable of much better quality if only due to less signal path and processes in the production. But to drive eveyone mad at the end of the day it's down to the recording and your gear. The great things I have heard on vinyl (layering, depth, naturalness) I have heard on digital too. So therefore the prize goes to... |
It would not surprise me if vinyl is affected by "loudness wars" pretty much the same as digital. The record companies do what they do for a reason....to try to sell more records (or CDs). I doubt that most have the tiny purist audiophile community on their radar screen, although I do not doubt they will use the trendy buzz about the superiority of vinyl to help make a sales pitch no doubt. I have not heard good things in general about recent vinyl record quality and have not bought a single "new" recording on vinyl. I have thousands of vintage albums though and growing rapidly whenever I encounter good used vinyl for reasonable cost. |
One reason new releases dont sound as good is the compression that is put in during the mastering process. Here is a Rolling Stone article on it. http://web.archive.org/web/20080724194200/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity Here is Wikipedia page on loudness wars. There is a bunch of interesting links at the bottom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war It should be noted that not all new releases employ drastic compression. On a good TT rig you can tell. I bought the Foo Fighters "Wasting Light" and it sounds like crap. Sorry to say that but compared many other recent releases it is bad. It sounds like it has the compression issue. TD |
Atmasphere, Let's put the vinyl/digital debate on teh shelf for a moment. Do you find any digital enjoyable when you hear it played on your gear? How about other gear? If you see any value at all with digital on your gear, my advice would be to ride that wave for what its worth to open up new markets for your gear in addition to catching the big one with vinyl. |
Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " Raul was suggesting that the sound of the LP is distorted compared to an analog tape and that is not the case.... " +++++ IMHO this statement coming from you makes no sense to me, maybe I'm wrong. So are you saying that what is in this link of what I posted is free of distortions?: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1340176293&openflup&45&4#45 and that is only part of the whole " distortions " created through the LP playback process, artifacts as you said it. I think that subjectivity is not always enough to make judgements, I think you are a person technical oriented and through this thread dialogue I can read almost only your subjectivity in the subject. IMHO you have all the skills and tools to make a great favor to the audio community if you take " the bull by its horns " making an objective analysis through measures of those LP playback generated distortions starting when the RIAA is generated in the recording process and compare it against that master tape before the RIAA eq. and in the other side makind the same at digital level not only with a CD but more specific with a DVDA ( 24/192 ). In both cases using the best hardaware and in both cases fulfilling each alternative needs. What we hear on both mediums is not my point/subject but what in reality is appening " down there ". I like both mediums but that's is not the point. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Atmasphere, I did wnt to mention that I was at Capital Audiofest last weekend and finally got to hear your amps running the Classic Audio speakers with field coil drivers. I had expectations for benchmark sound and was not dissapointed. This was a very competitive offering in the price range for many that are looking to go in the tube amp/vintage look/big dynamic sound direction. I would have liked to have heard some digital on that rig. Something modern, like the Green Day "American Idiot" I heard later in the DIY room the sound of which was nailed pretty well. There was a CD player I recall but the CAD gentleman was spinning only vinyl at the time and I could only stay for 20 minutes or so. THe gear in that room was definitely a work of art! |
Atmasphere, No, i understood fine. You make a good case for strengths of vinyl. But when i hear good digital these days, that sounds good as well thugh often in a different way. So i do not conclude that digital is sk dire that one must turn to vinyl. I feel the same way abkut tube amps. I love picking up old cheap vinyl and getting tat vintage sound. I trust my ears! Digital is making them quite happy these days. And the facts speak for themselves. Vinyl is a niche market. Digital is not. No technical spins can deny that. |
Yes I am recomending current music. I am over 50 so naturally my golden age stuff falls into the so called golden age of music. Perhaps even a little more so if I was 5 or so years older. To be straight up I am an old rocker. I like some jazz, country or what I like to call it American music. One example, I found a nice expample of the Doors LA Womman a few years ago. The title song LA Woman is magical. Say what you want to about the subjuct matter. It sounds like you are in a small club with all the atmosphere. Its almost a jazz like feel. Newer releases tend to be more dense but can still have a really nice sound stage feel. The one thing that kills it it a digitally compressed recording. Here is an example of an old digital ricording that is damm good. Steve Earle "Guitar Town" I have it on LP and its too bad it was not analog all the way. I read where Steve said that him self. TD |
Lets review red book CD for a second. At 44.1 K HZ you get 44 data points to define a 1K HZ wave that is about a foot long. Not exactly high res. At 10K HZ there are 4 data points, yes 4 to define a 360 degree wave. 4 points works for a square? With the 16 bit sampling size there are just over 65,xxx steps to cover the whole dynamic range. If you want to cover 100 db you need 100,000 steps. So CD is just under 1 db that way? So you are hoping to hear the hall sound? Not really, maybe a hint, but not really Think about the complex wave forms that music produces with steep wave fronts, what are the chances that CD captures it right. Its all in the so so odds. Just like Las Vages has the odds to take your money. Red book has the odds to steal your music resolution. Then there are the steep filters reqired with CD - "brick wall filters" because the sampling rate is so low. That hurts too. CD is a "lossy format". Its a fact. It just is. Give it up. Higher res digital? Well 96K sampling does not improve that much on 44.1. 192K is more interesting but the math is only a little over 4x better than CD. Still not so good. Going from 16bit to 24 bit is a big jump. 16 bit having just over 65K steps while 24bit jumps to 16.7 million steps. Now that is a move. Digital needs to improve the sampling rate which I am certain can be done except for the recording companies which are woried about copy rights. So digital is stagnet. I got back into vinyl nine or ten years ago because I could see that digital progress would be slow for the above reason. What I discovered is that LP was even better than I thought. Look 10 years ago I had my old Dennon Dp52F and a Shure V MR, I think I got that right. I hooked it up to my old conrad johnson PF1 pre amp and it was a little better than my big rig CD player. I decided to upgrade and never looked back. Yes I went big with a VPI Aries 2 and a ZYX Fuji 100 but it blew me away even though I had a lot to learn about set up. What I have now is big bucks and it is even better. And I will admit that I could likely find a TT, arm, cart set up at half the price that might be just about as good. I will take the best $4K TT arm cart against any red book CD at any price. So stuff the give me a loan thing. With digital its all about the money with small gains. Do the math. I hope the mods let this post. TD |
Mapman, It is feasable that a digitally mastered recording could sound better through an analogue medium than digital because playing back via digital in the case of CD adds another A/D & D/A conversion, and if played back via computer/dac at least 1 other D/A conversion - each conversion being an inaccurate reconstruction of the recording or file preceding it. The "value proposition" for analogue and digital are quite different. The value proposition for digital is providing a portable transportable medium for music. The "value proposition" for analogue is to provide an accurate medium for transporting and playing back music. Digital is simply an approximation of analogue via fundamentally flawed mathematics, no more no less, with the added advantage of easy transportablility or transferrability. I hope you dont expect MacDonalds burgers to provide you with a healthy diet. |
