Dear @mikelavigne : I own the original RR-25 LP ( Not the 45rpm. ) and is as you said really good but I don't own the CD version so time to listen to it. Thank's.
As a fact I own all the original RR LPs and I think I own the Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances in CD version too that I don't listened by a lot of years now. Other RR CD I own is one that Johnson sayid was recorded: D2D and maybe I own 2-3 more RR CDs but I'm not sure.
I really appreciated your recomendations about because at the end it does not matters the recording medium but the performance it self and its quality levels of those recordings.
R. |
@mikelavigne : Sorry, obviously with good recorded LP samples.
R. |
Dear @mikelavigne In this an other threads you posted that as there are several LPs that outperform the digital version there are too some digital recordings that beats the analog/LP versions.
Could you at least give to us 2-3 digital recordings that beats LPs version?
Thank's in advance and appreciated.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @roberttdid : "
I think I will order it as well,...."
I bougth it not because I need it ( I own to many LPs. ) but to compare it with some of my best quality level performance LPs.
As I said most of the time I listened to LP, rigth from start I'm accustomed to the LP kind of sound.
No I do not buy the digital version, really don't care about.
I like some Original Motion Picture kind of music that normally were recorded digital ( CDs. ) and only when appears the LP version I bougth in the two mediums. Till today and even that the LP versions are " audiophile " kind/type of LPs no one beats ( yet. ) to the original digital recording.
R. |
Dear @magister : """
Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now.... The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is.... "" I have to disagree with you in what you posted there and the post that followed this one. Maybe could be because I'm talking of different subjects than you and other gentlemans. Even if through my posts you can think I'm diminished subjective opinions I want to confirm again that I did not and don't and my expression of the word " illusion " was not with a despective or dimished way to offend in no way the subjective gentleman opinios and if they take it ( as you ) my apolize for those. Now, exist no debate between subjectivity and objectivity. It can't exist in any way. Facts/objectivity are inviolable and with absolute certainty when in the other side opinions/subjectivity can't gives any one else but the one person with that opinion absolute certainty. The main subject in what I posted before is to know not what we like to listen and its quality levels but if the self inherent LP limitations non-accurated technology can be more accurated than the digital medium. Again what you like it or what I like it is almost unimportant to other than you or me and useless to analize that accuracy levels in those way different mediums to listen MUSIC. No room/system quality levels can't change/improve any medium limitations. Here two of my posts to read it as an " abstract " way and only as facts where exist not only certainty about but a lot of measured information all over not only the links other gentlemans posted but over the internet:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/vinyl-high-qual-analog-tape-high-res-digital-one-of-these-is/post?postid=1972331#1972331
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/vinyl-high-qual-analog-tape-high-res-digital-one-of-these-is/post?postid=1972922#1972922
Till today any advocated audiophile to LP over digital on which is truer to the recording posted yet any single fact that could tell us the LP superiority to be truer to the recording than digital medium. This is the subject idea I'm posting in this thread but maybe I did not understnd it what you or other gentlemans are or have under discussion. Btw:
http://harryshifi.com/images/vinyl_tutorial.pdf
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @roberttdid @cd318 : "
there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound. "
Our brain " reaction " to any stimulus or condition is surrounded by many factors that constantly makes the brain perceive or react in different ways to the same kind of " stimulus ".
In other thread where the subject is direct drive/idler drive and belt drive TT designs and which is better in between Mike was posting there because he owns all those kind of TTs diferent drive designs and because he owns the best of the best on each TT kind of drive.
Some one asked how he choose the one to his listening sessions that can gives him the higher enjoyment and his answer was something near this: " depending of my mood ".
Our mood or stress levels and factors like these affects directly the brain response in that moment to what we are listening.
For me subjectivity is valid when it matchs an objective fact because in this condition the fact proves that subjective issue.
Facts are and have permanency and does not changes if everything the same but subjectivity is a focus of several levels of changes that depends of many other subjective issues.
The real imposibility by any cartridge to pick up the full information recorded in the LP surface never changes but what we can listen one day to other with the same recording can change.
In this thread the audiophiles with posted subjective arguments those arguments were not matched through facts that can proves those subjective arguments.
