Interesting Atmasphere. I do have some Hi Res digital files that sound better than the original album. Led Zepplin One comes to mind. But, this may be due to better mastering.
What is wrong with electricity? If it were not for electricity we would not be having this conversation.
I think you lightly dismiss digital storage. With digital storage backups are always a necessity. A record is more likely to be destroyed in a fire than a hard drive and it's backup assuming the backup is kept in a different location. I backup my hard drive every three to four months. Once in numbers there is no way for the quality of the sound to deteriorate in any way. It remains pristine and noise free without any compression over time. |
In the beginning, hardware was made available to down-load LP's to hard drive. It was not of "Audiophile" quality. I'm a technician, I had the ability to purchase what was available and rebuild it to audiophile standards (easier said than done, had to build a new cabinet, works, but never again)
Eventually new computer cards came on line, and Benchmark made a new analog to digital converter (which they no longer make), also the audiophile computer cards are no longer available.
They said it couldn't be done (we believers did it). They didn't believe us, now it can't be done because what's needed to do it is no longer available due to lack of demand.
Presently, I'm doing what can't be done for the third time because I have what's necessary to do it, but the joke is; they said it couldn't be done and now it can't be done.
|
I recorded 1000 or so albums on the Revox A77 1970-90, fully analog, to tape. I have great respect for tape detoriation, over time. With time, tapes lose magnetic bounding, or whatever is the term for this, and you can hear this especially in the treble - they become "dull". So, in my system, an original recording often wins out, compared to a remastering using old tapes, in terms of musical enjoyment, even if it is only from a scratchy LP - it was made there and then, it is "fresh from the bakery".
|
orpheus10In the beginning, hardware was made available to down-load LP’s to hard drive ... Strictly speaking, you can’t "download" an LP to a hard drive. "Downloads" are for digital files and can be transferred at high speed. To get a digital file from an LP, the disc has to be played in real time, then run through an ADC on its way to a computer. Eventually new computer cards came on line, and Benchmark made a new analog to digital converter (which they no longer make), also the audiophile computer cards are no longer available. There are still plenty of high quality digital audio cards for computers, such as the Asus that records up to 24/192. Another option is an outboard ADC - of which there are many such as the Amari - or something like the M2Tech Joplin, which is an ADC that will apply RIAA eq in the digital domain. And of course there are still standalone digital recorders that include an ADC, such as the Denon DN-900R. They said it couldn’t be done (we believers did it). They didn’t believe us, now it can’t be done because what’s needed to do it is no longer available due to lack of demand. Nah, there’s still lotsa gear that can be used to digitize an LP. It’s just that - for the most part - people just don’t want to be bothered. After all, it is a tedious process. But it’s do-able. |
Cleeds, first I relax in the recliner that's in the sweet spot and listen for the needle to drop on the first LP that I've programmed on my play-list. Then I began to spiral into the holographic soundscape that's presented before me.
Since I don't have to jump up like a jack rabbit at the end of each LP, I wait for side 2 and get deeper into the music; the same music that's coming out is the same music that went in, including every nuance.
Each LP takes me deeper into the music, music that I've accumulated over many years and all the memories associated with that music.
In regard to the process, it's no more tedious than playing a record.
|
orpheus10Cleeds, first I relax in the recliner that’s in the sweet spot and listen for the needle to drop on the first LP that I’ve programmed on my play-list. Then I began to spiral into the holographic soundscape that’s presented before me ... In regard to the process, it’s no more tedious than playing a record. I think making a high quality digital file from LP is a very tedious process, and that’s why I don’t do it more often. But I can imagine that some people might enjoy the undertaking. |
It's quite similar to recording on a reel to reel; you have to make sure the level is not too high or too low; some records are hot (high level) while others are soft, so you have to make sure that's adjusted properly on each record, but it's as easy as recording to a reel.
In regard to setting up the programming, I have someone who has a degree in computer science to assist me, I must confess, I don't really understand computers, but he does.
|
What is wrong with electricity? If it were not for electricity we would not be having this conversation.
I think you lightly dismiss digital storage. With digital storage backups are always a necessity. :) My objection is having to use electricity to maintain the recording itself. Its nice that the recordings can sit on the shelf and sound the same ten years from now as they do now. Having worked for a while in the computer industry (albeit a long time ago) I do admit that I'm a bit distrustful of digital storage. But don't mistake that for being dismissive- I really appreciate the physical space and convenience. Digital has gotten good enough that if I had to start over, I'd probably not be so concerned about having vinyl. But OTOH have some LPs that simply won't ever get to be reissued from the masters as they are gone (ex.: Its A Beautiful Day famously burned the master tape to their best LP during a dispute with the label). |
o_holter and others,
I thank particularly o_holter for his comments concerning deterioration of sound 'stored' on tape, on the sound becoming dull.
