Don Richard Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 There are other factors having to do with the sound of vinyl too. The phase difference between L/R is what gives the depth/ambience to vinyl for example. The rather poor channel separation of phono cartridges, 30 dB or so for the good ones, decreasing with increasing frequency, would cause phase anomalies to be manifested as frequency variations. The increased compression stretches the reverb tails, creating the illusion of a larger space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The CD sounds flat in comparison because it doesn't have the phase differences introduced between L/R that is part and parcel of vinyl playback. What exactly do you mean? What "introduces" them?Are you saying they are some sort of aberration in vinyl that's not in digital? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I agree that digital piano can sound very good, but I still prefer a real piano Because it's real, or because it sounds better? I don't want to insinuate anything, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to comment on some people I know that think they prefer the real piano...but only because they're supposed to. When they don't know what they're listening to, they usually don't prefer the real piano....and I'm talking real live acoustic piano vs an electronic keyboard. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 What is the source of the samples? A very well mic'ed grand piano in a studio built around that piano in europe somewhere (the name of the venue is slipping my mind at the moment). [] You're taking away all the fun of it being MIDI [][A] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Nope, I sold my vinyl rig awhile back. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 As far as recordings of pianos go, I've heard both good and bad recordings of real pianos as well as synthesized pianos. Just for clarification, I'm comparing a live unmic'ed piano against a keyboard playing back through speakers... The worst piano I have ever heard recorded was a Stereophile recording of a solo piano, a purist effort with John Atkinson and Robert Harley listed as engineers. The sound was muffled to the extent that it appeared to have been miced from a distance, yet the stereo perspective was very wide, as if the mics were placed inside the instrument. The only conclusion I could reach was that they forgot to remove the mics from their cases! That happens just about every time two mics are used on a piano....I can't stand the effect. The harmonic structure of a piano is extremely complicated and when you've got omni mics under the lid, they're picking up everything and phase cancelling with each other. You can't treat the mic on the left as only picking up lows and the mic on the right as picking up the highs because even the lows have harmonics that have high frequencies. And then you get a blend of the mids in the middle and that just turns everythign to muck. I really believe that one mic is the only way to go, but I would love to come across a 2 mic technique that actually works across all genres... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I agree that digital piano can sound very good, but I still prefer a real piano Because it's real, or because it sounds better? I don't want to insinuate anything, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to comment on some people I know that think they prefer the real piano...but only because they're supposed to. When they don't know what they're listening to, they usually don't prefer the real piano....and I'm talking real live acoustic piano vs an electronic keyboard. I personally don't like the way a digital piano plays, no matter how elaborate their mechanism it never feels the same, nor can it provide the delicate nuances that only the real deal can. Drums, guitars, and every other instrument that I've ever heard, or played cannot duplicate the original. Subtle textures, dynamics and harmonics are all wrong compared to the original not to mention timbre, and I've talked with lots of musicians who feel the same way. On the other hand, there are lots of professional musicians who adore digital technology for their own reasons, but I've never heard any say it's because digital sounds better. It is usually a matter of convenience in recording or editing, much the way digital got its start in home audio, and again with downloads. Sometimes a little hard work pays off in the long run... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 "Are you saying they are some sort of aberration in vinyl that's not in digital?" There are several. Don mentioned the channel seperation. There is also a phase shift between channels (which varies by frequency as I recall) that introduces sort of like a crude low level form of interaural cross cancelation, this is part of where vinyls depth/imaging/soundstaging comes from. The phase response isn't all that linear either and FR varies with cartridges/phono stages. Mechanical resonances can almost act like low levels of added reverb. Almost always bass on vinyl is corrolated/mono (either mixed that way or the mic layout results in it being recorded that way) for better tracking of the cartridge. For the most part this practice has carried straight over to digital as well but it doesn't need to be this way. The high end and low end are typically not as extended as digital, noise floor is higher. Vinyl has its own sound. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 "Properly done, there should be no difference in a first class LP of a string quartet and a version in digital format. " That won't be the case. Where you could have no difference is recording the vinyl playback to digital and then comparing that against the vinyl. Or putting an A/D-D/A chain in the vinyl playback vs. not there at all. Shawn While I agree with your last sentence (I've blind A/B'd such with qualified listeners with 100% unable to tell the difference), I do not understand your first premise. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 What is the source of the samples? A very well mic'ed grand piano in a studio built around that piano in europe somewhere (the name of the venue is slipping my mind at the moment). You're taking away all the fun of it being MIDI Whoops. Sorry, Mike. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Just for clarification, I'm comparing a live unmic'ed piano against a keyboard playing back through speakers... That is a preposterous statement. Considering that the digital recreation of the piano was spot on, there is still the issue of playback in the set up you describe. You've already noted what a complex instrument the piano is, and you know how hard it is to record so I'm sure you know how hard it is to recreate piano through speakers. I've heard piano sound convincing twice on playback, and both systems were far more expensive than anything I'll ever afford. It takes an incredible speaker and amplifier to fool somebody into believing a real piano is in the room. Piano has dynamics and tone that eludes most systems. Shadings and harmonics that can go unrecognized on lesser systems. And yet you believe that a digital piano can sound the equal, or better than an actual piano while being played back through a PA amp and some PA speakers? I don't think so [8-)] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Dave, "I do not understand your first premise." What I meant was if you took a master and put it on vinyl and also used the same master to make a CD then compared the resulting vinyl to the CD they would not sound the same. "While I agree with your last sentence (I've blind A/B'd such with qualified listeners with 100% unable to tell the difference)" Glad you have tried that, it is an interesting experiment. It has been done numerous times with results that echo yours. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 while being played back through a PA amp and some PA speakers? Yikes, was I implying playback over a PA? I'm talking a really high end studio environment here... Btw, the piano from Europe was turned into MIDI...not sure if that was clear or not. I really should hunt down the info on it as that demonstration totally changed my perspective of MIDI. But ya, I agree that piano is hard....in fact, I feel that it is the hardest instrument to mic - for both recordings and live sound. So much of its sound is dominated by the environment that the piano is in and it is extremely rare to come across situations that are even remotely close to ideal.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 By sheer coincidence I just finished watching "In Dreams - Roy Orbison" on PBS. OK, aside from being a great documentary, this caught my attention. The head of Monument Records talking about Roy's first record with them - "Running Scared." You know the song. Roy did that in ONE take, with all the musicians, backup singers, strings etc in the room at one time - real time. As one of the musicians said, "It was positively electric for everyone in that room. They just don't make records like that anymore." The problem is usually the musicians not being good enough for such a recording experience to even be possible... Mark Rubel at Pogo Studio really pushes to record everything at the same time...some really awesome stuff has come outta there too. If you want to multitrack, he's got iso-booths in the basement so that everyone can be in the same room together and see each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Dave,"I do not understand your first premise." What I meant was if you took a master and put it on vinyl and also used the same master to make a CD then compared the resulting vinyl to the CD they would not sound the same. "While I agree with your last sentence (I've blind A/B'd such with qualified listeners with 100% unable to tell the difference)" Glad you have tried that, it is an interesting experiment. It has been done numerous times with results that echo yours. Shawn Shawn:Okies, I hear you. However, it makes no sense to me for you to state premise B if premise A is false. Whether the source is analog or digital, a digital or analog dupe, properly done, should be indistinguishable from the master. If there is any difference, it would logically be in the analog as perfect duplication is not technically possible...though audibly indistinguishable duplication for all but audio savants is. Any copies I distribute of my own work are bit for bit duplicates. Canyonman sent me a CD burnt directly from a Tape Project reel. It was as good as the finest CD I've ever heard and was done by some run of the mill (his discription) Sony player/burner. If Canyonman and I can achieve these results it follows that the "pros" are missing something when their release material doesn't measure up. Mark, your analysis syncs with my opinion and experience. Mike, I had the same experience you had with that piano with Hauptwerke, the MIDI pipe organ program. In Hauptwerke, each and every pipe is sampled directly and in acoustic perspective to it's environment and then digitally controlled by the stops and such just as the real thing. The result is startleing and way better than the finest Rogers or Allan electrics. So good, in fact, I would argue for a 2 manual liturgically voiced tracker for my next church project (should that happen) with a third manual of MIDI Hauptwerke stops to provide for polyphony. That's is a HUGE leap for an old guy whose 40 year attitude was "if it's electric, it's CRAP." An alert and open minded old dog can learn new tricks. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 "However, it makes no sense to me for you to state premise B if premise A is false." Very simple, vinyl playback will add its own sound to the playback. As you have found well done digital is transparent. So you take a master and put it on vinyl and on CD. The vinyl adds it own sound, CD doesn't. Therefor vinyl and CD sound different on playback even from the same master. You then take the vinyl playback and put it through a A/D-D/A chain. The digital chain is passing through the sound of vinyl. Compare the vinyl playback vs. the vinyl through A/D-D/A and they will sound the same. "If Canyonman and I can achieve these results it follows that the "pros" are missing something when their release material doesn't measure up." You are talking tape, I'm talking vinyl. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I have to turn the phono way up on my Yamaha receiver, about 10-15 db more than the volume 'level' I use for CD and TV. What's up wid dat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Assuming you are using a phono input on the Yamaha then it is just from the difference in gain of the phono stage and the output of your cartridge. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Michael, your phono preamp is not providing line level. Not a problem, except your SN is not going to be as good as it would otherwise. If it is a problem, get a phono section with higher output. Shawn, I was just talking analog, period. I use DBX to correct the compression of vinyl (and tape as well) just like all record users use RIAA to correct the EQ. Doing so with a first class LP eliminates all noise and compression from them, at least all that I can hear (though I may be deaf). I cannot say that you might not hear some "vinyl" artifact that I do not, but I can say I don't care as long as I don't. And, within the limits of the above, I do not. The ills that poor engineering can bring to each format I hear pretty well equally in each one. The very BEST of each exhibits none of those ills. That is my experience. It's also why I find analog vs. digital debates to be dumb and without merit. Every argument I've ever heard for one or the other can be traced to engineering errors or ignorance. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 uming you are using a phono input on the Yamaha then it is just from the difference in gain of the phono stage and the output of your cartridge. Michael, what cartridge, and what's the db gain of the Yamaha phono section? 10-15 db is not out of this world as a phono-to-line volume difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.