Some one mentioned reviewers and I know some of them ( ST, TAS, etc. ) that are posting in other forums out of Agon as a fact some of them M.Fremer, Seydor, Atkinson did it here in Agon but they don't do it anymore mainly because here we are to direct and the high knowledge level audiophiles that exist here always were questioning the reviewers opinions and several times they just can't answer.
Why made I this comment?, because some of them read some Agon threads.
Could be interesting to know the points of view of MF/others in this specific dialogue and if they have some information that we are not taking in count because several audiophiles and newcomers take their opinions as they guide that some times is really a misguide.
Anyway, trhough this thread I confirmed information I already have it and learned/enhanced those information and learned new " issues " that I never took in count for my overall opinions in this specific subject. Thank's for all those.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @cd318 :: ""
Hardly anyone can know what the recording is supposed to sound like.. ""
Rigth. To be nearest or truer to the recordings we must to put all kind of generated room/system distortions at minimum. This should be the target of any audiophile.
Again, common sense.
R. |
Dear @roberttdid : """ 24/192 digital in it’s pure form, has far more "information" than is possible by any measure on 15ips tape, and way more than vinyl. When you strip away what happens in mixing and mastering and just look at what the format is capable of, 24/192 digital is unmatched, and 24/96 is not too far behind for practical purposes. Vinyl definitely colors what passes through, and even tape will create colorations. Digital is pure, it’s detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people. Musicians say it sounds truest to what they hear coming from the instrument, b...."""
All those was already proved in this thread and many other with facts, measures and several objective links with information that gives absolute certainty to those facts/measures. Exist no doubt about, even many of those facts are only just a little of common sense.
Dear @mikelavigne unfortunatelly you continue talking/posting information with deep foundation on subjectivity where unfortunatelly you can’t prove in anyway all what you said about, just can’t do it you or any one else: impossible.
Subjectivity is not a true/real fact it is not like 2+2=4 . Founded in subjectivity point of views for you that 2+2 can be 4 but other gentleman can be 3 0r 5 because subjectivity is not universal as ovjectivity. Subjectivity is way personal and can’t be proved with true facts.
It’s really pity that all those audiophiles that die for analog and that post in Agon and other forums in this same main subject leave you here alone, I can say a shame of all them.
You know that I value your opinion but here I think that we need a little of objectivity and not try to look things with no biased attitude.
Mike, Robert posted: "" Vinyl definitely colors what passes through..."""
Vinyl not only color everything that pass through due to its inherent high developed distortions during recording and playback process but not only that: you said that digital is missing information when the LP alternative not even can pick up the recorded information from the groove LP surface modulations. Not only lost a lot of information not even can pick-up in accurate way the overall information ! !.
I already said this in different way of what Robert posted:
" Digital is pure, it’s detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people... "
Absolutely rigth, Mike you don’t like the " raw " reality when digital is truer to the recording that any LP recording. Digital is way nearer than the LP as how nearfield live MUSIC sounds, this nearfield live MUSIC sounds ( at its real live SPL. ) is what the recording microphones pick up and these mics are at nearfield.
So why want we to listen at our homes something way way different as the LP/tape experiences?, why? . I can understand that that is what you like to hear because is what your brain and mine are acustom to but you and me are wrong about.
You linked twice that LP recording that proves nothing against digital it does not matters that we listen it or compare at your place.
You are an experienced audiophile and a wise gentleman and I don’t want that you accept here that digital is truer to the recording that is already proved. What I insist again to you is that use your " unbiased " common sense.
The whole dialogue in this thread is not for find out who are the winners because at the end here there are not winners or loosers but all of we , including you, are winners because one way or the other all of we are learning something even if we don’t agree with.
Those @djones51 links here and elsewhere are a lesson for me as many other of the links in this specific subject and he posted:
"""
I'm content being a non-audiophile I never expect recorded music to sound like live events only what was recorded. """
That should be the main target for any true audiophile.
Other importan reason why could not likes the digital alternative could be that normally we LP lovers fine tunned our room/system to this specific alternative.
Digital performs way different and is an alternative where the room/system overall " errors " can’t be hidding through its low distortions levels .
The full distortions levels in the LP alternatives could hide those room/system overall set up " errors ".
