"Digital ... don't got no balls!!!."

[Speedball]

...wrong button....

[BobbyT]

remember boys and girls it's all subjective. just enjoy what you have and quit trying to convince others they can't really enjoy what they have because it's different/not as good as what you have.

[JJkizak]

"Closest" too the original instrument as two conotations---fidelity of the instrument (presense) and the "loudness" of the instrument at normal playing levels in a band. Records don't come close to the second requirement because of compromised (bean counter) groove width restrictions. The "silky" vinyl sound is do to the rounded off transients created by the mechanical cutting and playback of the groove. A side buy side playback of the idenditical CD/Album/Tape will expose your cymbal hits as dull thuds from the record compared to crisp hits on the CD.

JJK

[MarkBK]

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!

The remastered version of Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" further reinforces this as one of the best sounding rock records ever.... a reference recording for any system testing too! Mark Knopfler just finished SACD 5.1 remix - one of the few tastefully done IMO!

[SilverSport]

All this talk of sonic excellence...so I dig out the old Lear Jet 8-Track player and put in my tape of Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd...the highs, the lows...the midrange...the nuances...then, oh yeah...the click...[][]

Bill

[jacksonbart]

[Duke Spinner]

.

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...

Who ....

has Quite succinctly summed it up .......[]

[garymd]

"Closest" too the original instrument as two conotations---fidelity of the instrument (presense) and the "loudness" of the instrument at normal playing levels in a band. Records don't come close to the second requirement because of compromised (bean counter) groove width restrictions. The "silky" vinyl sound is do to the rounded off transients created by the mechanical cutting and playback of the groove. A side buy side playback of the idenditical CD/Album/Tape will expose your cymbal hits as dull thuds from the record compared to crisp hits on the CD.

JJK

Holy cow! Have you ever a/b'd Dave Brubeck's Time Out LP with original Columbia 2 Eye (Stereo) or 6 Eye (Mono) LP vs CD or SACD (and it's a great SACD!)? The cymbols on the LP are SOOO realistic compared to the SACD. It's not even close. There are MANY other examples. Just about anything from ELP yields the same result.

I suppose you haven't.

[jacksonbart]

In all seriousness I have heard some very good sounding recordings pressed in on a LP. As many people have said before the studio engineers can create an outstanding recording or a lousy one regardless of the medium (forget 8 track).

Now changing gears here are a few real uses for records.

[DrWho]

The cymbols on the LP are SOOO realistic compared to the SACD. It's not even close.

Not to be annoying, but how do you know what the cymbals sounded like in the studio? I won't argue that the LP doesn't sound better, but to claim realism as the reason is way out of the league of us normal consumers. You are also assuming that the same net transport function has been applied from the output of the master to each of the formats you have - and I can never think of a single situation where this would be the case. A lot of "predictive" EQ is being applied for the LP that isn't being applied to the digital mediums. Did it improve the sound? In your situation it seems so....but the LP is no way going to be the same thing they were hearing in the studio when they were mastering the 2" tape.

And if the sound from the final LP is something that the studio guys wanted to achieve, then there is absolutely no reason why that exact same sound couldn't have also been stored on the CD. But since this isn't the case, I think one might argue that the guys in the studio felt it wasn't worth the time and they simply weren't mixing to that level of accuracy (talking about the 2" tape - not the final medium of storage). And that means it would be rather silly to rely on the quality of that LP as a comparison - essentially because the better sound was in its entirety completely unintentional. I would instead want to rely upon a recording that took every last measure to achieve the upmost in sonic integrity (and to be honest, no such recordings exist as there are always compromises being made).

[Duke Spinner]

I think, Who ..

Gary means the cymbols are " exagerated ' on the LP

to sound more "realistic"

[DrWho]

lol []

[LarryC]

Not to be annoying, but how do you know what the cymbals sounded like in the studio?

Who cares? I know Gary has heard many, many cymbals and has a very good idea of what they sound like. Instruments will sound very different from location to location, yet have easily recognized common characteristics.

I won't argue that the LP doesn't sound better, but to claim realism as the reason is way out of the league of us normal consumers.

I don't know if we're normal, but I believe Gary and I speak as having once played music (he the piano, I the violin) and are experienced, close listeners of music. I know from exprience in sharing classical music that he listens very closely and accurately to orchestral detail, and that's going to make a difference in how well we assess the accuracy of instrumental sound.

And that means it would be rather silly to rely on the quality of that LP as a comparison - essentially because the better sound was in its entirety completely unintentional. I would instead want to rely upon a recording that took every last measure to achieve the upmost in sonic integrity.

Do you seriously think that the great sound recordings of even the 1950s (e.g., Reiner's Scherehazade) were "completely unintentional," or that they weren't trying to achieve the utmost in sonic integrity, both then and in analogue recording in recent years?

