Exclusively for Analog Lovers
- Thread starter msagar
- Start date
In this context, I never offered any advice. All I said was - don't belittle digital systems.
Cheers
I dont have a vinyl system, plan to get one some day.
There is a difference in comparing analog and digital vs vinyl and cd. Vinyl probably would win because of better mastering processes and not much loudness war impact due to the niche market status. cds get bad masterings so that they can be played on the crappiest of systems possible and these days they are usually brickwalled.
As far as analog vs digital goes, the true test is if I use a high quality vinyl setup and introduce a high quality, transparent, 24/192 a/d and d/a in the chain, how many would be able to spot it.
There is a difference in comparing analog and digital vs vinyl and cd. Vinyl probably would win because of better mastering processes and not much loudness war impact due to the niche market status. cds get bad masterings so that they can be played on the crappiest of systems possible and these days they are usually brickwalled.
As far as analog vs digital goes, the true test is if I use a high quality vinyl setup and introduce a high quality, transparent, 24/192 a/d and d/a in the chain, how many would be able to spot it.
You are probably right, 8/10 LPs are rather decently mastered, on the other hand 8/10 CDs are badly mastered. That is one good reason why a good number of folks who pursue both vinyls and CDs do not care for CDs as much.
But there is another angle to this, around 8/10 LPs which are mastered from digitally recorded material also sound crap...howz that
? They sound typically digital. That leads me to believe that if there is any digital stage involved in the manufacturing process then that stage becomes very crucial and any carelessness there would lead to artefacts that we typically attribute to digital sound. Errors in the analogue domain seems to be way more acceptable to the human ear.
Last edited:
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
That is a very good idea for a test!
Another true test is to do one's own digitalising of one's own vinyl, using a decent sound card, and then compare the results. (and you don't need 24/192, but hey, if your sound card does it, then why not?)*
<Cross-posted with Dr Bass>
Anyway, if it is a modern issue, I'd guess there would be as much compression on the vinyl as the CD ... except that the LP market is now so specialised that mass-market recordings are not going to be issued on that medium.
Sadly, when analogue comes in the door, objectivity (along with the CDs, the player, DAC etc) seems to get thrown out the window.
I don't know if it is different for those of us that are older than the LP itself. It's certainly true that some people of that age group never went digital and never wanted to, but I wonder if their feelings were based on early digital results?
And, these days, isn't it all going to be digitally recorded/mastered anyway?
*Nobody need to justify their personal preferences and choices. I'm certainly not asking them to ...but if they are going to make assertions of fact about it to others...
Another true test is to do one's own digitalising of one's own vinyl, using a decent sound card, and then compare the results. (and you don't need 24/192, but hey, if your sound card does it, then why not?)*
Where I have done so, the CD is invariably "better." Better in detail, cleaner in sound. Of course, my LPs are decades old (and so is my deck), but they are not all in poor condition. These are recordings of the the more "serious" kind of rock and folk/rock from 60s and 70s ... perhaps not the sort of thing that gets compressed to hell for teenage ears today. Certainly I've heard an LP and CD comparison where the result was so different it was hardly like the same recording. The difference was so substantial that better/worse really didn't come into it (Chennai 2nd HFV meet).
<Cross-posted with Dr Bass>
Anyway, if it is a modern issue, I'd guess there would be as much compression on the vinyl as the CD ... except that the LP market is now so specialised that mass-market recordings are not going to be issued on that medium.
Sadly, when analogue comes in the door, objectivity (along with the CDs, the player, DAC etc) seems to get thrown out the window.
I don't know if it is different for those of us that are older than the LP itself. It's certainly true that some people of that age group never went digital and never wanted to, but I wonder if their feelings were based on early digital results?
I have a double-album recording of Mahler's 2nd symphony. It is a piece of music that I love passionately. The Deutsche Grammophon recording, to me, at that time was a very expensive purchase. This was in the early days of digital, I think it was described as digital recording, digital master, of course the lp was analogue: it was dead. Absolutely lifeless. After an experience like that, I can understand anybody writing off digital ...except, things changed.
And, these days, isn't it all going to be digitally recorded/mastered anyway?
*Nobody need to justify their personal preferences and choices. I'm certainly not asking them to ...but if they are going to make assertions of fact about it to others...
Last edited:
If you read this article by Mr Fremer, he had mentioned that he had digitised some records using the crazy Aussie turntable Continuum Caliburn, Kuzma 4Point tonearm, a fancy Lyra Atlas cartridge, Ypsilon VPS 100 phono preamp, then digitised using MSB Platinum Studio A/D converter to 96Hz/24 bit file. I believe the Continuum Caliburn is considered the best TT in the world by lots of people and costs tons of money. The Kuzma 4Point is the latest iteration in Franck Kuzma's line of very well-regarded arms. I don't know the cost but I am guessing it must be >5000. The Ypsilon phono stage is some 26K. Don't know about the MSB A to D.
Quote:
Virtually all of the attendees preferred the "live" vinyl to the digitized even though in many ways (dynamics, extension, background quiet,etc.) the digitized vinyl was superior.
Unquote
He's been there, done that!
Aside: fremering: verb, to fiddle around with analog gear (or some such thing). I think coined by fellow Stereophile writer Sam Tellig. Point being - they poke good natured fun at each other, while we folks take ourselves too seriously as though we're fighting some holy war.
But there is another angle to this, around 8/10 LPs which are mastered from digitally recorded material also sound crap...howz that
I have a very good double LP of the Vienna Philharmonic's New Year Concert of 1979.
http://www.discogs.com/Vienna-Philh...New-Years-Day-Concert-In-Vienna/master/381877
This is a Decca release and it was digitally recorded. It is a very well-recorded live concert with excellent dynamics (startles me often) and has most other audiophile qualities but it lacks that warmth of analog recordings. It sounds more like I am playing a very nicely mastered CD.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
I wish I could press "Thanks" a hundred times for that. Even though it is something I need to remember myself.jls001 said:
I'll check that article later as I can't now, but two immediate reactions. First, of course
, I wonder if it was a blind test?Second, I wonder how it is possible for any copy, whether it be digital, taped or cut on disk-cutting lathe, to be better than the original?
Thus I'm suspicious about their test, their reasoning and their finding --- but I'll read the article when I get home. Doubtless it will be yet another fascinating surfing session that started with one link on HFV
I think studios switched over to digital recording and storage as early as 1990.
The complete demise of analog recording of any kind was announced with the introduction of Nagra-D, their first digital recorder in 1992. The nail on the coffin was further hammered in 1995 with the Ares-C and the C-PP in 1995.
Cheers
The complete demise of analog recording of any kind was announced with the introduction of Nagra-D, their first digital recorder in 1992. The nail on the coffin was further hammered in 1995 with the Ares-C and the C-PP in 1995.
Cheers
I was reading a Sound On Sound article on how the mastering engineer Yvan Bing on Phil Collins album Going Back had to resort to all kinds of tricks on Protools to get as close to the original Motown sound of these Motown greats that Phil Collins was covering. Sometimes they had to recreate distortions in the digital domain and do further processing on the track to arrive at an original-like sound. Very interesting.
By the way, there are still studios in The UK that maintain old analog recording gears, like this studio in this article. Another guy who is pure analog is Alex Kavichandran of Water Lily Records. I'll be damned if I understand half of what he writes in his sleeve notes, but I am glad he uses custom-made analog gears from de Paravicini himself.
By the way, there are still studios in The UK that maintain old analog recording gears, like this studio in this article. Another guy who is pure analog is Alex Kavichandran of Water Lily Records. I'll be damned if I understand half of what he writes in his sleeve notes, but I am glad he uses custom-made analog gears from de Paravicini himself.
Digital recording and CD mastering have come a long way since 1982, as the engineers slowly came to grips with the technology. Most of the analogue remasters from the 80s and early 90s onto CD sound pretty crappy, for good reason - they had no clue what they were doing. Since then there has been steady improvement, and apart from the majority of over compressed pop and rock albums, you do find many very well recorded CDs (and SACDs, and HD streams), but, IMO, they still have to match the great analogue recordings, be they on LP or on spool tape.
Digital playback quality is hugely dependent on the DAC in one's CD player. You need to spend a great deal of money to get high quality digital sound, which is not found in most entry-level or mid-level players. Only after I recently moved to a Cambridge Audio 840C player (24/384 upsampling) have I started to really enjoy my CD collection. But even so, analogue still wins out.
The acid test, I've found, is the threshold of aural fatigue. It's tough to listen to more than a couple of CDs in a single session. There is a slight frequency imbalance - something's missing -especially in the highs, that ultimately get to you. Ones ears know the truth. With LPs, I've spent hours listening at a time, without fatigue.
This is not to knock any ones personal preferences. CD is a huge convenience, requires less storage space, and does not call for the obsessive attention to detail that maintaining a great analogue system does. Some of us - me surely - enjoy that part of it, but not everyone has to.
Digital playback quality is hugely dependent on the DAC in one's CD player. You need to spend a great deal of money to get high quality digital sound, which is not found in most entry-level or mid-level players. Only after I recently moved to a Cambridge Audio 840C player (24/384 upsampling) have I started to really enjoy my CD collection. But even so, analogue still wins out.
The acid test, I've found, is the threshold of aural fatigue. It's tough to listen to more than a couple of CDs in a single session. There is a slight frequency imbalance - something's missing -especially in the highs, that ultimately get to you. Ones ears know the truth. With LPs, I've spent hours listening at a time, without fatigue.
This is not to knock any ones personal preferences. CD is a huge convenience, requires less storage space, and does not call for the obsessive attention to detail that maintaining a great analogue system does. Some of us - me surely - enjoy that part of it, but not everyone has to.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Looks as if it wasn't, and I do not believe that such a test has any validity whatsoever if it is not....First, of course
Does closing eyes ocassionally qualify as partial blind test?
Now, why does half the discussions on this forum eventually converge into the narrow blind alley that is (so far) digital versus analog, or blind versus non-blind tests? I shall spin Curtis Stiger's "I Wonder Why" to try and find find some consolation.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Well, it does for me. In fact it qualifies as one of the best ways to listen to music
But for AB comparison, especially on something that the listeners are likely to have preconceived ideas, and possibly strong ones, no, it doesn't.
Does that still hold if the listeners are experienced experts? Maybe ...even more so! :lol:
Doors, I will be surprised if any analog recording mechanism is available any more. Even if one is a using an old system, maintaining it and simply get media such as tapes will be a pain in the neck. It would fair to assume nearly all of modern recording is done in digital. I don't think they make tape recorders any more. If there was even a small market, companies like Nagra and Nakamichi would have stayed on.
Cheers
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Half remembered tales.... wasn't it two-inch magnetic tape used for studio recording? And didn't it get reused because it was so expensive, leading to the loss of many original recordings? And isn't it ...simply not available any longer?
Some knows... hope they post...
EDIT ... Nope: a quick Google shows that there are a few analogue studios working.
...And there I go on another surfing adventure: Stylus: Imperfect Sound Not that compression and loudness is news to anybody here, but this is such a perfect expression of how it used to make music sound ...bad. I simply don't know much of the music that is used as examples, but I can just imagine how this misuse of the extra dynamic range of CD, not to give dynamic range but just to make stuff loud could make the music lover feel very refreshed about returning to vinyl, always assuming they manage to get hold of vinyls that have not been similarly ruined.
Some knows... hope they post...
EDIT ... Nope: a quick Google shows that there are a few analogue studios working.
...And there I go on another surfing adventure: Stylus: Imperfect Sound Not that compression and loudness is news to anybody here, but this is such a perfect expression of how it used to make music sound ...bad. I simply don't know much of the music that is used as examples, but I can just imagine how this misuse of the extra dynamic range of CD, not to give dynamic range but just to make stuff loud could make the music lover feel very refreshed about returning to vinyl, always assuming they manage to get hold of vinyls that have not been similarly ruined.
Last edited:
When we say its all digital, they dont make an analog copy at the time of recording?
Digital recordings have a major flaw. once you've fixed the resolution, you are stuck with it. If the recording is done in 24/192 which is the best today, you cant go beyond that once better technology becomes available.
There was a huge hue ad cry among fans once megadeth moved to digital recordings in late 90s.
Music is analog, you can always convert it to digital. why would you want to convert to digital as your first saved data when you can easily save it as analog. specially when tomorrow's technologies can do a far superior extraction? I dont know what different bands use, but it just defies common sense to use digital as master.
Consider year 2030s: You can make 48/2048 recordings from the 1960s analog master tapes, but the same technology cant be used to improve the recordings done 50 years later in 2010.:lol:
What about the different genres. things like blues, jazz and western classical are much more unlikely to use digital as compared to hip-hop R&B, rap etc. is there any data on this.
disclaimer: i dont know much about these things, so i might be wrong on all counts. If they all are recording digital and not creating analog tapes, that is really a sad state of affairs.
Digital recordings have a major flaw. once you've fixed the resolution, you are stuck with it. If the recording is done in 24/192 which is the best today, you cant go beyond that once better technology becomes available.
There was a huge hue ad cry among fans once megadeth moved to digital recordings in late 90s.
Music is analog, you can always convert it to digital. why would you want to convert to digital as your first saved data when you can easily save it as analog. specially when tomorrow's technologies can do a far superior extraction? I dont know what different bands use, but it just defies common sense to use digital as master.
Consider year 2030s: You can make 48/2048 recordings from the 1960s analog master tapes, but the same technology cant be used to improve the recordings done 50 years later in 2010.:lol:
What about the different genres. things like blues, jazz and western classical are much more unlikely to use digital as compared to hip-hop R&B, rap etc. is there any data on this.
disclaimer: i dont know much about these things, so i might be wrong on all counts
. If they all are recording digital and not creating analog tapes, that is really a sad state of affairs.Not just analog recording equipments but here is a record label which uses "Tube only" equipments for recording:
TACET-Website - english
There are quite a few more such labels who do only analog recordings. I happen to own few Tacet records LP so this was off the head. One more link:
Tacet lps: recorded entirely with vintage tube equipment (pictures) - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