Btw, truer to the recording is the nearest we can stay to nerafield live MUSIC performance levels. This means: digital alternative.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @mahgister and friends : """
In this debate there is so much factors implicated that it is impossible to solve the question for me once and for all, except theoretically with all the engineering facts about the higher noise level all along the chain in the analog processing or by listening analog and hearing his alleged superiority on a very refine Hi-Fi system... """
In reality here it's not a debate what exist is a misunderstood by almost all of us:
if we read the @mikelavigne posts all those speak not about facts but what he listened ( yes, it's a fact but only means what he like it and can't prove nothing but what he likes/prefers it. ) and how his brain is reacting to the LP kind of sound where the premise inside the brain is biased of what he is accustomed to for almost all his audio life.
His subjective posts says digital is " missing " something and that can't performs as good as the LPs and he is rigth: IT CAN'T PERFORMS NEAR THE LP QUALITY LEVELS because not only both mediums are way way different but because the recorded information in the LPs is way different to the recorded information in CDs.
Due to that: why digital should be to performs near LPs for we can be satisfied with? there is no single reason for that could happens NEVER in the life.
Facts, true facts explained in different ways in this thread and attest ( no matters what Mike listen it or lprefers. ) that that missing digital information that Mike is talking in reality is the other way around by a wide margin . That Mike and other LP lovers disagree with is important for them but not for the main subject/issue here where we are talking of what is happenning in true/reality.
The facts says with out single doubt ( coming from everywhere whom can questioning about. ) that digital alternative not only is not missing subjective signal information but that digital is truer to the recording than LP alternative.
Digital not only has more true MUSIC recorded signal ( because is missing almost nothing. ) but the MUSIC signal is really " clean " with out all the huge/high dirty signal full of distortions/colorations that facts dictates are developed during the recording and playback process in all LPs and that no one can't avoid it does not matters the room/system qualirty levels. Digital does not develops that high distortions and missing true information that always happens in the LP alternative.
We can't compare orange with apples, are different.
Cd has no warmth or sweet or peace king of sound because nerafield live MUSIC has not either.
CD has the natural agresiveness, brigthness, power, even sometimes hars/stridency and the like that has the live MUSIC.
So why want we that CD sounds in different way only because we are accustomed to the wrong high colored/distorted LP experiences?, again this never can happens ever an I'm an analog lover.
So where is the debate? it just can't exist.
The facts can't bechanged by subjectivity and from this subjective premise as foundation Mike is talking about: no single fact.
His last post he invites to listen that LP and compare against CD: There is no way to compare it.
The foundation of the facts are not subjective but are the ones that proves that digital is truer to the recording. That we prefers LP sound means only that but can't prove the LP superior alternative because those facts impedes that can be true/real.
Now and for all LP lovers that support what Mike posted, please give us a single fact why the objective facts are wrong and a single fact why the subjective " ilussion " is rigth.
R.
|
Dear @mahister and friends : @mikelavigne posted in this thread:
" with digital there are degrees of things missing, that are not missing from the vinyl and tape. period. "
"" objectively the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better.....""
""" a horn at full tilt, a drum whack.......
digital simply cannot muster the information at peaks. cannot do it. on paper it is suppose to be better. your engineering prof said it’s better. our friendly local goofball physicist said it’s better. but they were wrong."
and I posted to him that I have no single doubt that that’s what he is listening through his great and unique room/ system. He supports the LP alternative over digital one even that he accepts that digital experiences are really good " today " but can’t even the LP experiences.
I’m between those gentlemans that he said " were wrong " because we know about the digital superior technology and the why’s about.
The Mike’s premises statements foundation is different from my premises and taking in count his premises he is rigth as other LP lovers that like him supports it over digital.
In one of those statements he used the word : " objectively " but his whole statements has no real objectivity foundation but full subjectivity coming from our accustomed brain to listen LP sound for all our audio life and I said " our " because I was biased that way with full of subjectivity. From there came the premises and foundation to our opinions that supports LP alternative.
Other than numbers exist facts/objectivity that no one can denie and through those facts is where we can understand which medium is superior to the other one.
