Too perfect?

[ben.]

OK, fine. You don't like surface noise. To those of us that appreciate analog reproduction, our involvement in the music supercedes them. They were not what I was referring to in the above quote, however. The old saw arguments against the supposedly deficient frequency response and dynamic range of vinyl are what I was responding to. We can agree to disagree here, but let's be factual. Also, note that I was including my speakers in the above quote. You apparently mistook that as denigrating your system. Not my intent at all. I just hoped to illustrate my point in refuting your assertion that the frequency response of a good vinyl system is suspect.

1812 Overture? Maybe this is the source of our differences. I thought we were talking about music!

[dodger]

To note, the frequency response that vinyl is capable of is the full 20 - 20,000 HZ.

CDs use compression. That's a way of not jolting people out of their chair and also to make some playback equipment friendly.

In more popular recordings compression is used so that it will be the same volume or higher for Radio use. One can go to any studio and see the commpressor in use while recording is taking place.

In this world of planes, trains, automobiles, heating, air conditioning units, refrigerators, very seldom is the full quiet noise floor hit. As far as other artifacts, in a studio you may find:

Compressors, expanders,

Compandanders, Equalizers, limiters, any one of many software applications to aid in recording. There are devices that will "give your recordings that warm tube-like sound," others to give digital analogue sound, any one of a number of other programming units to alter the sound in one way or another.

Other than the giving analogue sound, all of the above can be found in any recording studio.

No matter the sampling rate or bit number, there will still be harmonics or overtones that cannot be assigned to a digital numeric. Where do they go?

There are always defenses to digital. If it is truly accurate why does it always need defending. Why do a number of people decide to buy a turntable? Why are there add on units to alter the sound to "tube-like" or analogue?

I'm not saying that digital is terrible or so inferior as to not at all be listenable. But like any recording - analogue or digital - it has its shortcomings.

dodger

[minn_male42]

----------------

On 11/30/2004 11:04:39 AM bclarke421 wrote:

.......1812 Overture?

Maybe this is the source of our differences. I thought we were talking about

music!

----------------

The 1812 overture is just an example of where vinyl cannot go and where digital can go much furthur.

OK, fine. You don't like surface noise. To those of us that appreciate analog reproduction, our involvement in the music supercedes them.

and to enjoy the music you have to ignore the surface noise that is present in the recording - a noise that was not there in the live performance.....

as my college orchestra director said - once you are trained in music, you can no longer listen casually - you will always listen critically..... and these "surface noises" are way to annoying to allow musical enjoyment compared to well recorded CD's and more esp well recorded SACD's....

[maxg]

Not to be too picky about this but I cannot let:

"The 1812 overture is just an example of where vinyl cannot go and where digital can go much furthur."

go by that easily.

The CANONS on the 1812 overture is just an example of where vinyl cannot go....

The rest of the performance is fine - I have several versions (sans real canons that are perfectly listenable to).

Actually I seem to remember that Telarc produced a version of the 1812 on vinyl that was well known rather before the birth of SACD. It did, however, make the needle jump out of the groove for the canon shots on many a player.

Of course whether you assign canons to the musical experience or not rather depends on the music you listen to. I have some 400 classical recordings. The 1812 is the only one I am aware of with that particular instrument!

[ben.]

----------------

On 11/30/2004 11:19:23 AM minn_male42 wrote:

The 1812 overture is just an example of where vinyl cannot go and where digital can go much furthur.

Yup, we get that. It's just not musical to me. That was my point. I'm after music, not a circus or torture test.

and to enjoy the music you have to ignore the surface noise that is present in the recording - a noise that was not there in the live performance.....

Yup. Get that too. My point was that with analog, it's not a problem for me to get past unless it's excessive. I've done tests where I've recorded LPs in full, uncompressed 24/96. The surface noise was an annoyance on the hi-res digital copy, yet I found it not to be a problem when listening to the same disc on the TT. I've done this several times, and concluded to my satisfaction that it is an utter waste of time to continue.

as my college orchestra director said - once you are trained in music, you can no longer listen casually - you will always listen critically..... and these "surface noises" are way to annoying to allow musical enjoyment compared to well recorded CD's and more esp well recorded SACD's....

He (or she) is of course correct. Are you suggesting that Larry, Max, Win, Gary, Allan, and many others including myself are listening

casually?!

The point you continue to miss is that the

connection to the music

is more complete

for us

when listening to an analog recording.

Yes, I'm sure that SACD measures better than vinyl in a lab. Big deal. The only measurement tools I'm ultimately concerned with here are my ears.

----------------

[Parrot]

Anyone who thinks he is hearing 0's and 1's when listening to a CD doesn't understand the most basic theory of digital.

[No Disc]

Paul's right... It's much closer to the code used in the Matrix.

----------------

On 11/30/2004 11:53:20 AM paulparrot wrote:

Anyone who thinks he is hearing 0's and 1's when listening to a CD doesn't understand the most basic theory of digital.

----------------

[garymd]

I rarely have excessive noise coming from my vinyl set-up. The average LP I play will have a few pops or clicks and I don't really notice them. If I'm playing rock or jazz at a fairly loud volume, I don't normally notice them over the music anyway. A good vinyl rig with good tracking can get you past many scratches without a sound.

There are always exceptions but I tend not to listen to beat up LPs. Beat up doesn't necessarily mean they look bad either. I have some LPs that look pretty scratchy but are dead silent and some that look brand new that sound like they were run over by a truck.

[Parrot]

There's nothing "natural" about a vinyl record, nor any part of the long audio chain from recording, manufacturing, and playback, and that goes for any medium.

[dodger]

----------------

On 11/30/2004 12:03:52 PM paulparrot wrote:

There's nothing "natural" about a vinyl record, nor any part of the long audio chain from recording, manufacturing, and playback, and that goes for any medium.

----------------

With that I will agree totally.

Not only is it a long chain, but it is one with links made of different amplifiers, different microphones, different sound boards, tape decks etc..

To address a comment about thinking we are listening to 0s,1s,2s does not understand. What is digital then.

It is the assignment of pieces to 0s,1s,2s. No matter the bit or sampling rate it is that. Not all portions of music can be assigned.

Even the best of CDs, SACDs can make a cymbal sound as close as analogue. Nor can they make a Violin, Viola, stringed instrument sound as close as analogue. I have perfect pitch, grew up listening to my Mother play Classical, Rock and Country on her Violin. Country sounded vastly different when she would "Fiddle." Different style of bowing, plucking the strings, aleration of the tone and overtones.

The same with Nylon or gut strings.

No matter how one cuts it, they are assigned. Some overtones will not fit an assignment.

But, it is one long chain they either digital or analogoue go through. And we ask our systems to reproduce all of the differences.

We ask too much.

dodger

[Parrot]

Blind A/B tests have been done in which an LP has been recorded onto a CDR, and no one could tell the difference between the LP and the recording of it on the CDR.

I'd like a demonstration of some subtle sound that a tape recorder can capture that a digital recorder cannot.

[psg]

----------------

On 11/30/2004 11:12:16 AM dodger wrote:

To note, the frequency response that vinyl is capable of is the full 20 - 20,000 HZ.

CDs use compression. That's a way of not jolting people out of their chair and also to make some playback equipment friendly.

Not to nit-pick, but CDs don't use compression; recordings do. A recording can be stored compressed either on vinyl or on CD.

MP3 uses compression. Red-book CD does not.

[dodger]

----------------

On 11/30/2004 12:56:59 PM paulparrot wrote:

Blind A/B tests have been done in which an LP has been recorded onto a CDR, and no one could tell the difference between the LP and the recording of it on the CDR.

I'd like a demonstration of some subtle sound that a tape recorder can capture that a digital recorder cannot.

----------------

Dan Wegman's Studio - the one that does GM commercials other national commercials.

Nylon stringed guitar, 2 songs recorded digitally, analyzed, certain frequencies missing.

Not trying to turn this into a flame or argument, logic and the data I have seen plus what I hear as something different such as cymbals, show not natural on CDs or SACDs. Either something is missing or something is added. The above analysis shows missing.

If you take ecah frequency separate, you will come close, but in a chord some is lost.

This point has been hashed before.

Give a dead quiet Analogue or throw in enough street noise and play the same selection, on Vinyl, on metal, I will tell you the difference.

Play a Gibson Les Paul and a Fender Stratocaster, I will tell you the difference.

In the end, do I like the convenience of CD? Yes Do I like the lack of any clicks or pops? yes

Do I like analogue more? yes.

Do I feel that we should return to all Analogue? No, I have heard improvements.

Ask each person that prefers vinyl why they do. Usually it translates to there is something missing on CD or SACD. There is a valid answer for that. Something gets lost in the digital assignment.

Will it always be that way? I don't know. But, as an Engineer to this point I have heard the difference. Others here have answered with what sums up to be that they hear a difference. Must be something to it.