The subject has been of particular interest to me.
'Dull', truncated high frequency sound has been my experience with 're-mastered classic classical recordings and 'high definition tape transfers', a reason to avoid...or avoid purchasing...digital conversions of older tape recordings, however 'high resolution' the conversion.
So 'unresolved' questions are: 1. Do lp's last much longer, and 2. can and need 'digital deterioration' be addressed, some type of lossless fault tolerant storage ?
|
Atmasphere! I have two original copies of It's a Beautiful Day! I loved it so much I bought another copy worried I would play the one to death.
Orpheus, you need to check out Channel D's website. I use their Pure Vinyl program which will library and store records on Apple computers.
It will even supply digital RIAA EQ but you have to have a phono stage with a flat output. I only use it for comparison's sake. As cleed opines recording albums in real time is a PITA. If I'm feeling lazy I just load up a digital playlist and let the computer go at it. I have just as many albums on the hard drive if not more. Playing vinyl I prefer it right off the diamond.
I have heard many fine remasters of old stuff. As a matter of fact right now I am listening to a remaster of Seven Steps to Heaven. Granted I do not have an original to compare it to. Ignorance is bliss. If the music is OK, I'm OK. |
Mijostyn,
"Playing vinyl I prefer it right off the diamond."
Why would you prefer it right off the diamond if you could hear the same thing off the hard-drive?
Wouldn't it be easier to relax in the "sweet spot" and not have to get up at the end of side 1 to flip the record over, and repeat that for each record.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying you don't hear the same thing when you load up a digital playlist and let the computer go at it?
Anyone who is not getting the same thing "off-the hard-drive" as "off the diamond" is not doing something right, because I am getting the same thing "off the hard-drive" as "off the diamond".
Is this a case of the "fox and the grapes"?
|
@orpheus10 As I have said, recording albums is tedious work. I like playing records. It is tradition, I have thousands of them, I like it.
I have thousands of files on the hard drive. There is always something I want to hear in either format so I do not have to spend a lifetime recording records. If you only had a few records and a few files it might make sense. For me, not. |
I must admit, it is time consuming and a bit tedious, but well worth the effort.
Enjoy the music.
|
I also love Its a Beautiful Day. I have a promo copy of the LP that plays very well indeed. Must play it - thanks for reminding me! I remember White Bird, is just mesmerizing.
Seventies - thank you - I think the issue here is that magnetic tapes detoriate over time, while vinyl records don't, unless you bring them to parties, everyone dances on them - or, more seriously speaking, they have been played with a very poorly setup cartridge, something you cannot see when visually examining the record. All this happens - as every vinyl collector knows. The LP may look pristine but it sounds grungy since the actual groove has been harmed. But - apart from such problems - vinyl is "true to the moment", as far as I know. Comparable to bread fresh from the bakery, versus something re-heated ten years after.. Take your pick. I have a lot of cases, now, in my LP collection, where I have bought more recent remasters, and yes, they are sometimes very well done, but they aren't as fresh-sounding as the originals. The sense of air and treble bite is usually where I hear this most clearly. It should be said, with the best of the remasters, it is not so clear, like with the recent Vanilla Fudge first album on Mofi. It is 45 rpm, which helps "lift" the treble a bit, even if its doesn't fully substitute for the original.
So, the remaster may sound better than the original (like the Mofi Vanilla Fudge), but it is very seldom that I sell my original or early reprint LPs due to buying a new remaster. The remasters often sound a bit "civilized" compared to the unruly originals, with all their grunge and so on. The sound is maybe updated for a new audience used to streaming. But the music from this period wasn't meant to be "civilized" or "nice". It was meant to be awakening, unruly, and even revolutionary. If in doubt, listen to Spirit, Twelve dreams of dr Sardonicus. Preferably the LP.
|
Audio2design argued that analog tapes suffer from use, not (proper) storage.My experience is different. Storage, over time, means more dull sound. Most notable on poor tapes, after 15-20 years especially. Judging from the nearly 1000 tapes I recorded on the Revox A77, in the 70s 80s.
|
|
Atmasphere! I have two original copies of It's a Beautiful Day! I loved
it so much I bought another copy worried I would play the one to death. Finding the original Columbia of that is no easy task. It sounded great, and people played them to death. I found an original European copy that is excellent; never found the original American in decent condition. I stopped looking years ago- the European press is far better than any of the later American pressings. I usually have this LP with me when I do shows, since so many people have heard it. I've been accused of cheating by playing LPs like this, but heck, if your software doesn't sound good neither will your stereo. |
o_holter
As time passes, I appreciate more your response.