Lert me explain some of those facts from my point of view where certainly there is the possibility that I can be wrong, anyway here it’s:
- in analog LP the signal information is recorded in a tape recorder where no matters what it’s a faulty audio item starting by the tape it self that really can’t record the 100% of the signal due to its magnetic type of function and materials used to build it. Next the signal is contaminated by the tape recorder noise and woow&flutter levels along the tape recorder inaccuracies in its speed and speed stability that does not has.
So at this recording step the original signal is missing information and adding distortions/colorations along the tape added eq. needed as NAB. In digital the tape recorder can’t touch the 0,1s. The signal does not changes.
- through the cutting lathe process the signal is added with more contamination/degradation with the RIAA eq. and does not exist perfect cutting lathes machines where the cut head really cuts the 100% of that already contaminated signaL COMING from the tape recorder. Additional that DD motor in the cutthing machine is not perfect either about speed accuracy and speed stability ( just like our DD TTs. ) that affects that original signal.
All those does not happens with digital recording.
- Follows the pressing/stamped LPs non perfect process where the signal following losting information and adding distortions and not only that because the first stamped ( say. ) 50 LPs sounds different to the last 50 LPs stamped where the last ones were with higher signal recorded degradation.
All those does not happens in digital and not only does not happens but each CD is and original item, is the master always ! !
- Then comes the whole LP playback whole process where that delicated original MUSIC signal follows adding distortions and losting signal recorded information and even continuity in that signal:
- first losting and added mis-information to the signal starts with the cartridge transducer through its cantilever/stylus tip where this mechanic item is whom needs to pick-up the recorded and degraded signal that comes in the LP surface grooves.
The cartridge task to track grooves is just monumental one for say the least and impossible for any cartridge to pick-up all the degraded signal that comes in those grooves modulations and it can’t do it for several reasons like: non flat LP surface that always comes with waves at microscopic levels and many times we can see those waves, off-center LPs that per sé introduce additional noise to the signal, due to those LP surface waves the VTA and VTF and even azymuth is changing in continue way and these impedes the perfect ridding of the stylus tip missing information and adding more distortions.
Things don’t stop here with the cartridge tracking because when the stylus tip is tracking other than the groove modulations exist friction between the stylus tip and the vinyl surface and we can’t avoid here the Newton’s law this friction and grooves modulations makes that the cantilever/cartridge takes those additional " modulations/movements as MUSIC signal when were not MUSIC signal but added distortions/colorations, the cantilever can’t know if those movements comes from MUSIC signal or the developed tracking additional movements just transmitted it.
Along these we have several sources of those cartridge traking movements that the cantilever takes it as additional modulations that are only more signal degradation: feedback comes from the LP it self, from cartridge body, from headshell, from tonearm arm wand , from tonearm bearing, fromTT arm board, etc, etc.
But before the signal can touch the headshell/tonearm wires during the ridding of the grooves and deppending of the recorded velocities and other imperfections in the LP and cartridge that stylus tip is with some continuty skipping/loosing the LP surface touch and here are signal losted information too ( this happens at microscopic levels. ).
Things not ends with the cartridge here because the information that can be losted during tracking depends of different reasons as: self cartridge tracking abilities level to can follows those grooves modulations all over the LP surface because that cartridge ability is way important as the cartridge approachs the inner grooves.
Last but not least important is that the cartridge be perfectly matched with the tonearm and that the tonearm be a good design but is not enough with that because almost all pivoted tonearm has a tracking error that per sé develops tracking added distortions.
This sole pivot tonearm tracking error impédes/precludes that the stylus tip can really follows exactly the groove modulations.
As we can see we really lost a lot of signal recorded information and added a lot of noises, distortions, colorations to what we are listening.
Additional there is no perfect geometry alignment set up between the cartridge and tonearm and this means lost signal and signal degradation.
- Now, that cartridge signal must be travel through the headshell/tonearm terrible cartridge output pins and the wire connectors and solder joints that only here make a signal degradation, then the signal follows through the internal tonearm wire that in the best of the cases goes all down to the phono stage input connectors.
Well through all those wires/cables/input-output connectors/solder joints we are losting information and adding more distortions.
When the tonearm wire does not goes directly to the phono stage we need additional IC cables and follows ......what we already know.