And no, I am not saying that anyone preferring digital is wrong for doing so. It's individual hearing and choice.

My only beef is another change, another point where I will have to replace the 600 + CDs I own that replaced the 1300 + LPs when it looked like vinyl would be gone forever. Mine is a financial point.

dodger

[dodger]

----------------

On 11/30/2004 1:09:43 PM psg wrote:

----------------

On 11/30/2004 11:12:16 AM dodger wrote:

To note, the frequency response that vinyl is capable of is the full 20 - 20,000 HZ.

CDs use compression. That's a way of not jolting people out of their chair and also to make some playback equipment friendly.

Not to nit-pick, but CDs don't use compression; recordings do. A recording can be stored compressed either on vinyl or on CD.

MP3 uses compression. Red-book CD does not.

----------------

Point. CDs of recorded work are not alive, nor do they exist until burning.

CDs do exist blank and we are paying a hidden tax for "lost copyright and performance revenue."

It would be interesting to see how that is calculated for distribution to writers, performers, etc..

To be exact, the Engineer decides on the use and how much, compression. A Recording is usually stored two ways. The exact session with all separate tracks. That may include several versions of the same piece.

Then the mixed down version that is released is usually stored.

dodger

[sunnysal]

this idea of things getting lost or modified in some way during the recording/copying/burning into new media process is very valid, it has always been so.

the "original sound" gets changed as it is recorded by the mike, the board, the tape machine (or digital recorder), it then gets further changed during mix down and mastering, it gets changed during "burning" or "etching" into media (this includes the LP lathe!), etc.

An LP is the result of a process that has plenty of stages that change the "original" sound. The idea of perefect sound forever was erroneous for CDs as is the worship of LPs as perfect sound (until scratched). they are all compromises and less then perfect recordings of the original sound.

there are some very interesting technical differences between SACD and DVD-A that add to the controversy but this is no forum to get into THAT.

I say, listen to what you like and stop trying to justify why yours is the best...if you like black licorice disks better then silver plastic coasters more power to´ya, just my opinion of course...unless of course you only listen to 2" analog tape masters, then I have to agree with you, your choice is the best available sound.

warm regards,

tony

[ben.]

----------------

On 11/30/2004 12:56:59 PM paulparrot wrote:

Blind A/B tests have been done in which an LP has been recorded onto a CDR, and no one could tell the difference between the LP and the recording of it on the CDR.

I'd like a demonstration of some subtle sound that a tape recorder can capture that a digital recorder cannot.

----------------

I would suppose that the system used in those tests were less revealing than all of those participating in this discussion. Can I pick out the difference between blue and purple on a black and white TV? Probably no more than 50% of the time. I'll take my personal experience and the aforementioned experience of Grammy winners and mere nominees. Keep in mind the system in question was only the Otari Radar system, widely considered to be revolutionary in its fidelity. The monitoring sytem were big soffited Westlakes, which I'm sure would be at no disadvantage to the Auratones or 40 year-old headphones used in your precious A/B.

Yes, a multitude of trained engineers and musicians, whose very financial and creative lives depend on being able to hear fine detail, are wrong. Paul and Russ win. Congratulations. You both win a free DAT tape.

[dodger]

I can agree with Tony.

Whatever sounds best to the listener.

Thanks for clarifying the process and the point taken.

Take Care,

dodger

[ben.]

Tony, you as usual make excellent points. There is in fact no "accurate medium". What I and others are referring to (and I realize you understand this) is a measure of satisfaction and involvement that we derive from listening to analog that is lacking for us in digital media. It's annoying to be told that we are somehow mistaken or fooling ourselves by the same narrow minds.

[D-MAN]

In theory, since the sound recording is basically electrical, I would want to keep as much "mechanical" out of the process as possible. Of course, this is easier said than done.

I have no firm conclusion, but I suspect that it's the mechanical aspect of vinyl sound reproduction is where the "soul" of the thing resides, if you know what I mean. But is there something tangible there? I think so. Same with tube gear. Something is there, but what exactly is it?

DM

[sunnysal]

I know everyone here understands this issue, but defensiveness and territoriality seem always to take over at some point during these discussions.

I have LPs collecting dust and more than 800 CDs I listen to constantly, I obviously made my choice and thus am somewhat biased. Silver coasters work for me.

I welcome improved sound, however I will not divest myself of my current medium so I am limited to finding and buying better CD playback equipment from now on. I can live happily with my choice.

may the music move you!

tony