Have you or others reading this purchased 'high definition tape transfers' as download files ?
Have any of you found a single example of such transfers (from 'classic recordings) that retains more than a 'semblance' of high frequency detail ?
Indeed, vinyl retains the high frequency and other detail 'extant' at the time of the 'pressing', at least during our lifetimes.
And those pressings were made from newly recorded high speed tape.
Meanwhile, the high resolution digital era has arrived, and it is possible to experience 'vinyl' sound as transfer from vinyl to high resolution digital...it seems that 24/192 or dsd 128 is required.
So vinyl to high resolution digital retains the 'magic' that many associate with vinyl sound. What other than an electro-mechanical groove-cutting process underlies that 'magic' ?
With such transfer made from lp's 'cut' from high speed tape 'masters' shortly after the initial recording much of the high frequency detail is preserved.
With such transfer made from 'vintage' high speed tape recordings....going back 30-50 years...the magic cannot be retrieved.
'Meanwhile'...in this high resolution digital era...achievable bit rates have erased digital 'glare' without loss of detail. By high resolution bit rate I mean bit depth times sampling frequency. As that rate increases, format differences diminish. DAD 256 verses PCM 24/192 ? Take your pick.
Recording standard is evolving to PCM 24/352, because PCM allows editing that DSD does not.
Music recorded at that resolution has no peer in the 'history' of sonically preserving performances. Prefer the 'magic' of vinyl ? No problem. Such is available. But the 'master tape' is now a master hi res digital file, now a huge upgrade over the 'DDD' lp's touted a few decades ago.
|
@atmasphere,load up Pure Vinyl on a Mac laptop and record all your demo songs as a playlist in 24/192 AIFF. Until you can verify that very few if any can tell the difference between the two, continue to carry both systems. Once you can honestly face anyone and tell them they can't hear the difference you can ditch the analog demo gear and keep those special LPs where they belong, at home under lock and key.
Now you have another problem. Anybody buying a tube amp is going to prefer analog. So, now you have to design an output transformerless solid state amp. If Mcintosh can do one with transformers it should be a walk in the park. |
I think that was one gummy to many. |
|
Analog tape is not a panacea. Just like vinyl, it significantly colors the sound. To be clear, analog tape colors the sound more than the LP, owing to the fact that a properly functioning tape machine will exhibit a 3rd harmonic, which contributes to 'bloom' and apparent detail. |
.... 3rd harmonic.
No, the 3rd harmonic was just the convenient harmonic to measure when setting levels as you can readily hear it on test tones. There were other harmonics in there as well when the tape starts to compress.
Then there is the common mid band frequency anomalies that varied machine to machine, sibilance from pre-emphasis, wow, flutter, scrape, and of course the loss of high frequencies and dynamics from simply playing the tape. |
Dear @seventies : " So vinyl to high resolution digital retains the ’magic’ that many associate with vinyl sound. What other than an electro-mechanical groove-cutting process underlies that ’magic’ ?
First than all non-exist that " magic " we audiophiles " like " to think and just do not accept is not " magic ".
@dgarretson at the very first page of your thread posted:
""" The answer is that vinyl contains euphonious distortions and artifacts that are accurately captured and passed through a hi-res digital recording. """
Other than the cutting/pressing process the recorded LPs came with a huge developed distortions developed through the nigthmare overall LP playback process. The " magic " are only every kind of developed distortions you can imagine not music information and these non-music information is captured with accuracy for the digital medium that with this fact proves that digital medium is way superior to the analog one no matters what.
I think you agree with when posted:
"" By high resolution bit rate I mean bit depth times sampling frequency. As that rate increases, format differences diminish. DAD 256 verses PCM 24/192 ? Take your pick.
Recording standard is evolving to PCM 24/352, because PCM allows editing that DSD does not.
Music recorded at that resolution has no peer in the ’history’ of sonically preserving performances. Prefer the ’magic’ of vinyl ? No problem. Such is available. But the ’master tape’ is now a master hi res digital file, now a huge upgrade over the ’DDD’ lp’s touted a few decades ago. ""
Absolutely rigth !.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Btw, you posted:
"""" one might question why digital made without the intermediary of vinyl sounds so different from vinyl. A detective story ?
If vinyl and digital not made via vinyl intermediary sound quite different, what is the source of this difference ? """"
No detective story: both are way different mediums, so today : why any one could thinks that both mediums should sounds alike when that is just impossible ?
The analog deffenders likes all those high euphonic distortions against way lower distortions in the digital medium. Yes it's not that digital do not like to them as medium but that digital has not those euphonic distortions all of us are accustom to: go figure ! !
|
Dear friends/ @seventies : ""
is way superior to the analog one no matters what. ""
Wrong what I posted. What I wanted to say is that that proves that digital records/plays exactly the information we recorded.
So, it's really an accutared medium. @dgarretson confirmed it when he posted that in his system he can listen tiny differences in what was recorded in digital medium because it's imposible that can sounds the same as the vinyl direct sound due to the converters ( ADC/DAC ) in the digital domain and the cable used to transmit from vinyl play to digital device.
R. |
To my own ears of having always been around, for instance, REEL TO REEL tape; IMHO: 24-bit and DSD remastered cds come A LOT closer to sounding like an original 1960s copy of a quarter-track, 7 1/2ips vintage commercial tape (in terms of: capturing soundstage width as well as bass response, especially) than vinyl ever could. The characteristic upper bass/lower-mid bloat peakiness OF VINYL sounding like a phase-distorted bathtub affect is the thing I, personally, have never been able to stand about "vinyl sound". Of course, someone restricting the debate to records vs.: (badly mastered) 16-bit cds, computer audio, streaming, mp3's, etc. won't recognize that and therefore think vinyl (beholden, by default, to being a "component grade" audio medium) is the top-of-the-heap....BUT: it's a disingenious argument when the buyer DOESN'T know what was considered above LP playback when there was no digital (and, too: when records were a mass-market $5 item and not a $40-up boutique novelty).
The wild-eyed claims of vinyl's frequency abilities also prey-upon the uninformed (and: always seem to be spoken by snake-oil hucksters selling $20k turntables!). Truth is: THOSE specs came from JVC's parameters for reproducing Discrete Quadraphonic records in the 70s; requiring a Shibata stylus and an outboard demodulator to "unscramble" a 30khz subcarrier pilot signal containing rear channel matrixed information (which, as a sidebar: if anyone ever experimented with such arcane gear for fun, even a quality rtr deck was able to register the quad beacon "birdie" while recording at 15ips....even the single motor Panasonic/Technics model RS-736 rtr I had from my father in 1972).
If one is NOT talking about the obsolete tech of quadraphonically-encoded records neccessitatingly played back with a Shibata stylus, then all of vinyl's far-flung frequency specs are totally irrelevant and a moot point. Vinyl, for one, is THE WORST for Classic Rock in STEREO. Much too hollowed-out. The 1969 Ampex 3 3/4ips reel of Led Zepp II, for example, is the next best vintage source to the Ludwig first pressing(!). |
Raulirugas, 4trackmind and others, I appreciate your comments and....unless I 'missed something'....agree.
1. 4trackmind, could you please clarify: in stating that "24 bit and dsd re-mastered cd's come a lot closer to sounding like an original 1960's copy of a quarter track....", do you mean that they sound as did the tape recordings when whey were
new, before time and playback had taken their toll of the sonic information ?
2. Regarding DSD vs PCM, and in the context of 'DSD re-mastered CD's, and assuming that DSD-PCM differences hugely diminish at the highest available digital 'throughputs', are you tempted to broach another subject: Do DSD 64 (not 128 or 256) and ?? RSR 'ladder' DAC's smooth lower resolution digital sound such that it, like vinyl' is more palatable even if less 'realistic' ?
Thanks again for your thoughts. |
4trackmind... The characteristic upper bass/lower-mid bloat peakiness OF VINYL sounding like a phase-distorted bathtub affect is the thing I, personally, have never been able to stand about "vinyl sound"... That "characteristic" isn’t inherent to LP playback, although it’s surely common with cheap and/or poorly aligned equipment. The wild-eyed claims of vinyl’s frequency abilities also prey-upon the uninformed (and: always seem to be spoken by snake-oil hucksters selling $20k turntables!) ... Please tell us what $20K turntable you think represents "snake oil." If one is NOT talking about the obsolete tech of quadraphonically-encoded records neccessitatingly played back with a Shibata stylus, then all of vinyl’s far-flung frequency specs are totally irrelevant and a moot point. Vinyl, for one, is THE WORST for Classic Rock in STEREO. Much too hollowed-out. The 1969 Ampex 3 3/4ips reel of Led Zepp II, for example, is the next best vintage source to the Ludwig first pressing(!). Those tapes sound awful. In addition to the limitation imposed by the slow tape speed, those commercial releases were dubbed at high speed, so any high frequencies that might otherwise have survived tape saturation don’t even have a chance. Even a 7.5 ips commercial tape can usually be pretty easily outperformed by a decent LP and turntable. Don’t get me wrong - I like tape. But just as with LP, its performance potential is often not realized. And tape has its inherent challenges - including properly aligning bias to tape when recording, and of course HF saturation, EQ and tape head alignment. |