- the signal goes to the phono stage circuit boards that if the unit is well designed and is a SS electronic alternative with active high gain will have at least 2 gain stages sometimes 3 to amplify the very low cartridge signal level that sometimes and depending how low is the cartridge signal that phono stage needs to amplify that signal aroun 8K times.
So a good phono stage design is a real challenge for any designer ( we need here: high gain, low noise levels and low distortions levels. ) but it’s not only the signal amplification the main phono stage matters but for the signal can recover it original frequency response and for that the signal in the phone stage must pass for very high signal degradation and losting more information with the inverse RIAA eq. stage where always exist a frequency deviation that can't mimic the RIAA curve that comes in the LP surface grooves.
From the cartridge to inside the phono stage process and due to the very low signal levels the signal it self is exposed to internal and external contamination that we are surrounded: EMI, RF, vibrations from the speakers or floor and many more.
- Ok from the phono stage the signal has to go to a line preamp looking for an additional gain stage before can be handled by the system amplifier. Even this additional gain stage exist in the few phonolinepreamps that are integrated: phono stage + line preamp that does not needs those additional IC cables.
There are many other degradation sources to the recorded signal in analog but I think that with all those is more than enough to understand why digital today is a true superior medium because nothing of all those happens in digital but that the signal must pass through an ADC and a DAC before we can listen in the speakers.
Even there are CDP with control volume that can be connected directly to the amplifiers.
All those are not numbers ( but can be put on numbers but analog lover will not like what they can see trhough numbers of all that signal losting and added distortions. It’s better don’t ask about. ) and are with out any subjectivity mind but only FACTS no one can deny it.
So it’s not my opinion it’s what really happens.
All those means that I’m against the Mike’s opinion?, NO I already tell him and posted here: he listen what he posted because his premises are just different as the foundation for that opinion. Tha’s all.
Now if one of the several analog lovers ( like me ) wants to insist in the LP superiority then I invite any one that share with us the facts for his opinion, with or without numbers but facts not a subjective opinion.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Yes, we need at leasst that as reference does not matters we can't achieve it at home or really nearest to.
Several of the newcomers to ( digital gentlemans. ) LP/analog alternative are impressed by those " warmth and swetness " colorations that they do not experienced before in their digital alternative and the ones that are impressed with is because they had not yet the opportunity to listen the truw live sound of instruments/MUSIC.
R. |
Dear @mahgister : """ How to compare Ray Charles living presence in real time to a files?
It is impossible.. """
Well that’s not exactly the target when some of us speak about nearfield live MUSIC but that through these kind of live events experiences we at least can know the MUSIC and instruments true sound.
We can’t mimic in any room/system but we can take it as a " reference ".
My target is not to mimic what as you said is impossible, my target is to listen my system nearer to the recording having that nearfield live MUSIC experiences and that’s all.
If I’m listening LPs I want of achieve the best quality performance levels I can and the same is with digital.
Something that helps me about is to mantain every kind of room/system developed distortions at minimum.
In home system mimic live MUSIC is out of question.
""" Not one audio system sound the same....Is it then possible to decide the "truth" in the abstract, with only engineering numbers to take the decision? """
Numbers say a lot and additional are each one first hand experiences with their own systems and through other systems. So we can make a comparison of different mediums with facts/numbers and those experiences. The mos controversial/debatible parameter in that kind of comparison is that subjectivity that is different for different audiophiles.
As some other gentlemans in this and other thread as one of the latest posts by @psag I know for sure that exist a superiority level in digital against LP analog alternative but this kind of knowledge does not preclude the fact that I listen and enjoy the LP experiences.
I said in other post that the best for digital is forthcoming in contrast the LP technology is just finished because can’t really grow up as technology it can’t be improved. What we can improve is our system but the analog alternative per sé years ago arrived to its top limit.
We don’t have nothing really new on LP technology even the best is doing is returning to old LP developments as D2D recordings or one step recordings or things like that because fundamental principles in the recording process or playback one as cartridges or tonearms or TT are exactly the same as 20-30 year ago. The only thing that really changed in analog are its very high item prices year after year .
We analog lovers do not like those facts and we are not willing to accept it but at the end like it or not that’s the reality that’s the true and are not " numbers ".
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @djones51 : Thank’s for the very good links. Here one posted by @cleeds in other thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM Problem with LP audiophiles is that are severely biased with the " nice " developed distortions/colorations and with the true missed recorded signal that never can be recovered. Many of them are only sound lovers but not real MUSIC lovers as they think are. They always speak of that " warmth, swetness, nuances " and the like adjectives that just do not exist in a near field live MUSIC that is the position where recording microphones are. Several times I already explained step by step facts that impede the cartridge stylus tip can pick up all the recorded information and in the other side explained all the distortions developed at each single link in the LP playback process that’s is a nigthmare for say the least. I explained all what happens at microscopic levels between the stylus tip ridding the grooves but almost all are " deaf " not even try to understand it " things "/facts that are just common sense. No they insist that digital is the experience that is missing a lot of information and developing distortions they do not like. I tell those audiophiles that they need to listen a trumpet player seated at 2-3m. from him or with a piano player seated nearfield where the players been playing at live event SPL and then they will learn that MUSIC is all but warmth or sweet or the like: MUSIC has natural agresivenees, natural brigthness, dynamic power, even strident, with full rythm, wake up every kind of feeelings/emotions, , etc, etc. What in true are missing those fake MUSIC lovers with digital? they are missing all the LP developed huge distortions ( read: warmth, swetness, etc, etc. ) and listening the recorded information they missed with the LP playback process. Well, all of them are accustomed for 20-40 years to listen those " nice distortions ", they brain tells that if in digital does not exist those " nice distortions " then is wrong. Bass range is the MUSIC foundation and no LP analog bass can compare with the digital true bass kind of sound. MUSIC is and means accuracy ( not analythical. ), its notes has an accurate " order " as it has too its harmonics. LP experience is totally non-accurated it can’t be accurated when in all pivoted tonearms exist a tracking error that precludes per sé accuracy about and the inverse RIAA eq. can’t mimic the RIAA eq. from the recording process but not only that becaiuse in a CD there is no RIAA and the recording and playback processses are accurate. In digital does not exist the skipping of the stylus tip during grooves tracking. Coming back to the bass frequency range, the better this range the better the overall listening experiences and analog can’t compete with digital in this sole characteristic. Even with digital recorded LPs we can listen the difference in the bass range and its superiority over the non-digital recorded LPs. Years ago I was exactly as all them till I had my first near field live MUSIC event, I learned from that very first time and followed learning attending to more nearfield seated live events.. I’m not biased to digital I’m biased to the MUSIC and listen MUSIC through LPs or digital alternative. We don’t need scientific studies to understand the digital/analog differences in favor of digital, what we need is just common sense in an open non-biased brain/attitude. Easy. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. I forgot on that bass range this thread I started several years ago:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-you-think-you-need-a-subwoofer/post?postid=310058#310058
|
Hi, never mind no R2R can do it. Btw, the 820 has very poor spec performance: at 30ips its frequency response is only from 40hz to 22khz with a swing deviation of 4db. and its noise level is around 73db. The very old digital recorder Soundstream is way way better: there is no contest in between. ATR machines have a littlebetter specs but nothing to " die for ".
I know that as almost always specs can't tell the whole history but a good part of that history. Along that is the eq. need it ( NAB/IEC/CIIR ) like the vinyl RIAA.
Btw, @atmasphere you always say that vinyl frequency response recorded information goes around 50khz ( at least is what I remember you posted in other threads. ), if you please this is a question: from where came LP recorded frequencies over 28khz when tape recorders can't handled? D2D can do it but tape recorded sourced analog LPs?. I know that I have a high ignorance levels in the analog LP recording process and I would like to learn a little about. Thank's and appreciated.
Today ADC/DACs are extremely good even that several audiophiles vote for the analog machines.
Mike was very specific on what is missing through digital, my experiences as the ones from cleeds and other gentlemans are different but I don't own a R2R unit but analog and digital LPs and CDP/analog rig.
