Moderators Travis In Austin Posted January 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted January 14, 2006 In reviewing the numerous responses to Duke's post about his dumping his record collection it was interesting to see us analog guys line up against the digital folks. Regardless of what side you are on there is of course no way to convince someone what he/she is hearing is not what he is hearing. I compleatly agree that if it sounds good to you then that is the whole point of it all. I don't have the ears I used to, but to me lp's/tape sounds so much better the CD/SACD. If CD/SACD does it for you, then consider yourself lucky. However, don't fool yourself into thinking that you are not missing out on anything. The debate did remind me of a quote from Ray Charles about digital vs. analog that summed it up so much better then I could ever could, and when you read it with his signature voice in mind, you get such a good picture of it all. He said: "I have to tell you man. In listening to sound, I guess what I'm after is the closest thing that I can get to reality. Now, I know it's not going to be reality, cause the thing gotta go through wires and gotta go through filters and this and that. I understand all that. But what I really like is to get as close to the natural sound of the instruments as possible. That's why I like analog as opposed to digital. Because I don't give a shit what anybody tells you man, I know what you guys are going to tell me...'Oh yeah, but it's clean Ray!' Well it's clean but it don't got no balls!!!" - 1999 interview with Ray Charles by Michael Hobson of Classic Records This from a man who is acknowleged by almost all as the "Genius" and unlike all of us, had only his ears to rely upon in getting through life. So I guess when it comes right down to it I'm with Ray (GRHS), I don't care about all the techical jargon, the sampling rate, etc., or what anyone else says, and I don't mind an occassional pop or click, because CD's just "don't got no balls." Travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Far be it from me to take issue with the late, great Ray Charles on whether digital or analog recording sounds most like live music, but I've heard great sounding examples of each, and horrible sounding examples of each. Some of the best sounding recordings I have were made back in the late fifties/early sixties on two-track tube tape recorders. The Everly Brothers, Roy Orbison and The Platters come to mind. On the other hand, Dire Straits' "Brother's In Arms" from around 1985 or so, was all digital and is one of the best sounding rock records ever. So, I really don't care whether a recording is all-analog or all-digital or a hybrid. It's what comes out the speakers that matters. Now if you wanna talk LP vs. CD, I'll take CD (or SACD or DVD-A) every time. I don't mind "snap, crackle and pop" in my breakfast cereal, but I can't stand it when I'm trying to listen to music! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 It's so hard to talk in absolutes when comparing. I have heard both poor to great analog and digital. I would say it is harder to get good analog than digital. Remember, only the sith deal in absolutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Only his ears? There is the increased sense of touch as well.. I agree that male records have balls, but I would also say my female records have more curves. I guess that means my asexual records have more personality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 I liked old Ray but that cd player he had was a piecer ,lol.Its all in the mastering and manufacturing,I grew up on good vinyl,it does sound good too.To me dvd audio 2ch sounds just like vinyl with all its glory and no hoopla.A good cd can approach dvd audio if remastered properly.It really don't have to be either or,both is the best in an ideal setup,all imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Far be it from me to take issue with the late, great Ray Charles on whether digital or analog recording sounds most like live music, but I've heard great sounding examples of each, and horrible sounding examples of each. Some of the best sounding recordings I have were made back in the late fifties/early sixties on two-track tube tape recorders. The Everly Brothers, Roy Orbison and The Platters come to mind. On the other hand, Dire Straits' "Brother's In Arms" from around 1985 or so, was all digital and is one of the best sounding rock records ever. So, I really don't care whether a recording is all-analog or all-digital or a hybrid. It's what comes out the speakers that matters. Now if you wanna talk LP vs. CD, I'll take CD (or SACD or DVD-A) every time. I don't mind "snap, crackle and pop" in my breakfast cereal, but I can't stand it when I'm trying to listen to music! "Brothers in Arms" is a good CD but it is still cold and edgey to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstrickland1 Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 . Couple of nice Dorado there jacksonbart. I had a Mako 22 and before that a 23' Grady White and fished every fishable weekend 45-65 miles off Charleston or Hilton Head for 10 years. Now I live in Columbia and have a pontoon boat and cruise Lake Murray with the family. I'm much happier now actually, but I do somewhat miss working weedlines and hearing those clickers scream. Not enough to get back into it though, it's completely out of my system. Damn all that work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Far be it from me to take issue with the late, great Ray Charles on whether digital or analog recording sounds most like live music, but I've heard great sounding examples of each, and horrible sounding examples of each. Some of the best sounding recordings I have were made back in the late fifties/early sixties on two-track tube tape recorders. The Everly Brothers, Roy Orbison and The Platters come to mind. On the other hand, Dire Straits' "Brother's In Arms" from around 1985 or so, was all digital and is one of the best sounding rock records ever. So, I really don't care whether a recording is all-analog or all-digital or a hybrid. It's what comes out the speakers that matters. Now if you wanna talk LP vs. CD, I'll take CD (or SACD or DVD-A) every time. I don't mind "snap, crackle and pop" in my breakfast cereal, but I can't stand it when I'm trying to listen to music! "Brothers in Arms" is a good CD but it is still cold and edgey to me. Yeah, I can hear a bit of that in spots, but still, when the gee-tar in "Money For Nothing" starts up, it's crank-it-up time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 bah - the only way to draw a conclusive opinion about the differences is to hear the two side by side in the studio where you can also compare against the original sound. One thing I find most interesting is how so many people go on and on about how much better LP sounds, but what they don't realize is that the LP doesn't sound anything like the 2" analog tape master - yet for some reason the lowly CD comes a lot closer. Go figure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 bah - the only way to draw a conclusive opinion about the differences is to hear the two side by side in the studio where you can also compare against the original sound. One thing I find most interesting is how so many people go on and on about how much better LP sounds, but what they don't realize is that the LP doesn't sound anything like the 2" analog tape master - yet for some reason the lowly CD comes a lot closer. Go figure... Blah, blah, blah. I don't need to hear the original studio tapes to know which I prefer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted January 15, 2006 Author Moderators Share Posted January 15, 2006 Dr. Who, Technically, you couldn't really "listen" to a 2" studio tape because it would have numerous tracks, at least 24, which would have to be mixed down to stereo, with each track adjusted to the right level. It would take hours to set up each song just to listen to it, and days to listen to an album's worth of music. However, I do agree that what that 2" tape is mixed down to (a 15 or 30 IPS 1/4" 2 track master) sounds better then any LP, CD, SACD or DVD-A that is produced down the line. From time to time these masters come up for sale on ebay and other places and I have been able to purchase a few, some are so high priced it is unbelievable so it is rare when I can get one. But you are correct, there is no better sound. Travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted January 15, 2006 Author Moderators Share Posted January 15, 2006 JDM and Bigger, I understand the simlar points you raise, if the source/master is off, whethere it's digital (CD) or analog LP/Tape it is not going to make a difference, the end product is going to be off. However, the context of that interview with Ray Charles was what format he preferred recording in as well as the end product. He owed his own studio and fought tooth and nail any change over to digital recording. He used various tapes decks but ended up with state of the art MCI decks. He believed that analog/tape gave him the truest end result onto lp. His comment is perfectly clear about what his prefrence would be if he had to choose between an occasional pop and being clean. Thus his cd's are going to be AAD vs. ADD or DDD. As far as new recordings, if they are recorded in digital I agree that it makes no sense to get the lp, it's like taping a CD on Reel to Reel. I think most of the lesser CD's are going to be in the AAD or ADD format. Fortunately for vinyl lovers, some studios are going back to tape, or making a simultanious multi-track tape so it is recorded both in analog and digital.Travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I love it when somebody drags out the old "snap, crackle, pop" argument. It's a sure sign that they've never heard a halfway decent vinyl rig playing decent records. I do prefer it when someone will just admit that they don't find it to be worth the effort. At least then I can respect them for their honesty (even while secretly ridiculing them, as they obviously need a network upgrade...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I love it when somebody drags out the old "snap, crackle, pop" argument. It's a sure sign that they've never heard a halfway decent vinyl rig playing decent records. I do prefer it when someone will just admit that they don't find it to be worth the effort. At least then I can respect them for their honesty (even while secretly ridiculing them, as they obviously need a network upgrade...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Travis makes excellent points about Ray's perspective and resulting preference. It's a dream of mine to operate a small studio with at least one 2" machine and a 1" or 1/2" two track deck. Unfortunately, the tape is getting hard to source affordably, never mind the machines themselves and their upkeep. It kills me to hear amazing gear like U47 through old RCA broadcast mic pres and CBS or Ampex compressors (or even more pedestrian stuff like a Beyer M500 on a Twin through a damned Mackie) handcuffed by digital after hearing what it sounds like beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I love it when somebody drags out the old "snap, crackle, pop" argument. It's a sure sign that they've never heard a halfway decent vinyl rig playing decent records. I do prefer it when someone will just admit that they don't find it to be worth the effort. At least then I can respect them for their honesty (even while secretly ridiculing them, as they obviously need a network upgrade...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedball Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 OH MY GOSH! .............that is one old Crazy Cat cartoon! Jeff Rowland....Digital?...I'd like to give it a whirl. 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.