[garymd]

The cymbols on the LP are SOOO realistic compared to the SACD. It's not even close.

Not to be annoying, but how do you know what the cymbals sounded like in the studio? I won't argue that the LP doesn't sound better, but to claim realism as the reason is way out of the league of us normal consumers. You are also assuming that the same net transport function has been applied from the output of the master to each of the formats you have - and I can never think of a single situation where this would be the case. A lot of "predictive" EQ is being applied for the LP that isn't being applied to the digital mediums. Did it improve the sound? In your situation it seems so....but the LP is no way going to be the same thing they were hearing in the studio when they were mastering the 2" tape.

And if the sound from the final LP is something that the studio guys wanted to achieve, then there is absolutely no reason why that exact same sound couldn't have also been stored on the CD. But since this isn't the case, I think one might argue that the guys in the studio felt it wasn't worth the time and they simply weren't mixing to that level of accuracy (talking about the 2" tape - not the final medium of storage). And that means it would be rather silly to rely on the quality of that LP as a comparison - essentially because the better sound was in its entirety completely unintentional. I would instead want to rely upon a recording that took every last measure to achieve the upmost in sonic integrity (and to be honest, no such recordings exist as there are always compromises being made).

Like I said before, I DON'T CARE what the original studio recording sounded like!!! I don't live in a studio!!!! I know what sounds better to me. I've heard plenty of cymbols in live settings and trust me, the LP in this case sounds MUCH more realistic to my ears. If I remember correctly, at least a couple other forum members did an a/b comparison with me on this particular LP. Boomac was one and CustomSteve the other. Both agreed with my assessment.

I've spent many hours listening to both LPs and CDs at Larry's house (mainly classical music) and he has an OUTSTANDING digital setup. He's gone to great lengths to try and match the quality of his vinyl rig with various mods and at one point he was just about there. That was when he traded up for the Vector arm (which I also have on my table, albiet an earlier version), and once again, the vinyl just outperformed digital. To our ears at least. I've never heard a better setup for classical music then Larry's and IMO, getting classical music to sound great is a very difficult task. I've only heard better live.

I don't mean to be a PITA either but until you come to my house and spend some time comparing the two, please don't tell me what I am or am not hearing. Yes, I own LPs that sound horrible. Yes, I own CDs that sound great. I just prefer vinyl and I still think you've yet to hear a really good setup.

[ben.]

Though a bit tired of this "argument", I find myself compelled to point out that it seems to me that the most vehement proponents of CDs' superiority over vinyl have not spent any time with a decent vinyl playback system. The converse can not be said about those that prefer vinyl, at least among those I know on this forum.

Also, the whole "truest to source" issue is a dead end. Neither are all that close. Something all good producers & engineers accept as a given limitation, Who.

[Travis In Austin]

Also, the whole "truest to source" issue is a dead end. Neither are all that close. Something all good producers & engineers accept as a given limitation, Who.

Ben,

I think where the "truest to source" issue came up is from the quote from Ray Charles (GRHS) I included where he said what he was after in terms of sound. You are correct in that Mr. Charles did not say he was looking for what it sounded like in the studio, he said what he was after was the most natural sound. He went on to say that digital did not do it for him. I think people have taken Ray's comment about what he was looking for out of context and misinterpreted it to mean as close to live as possible.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

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!

The remastered version of Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" further reinforces this as one of the best sounding rock records ever.... a reference recording for any system testing too! Mark Knopfler just finished SACD 5.1 remix - one of the few tastefully done IMO!

I agree, Brothers in Arms in a great sounding LP, one of my favorites of all time. However, neither the original or the SACD remix are pure digital. Both had to be converted to analog in order for them to obtain the sound they were looking for. Whether the sound they were after was how it sounded in the studio is not really the issue, it just shows the limitations of digital.

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.

Chuck Ainly, who did the 5.1 remix at Knopfler's studio stated:

As an aside, readers will certainly be intrigued to know that this hybrid and arguably convoluted D-to-A-to-D-to-A-to-D signal routing, by coincidence, actually mirrors what Neil Dorfsman undertook in 1985 with the original stereo album. The main architectural difference when comparing the two respective approaches being the intermediate tracking into Nuendo at 24-bit 96kHz resolution. The original album, which I consider to be a masterpiece, was mixed in a SSL4000 analogue console from the analogue outputs of the DASH 3324, says Ainlay. However, I would still consider that to be an all-digital album. To be honest, at the time, there was no way of doing a pure DDD album, so the analogue stage of mixing through a console was never differentiated on the CD jewelbox. Anyway, apart from a few analogue slave reels, there was never any analogue tape storage stage where you would lose it, so to speak.