Seems to me that objectivity is inclined by digital when subjectivity for audiophiles go a little inclined for analog. Good that exist both alternatives with one of both in full development: the best time is coming for digital technology not only in audio but in several other world items.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear friends: Any one knows if we can record a 6hz frequency in a any R2R tape recorder? I know that in the Studer A-820 even at 30ips we can't do it.
Thank’s in advance. Appreciated.
R.
|
Dear @roberttdid , friends: The Telarc digital recording LP ( 1979 ) of 1812 Overture states that the recording goes from 6hz and up and I would like to know that in all analog recordings if tape recorders ( R2R ) can takes 6hz bass frequency, if can be recorded there because for digital is no problem down to 0.
Btw, the Soundstream digital recorder used on sevral labels had a 90db of dynamic range unweigthed.
The 1812 recording is really good and not only for its great bass range with a definition, accuracy and rigthness quality no analog recording can touch it but all the score: that Carillon is an EXPERIENCE to listen it as the triangle or the tambourine. Exist a today reissue made it by the FIM label. Both LPs are something to listen as many other Telarcs titles: Carmen, Mahler Titan, Pictures at an exibition and many more and are easy to buy it all.
There is at least one digital recording by Delos title that we have to have: Beethoven Piano Sonatas with the female player Carol Rosenberger in a
Bösendorfer Imperial Concert Grand instrument.|
From Denon PCM I remember Brahms Piano works with a female player: Annerose Schmidt.
I forgot in my last post to mention the digital LPs by M&K, they named Digital Master Series and I own all that are classical MUSIC with the Philharmonia Hungarica.
Now to really appreciate the very high quality levels of digital well recorded LPs we need an accurated ( not analhytical. ), high resoulition and low whole distortions room/system and the best down there are SS electronics especially in the phonolinepreamp unit with active high gain stages( tubes can’t do it. Sorry for this. ). I give you an example in my system of that accuracy levels: the RIAA eq. deviation in my unit was measured 0.012 db, it’s an all analog, fully discrete and four layer boards design, fully balanced input to output and totally dual mono unit. Not even today top Dartzeel or other top designs can outperforms it. No, my system is not at the same level than the Mike one but it’s good enough for my MUSIC needs.
Other issue with digital LP and D2D is that we need a very good cartridge with high self tracking abilities to capture/pick-up not only " all " recorded information but in accurated/non-distorted way ( especially at inner grooves and several high recorded velocities on those LPs. ) and that cartridge must be very well matched to its tonearm.
The LP digital experience is better that what any of you coulñd think, you only need to try it.
Even those digital LPs bougth it second hand ( mint. ) are splendorous. Recomended if you have the adequated room/system because those LPs are achallenge to any room/system.
Other issue is that with many of the D2D LPs the digital ones must be listened at higher SPL that the one we are accustom to.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @mikelavigne Thank's for the explanation, now it makes sense to me.
I don't own that tape sourced all analog LP but in my over 6K+ LPs I own several ones with top quality performance.
One of them is the MoFi title " The Power and the Majesty ". This one is a recording made it by the MoFi founder and engineering him self. It's extraordinary from the view of its quality level sound. Tape recorder was totally custom made, master laquers by Stan Ricker from the 30ips master tapes. This LP comes from 1978.
Now you and any one needs to listen ( is a must to. ) the digital recorded ( 24/96 ) LPs made it by WindMusic label.I own the titles Paramita and Mystical Scent. Last time I seen Paramita sealed LP on ebay was sold for over 500.00.
Well, in these as in other digital recordings I own nothing of what you posted about that digital is missing " something " happens with in my analog rig and set up that's first rate including my Phonolinepreamp.
Exist other digital recording LPs that comes from " old " times and the ones mastered by Stan Ricker and others are just at the top along the tape sourced LPs.
Labels I can mention: Telarc ( I own over 50 LPs. ) ones but not all only some of them, Delos are excellent recordings ( Telarc and Delos used Soundstream digital recorder and mastering by Stan Ricker. ), some Denon whom designed and builded its own digital recorder and Chandos label too.
In those times was an " euphoria " for the digital LPs and several labels but almost all digital recordings in reality sound auwful/terrible like the ones from Teldec or Deca or DG or Philips or Varese Sarabande, Chalfont, etc, etc.
The digital well recorded are truly good and makes any decent room/systems shines. Unfortunatelly even in the same label not all titles are good, example: in Telarc the third and fifth piano Beethoven concertos ( R. Serkin. ) are way different in sound quality level where one of them is just lifeless, the recordings were made with two years difference in between.
Before digital Telarc made a D2D recording that is to bad. As fact even the D2D recordings not all are really first rated but the ones that are are just the " glory ".
Anyway, Mike thank's again for your time and answers and yes:
"
the music comes first. "
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
@mikelavigne : Yes, zero relevance in the thread due to that recorder type. I missed it, my mistake. However at its level has its own relevance and meaning.
In the other issue then only the half inch tape beats top LPs.
Yes, I’m aware of the tape heads eq. but I don’t imagine the LP superior quality performance against R"R when almost every one every where talks of the tape supeiority over the LPs. That I remember only D.Sax and you recognise the LP superior medium. So, I’m surprised about due all the limitations or real obstacles LP medium has during playback to pick-up all the recorded information in those LP grooves when the R2R is way direct with almost no " obstacles " during playback that permits to listen more recorded information than the one coming from LP playback that you know is losted in this LP process.
That’s ok with me at the end most of the time I listen to LPs and I’m satisfied with.
Please your opinion is way important on those digital recorded LPs by Wind Music label as that Paramita title. Can play in the same league that top recorded LPs?.
I ask for Wind Music label because every single step in the recording process been really tookit with extreme care, knowledge and engineering skills on that whole process.
R. |
Dear @mikelavigne : Obviouisly that I trust in what you listen and what you like or diaslike in your room/syste. You builded to listen the way you want it, is a very personal overall choice. I always like to read your posts and I try to analize it and my last post is part of the analisis of what you said. "" the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better....."" It's not easy to disagree with some gentleman with your kind of " pedigree " but I have good objective and subjective reasons to disagree with you ( not in all. ) and in other threads I posted about. This link speaks about:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319018?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
down there we can read: """ "This paper reports the results of a study that investigated listener perception and preferences for analog and digital recordings. Recordings were produced during concerts of three ensembles (mixed choir, string orchestra, and wind ensemble) and solo piano. Master tapes were recorded in the same concert hall using identical microphones and mixed to both digital audio tape and to analog tape using Dolby B noise reduction. Experimental excerpts were presented in digital and analog formats with a switching device that enabled listeners to alternate between the synchronized versions during the entirety of each excerpt. MANOVA and subsequent analyses indicated that digital presentations were rated higher in quality than the analog presentations (p <.001). Listeners demonstrated a greater difference in preference between digital and analog versions for wind band and piano concert examples than for choir and string orchestra examples. ................................................................................................................................................................................ Vinyl pressings are not a precise replication of the audio wave recorded in the master """ In other side you said: "the current crop of direct-to-disc Lp offerings are untouchable by digital, as well as the few done to tape and offered as tape to the public. " I can think that you have the Paramita LP digital recording ( 24/96. ) by Wind Music label. Which opinion do you have on this specific LP quality performance levels against any non-digital recorded LPs? Appreciated. Thank's. R.
|
Dear @mikelavigne : I’m a little late in this thread, anyway:
"" so for me and my system.......i’d say that the best vinyl sounds really the same as tape. when you play the best pressings, including 45rpm and direct to disc on vinyl, then play tape, it’s doing the same things. ""
Mike I don’t know if I’m missing something on your statement so please tell me if it’s that way:
Your statement really " disturb " me in the way we can read it because for me you are in reality telling that the vinyl experiences is better than tape.
Let me explain about:
in the recorded tape normally does not exist the RIAA eq. that one way or the other makes a signal heavy degradation in the vinyl pressed LPs and in the recorded tape the bass range comes in stereo and in the LPs comes in mono. Additional the recorded tape during system playback does not pass through ( again. ) that inverse eq. RIAA as all the LPs.
Those tape recorder characteristics makes a huge differences. So, common sense to me says the tape recorder is an inferior medium than the LP because even with all those signal twice RIAA eq. degradation and mono bass even the tape recorder experiences.
Again what am I missing here. Is it an absolute misunderstanding to your statement?
Thank’s in advance and your answer appreciated.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