Travis

[SilverSport]

Why would someone presume to tell another what is better to THEIR ears???

...all I know is when I put on a CD...I like what I hear most times through my K'Horns or Heresys...I do have a turntable and some vinyl and should give that a go but the question SHOULD be..."What sounds good to you ." (or at least acceptable) and NO ONE can answer that but ...well, YOU!...I am listening to John Mayer...Heavier Things (on CD...oh it is recorded in SACD but I do not think my Toshiba 3940 is capable of taking advantage however it seems to me to be a nice recording) and am loving the sound.

Bill

[DrWho]

Like I said before, I DON'T CARE what the original studio recording sounded like!!! I don't live in a studio!!!! I know what sounds better to me.

I don't mean to be a PITA either but until you come to my house and spend some time comparing the two, please don't tell me what I am or am not hearing. Yes, I own LPs that sound horrible. Yes, I own CDs that sound great. I just prefer vinyl and I still think you've yet to hear a really good setup.

But what was heard in the studio matters because the goal of any medium is to have no impact whatsoever on the sound. Even if the LP version sounds better, it would be of benefit to record the output of a pristine LP to a medium that has no effect, thus perfectly preserving the desired sound.

But since no perfect medium exists the guys in the studio realize that they must alter the tracking and final mixdown stages so as to maximize the fidelity of the flawed medium. The reason I say to go all the way back to the 2" tape is because different approaches will need to be taken. It is a conscious effort to work around the flaws of the end medium (for both digital and analog). If the engineers did a crappy job for the digital yet did great for the analog, then of course the LP is going to sound better.

And I'm all for hearing more LP rigs, but the one thing that sticks in the back of my mind is that I've heard very high quality reel to reel rigs and I don't think anyone would argue that LP exceeds the quality of tape. And yet I would put good digital on par with the tape (blasphemy I know).

And for the record, I'm not telling anyone what they are and aren't hearing - you said the LP sounds better and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Do you seriously think that the great sound recordings of even the 1950s (e.g., Reiner's Scherehazade) were "completely unintentional," or that they weren't trying to achieve the utmost in sonic integrity, both then and in analogue recording in recent years?

Everyone is trying to achieve the utmost in sonic integrity when they're mixing...but everyone is also running on limited budgets with limited time frames with limited musicians with limited instruments and limited sound equipment. I can tell you that the good studio guys aren't running around moving mics a centimeter at a time, nor are they feather touching their faders. I think a lot of people confuse musicality with quality, but the two are very different (though I can see how one would argue that musicality is more important because after all that is the reason for listening to the music).

I really wish there was an easy way to do some reel to reel versus LP comparisons - I would put middle of the line RTR over the epitomy of LP any day of the week (mostly because a lot of the LP's are coming off middle grade RTR masters) []

[maxg]

Like Gary - I have never really given "accurate" much accord in developing my system - I always just went for what sounded good and "right" to my ears.

I have never pretended to be able to know, of course, if it actually was correct - and never felt it mattered much - as right would vary as much with performance venue and between performance venues as it might on different play-back system's throughout the world.

It was something of a surprise for me, therefore, when one of Tony's myriad girlfriends turned up at my house one night with him and pronounced my system the most accurate she had ever heard.

Ordinarily that would not mean much - except that she is a musicologist (someone who studies music as a science rather than as an art form), has heard untold numbers of both systems and live performances and has perfect pitch (an essential element of her job).

Certain recordings simply floored her - particularly TACET recordings (on vinyl of course) which are modern audiophile affairs that have been created on all tube equipment and simple microphone placement principles. What was interesting is that she felt these recordings to be the equal of the direct to disk recordings.

It would appear then that my system - despite my never aiming for it - actually does provide a very reasonable fascimile of reality in music and I would be more than a little surprized if Gary's were not the same.

She was very keen to point out that in her experience and her opinion such levels of "reality" were not possible on digital media of any kind.

All anecdotal as these things tend to be - but you would have to go a long way to persuade me otherwise now.

(Just as a side not I was at Christos Skaloumbakos' house on Saturday night - he is an ocasional poster on these forum's and president of the Audiophile Club of Athens. He has a truely astonishing system - worth God knows how much. During the meeting one of the listeners asked for a comparison of his digital and analogue playback. This was duly setup and we flisked from one to another repeatedly to compare the sound. After about 3 minutes of this we had quite lost which was which - but the briefest of analytical listening to one and then the other revealed the source with a zero error. The person that asked is a digital fan through and through, but once it was demonstrated to him even he had to admit the results were not particularly close with the vinyl being far the superior sonically.)

Attached is a pic of Christos' system: