|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 29, 2014 15:30:08 GMT -5
I actually find this to be very interesting.....  Taking this as true, then it would lead to two conclusions: 1) Recording something onto vinyl clearly alters the sound. 2) Once the original has been altered by "being passed through the vinyl process", a digital recording does indeed reproduce the changes that result from being recorded onto and played back from vinyl. 2a) So, in still other words, a 24/96 digital RIP of a vinyl album "sounds like the vinyl album" - but lacks most of the drawbacks. So, QED, if you like the way vinyl sounds, but don't like the inconvenience and impermanence that go with it, then you should RIP all of your vinyl to digital copies. [/quote] Well 2 and 2 a is not a necessary conclusion from his statement. We can't say that the digital reproduction of the digitized vinyl will sound like the vinyl rip. And we can't say that the analog to digital conversion of the vinyl recording was accurate. (I mean sure you can, but you'd be inferring from data). What we do get from the author's statement is that the vinyl rip sounded better than other digital recordings. Not that the digital recording sounded as good as a vinyl record. It's still a useful statement. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 29, 2014 15:31:50 GMT -5
I'm sure the main reason why someone hasn't done it yet (as a separate service) would be the complexity involved in getting licenses for the music. Now, as a service, I would think you could avoid those problems by having it set up such that you sent your album to the service, who then played it on the equipment you specified - and digitized it for you, although there still might be legal complications arising from the idea that, while you are allowed to make backups of stuff you own, I don't know how surely that right extends to paying someone else to make backups for you. I've seen a few places that sell used records, and offer, for an additional fee, to also provide a digital copy of any album you buy. This neatly solves the "shipping the album back and forth" issue. (Honestly, though, the few places I saw offering to do this were not offering anything special in terms of what equipment the conversion was done on, and were probably so small that, as far as licensing issues, they were simply way below the radar. I only tried it once, and, sadly, the particular place that did it - and whose name I charitably forget - did a truly awful job with the ripping.) However, it sure seems like a logical progression for the producer or distributor to offer a CD, a vinyl version, and a digital version OF a vinyl version as options. For places that are already selling a limited selection of "audiophile recordings", the ability to pick specific turntable and cartridge combinations seems logical to me. In terms of production, they'd only have to digitize each album they sell once with each of their ten "menu choice" turntable and cartridge combinations. Imagine the marketing... Buy the 24/96 recording for $19.99 Or the vinyl audiophile pressing for $29.99 Or enjoy all the benefits of hearing that audiophile vinyl pressing played on a really stellar turntable and cartridge combination, whenever you want to, for only $49.95 (choose any one of these ten classic and cutting edge vinyl playback equipment combinations) That is FANTASTIC idea! Why the heck not?! I can see lots of people buying that stuff. I love this idea! It's a niche market....but MAN will people buy it. There'll be lots of debate over which cartridge rip sounded better etc and the debate will hype the sales! I think it would be a niche success. |
|
|
|
Post by thepcguy on Oct 29, 2014 15:46:22 GMT -5
Both the SACD and LP set were produced from the same master tape and issued by Analogue Productions. After "Quiet Nights" played on SACD I popped the USB stick into the computer and we listened to the vinyl rip. First of all there were NO artifacts of vinyl playback: no rumble, no pops and clicks, no noise. BUT EVERYONE in the room agreed that the vinyl rip DESTROYED the SACD. It was not even close. The vinyl rip, which is digital, is better!  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 29, 2014 15:50:52 GMT -5
Could even offer package discounts for having your album ripped on three different setups - so you could contrast and compare. I'm sure the main reason why someone hasn't done it yet (as a separate service) would be the complexity involved in getting licenses for the music. Now, as a service, I would think you could avoid those problems by having it set up such that you sent your album to the service, who then played it on the equipment you specified - and digitized it for you, although there still might be legal complications arising from the idea that, while you are allowed to make backups of stuff you own, I don't know how surely that right extends to paying someone else to make backups for you. I've seen a few places that sell used records, and offer, for an additional fee, to also provide a digital copy of any album you buy. This neatly solves the "shipping the album back and forth" issue. (Honestly, though, the few places I saw offering to do this were not offering anything special in terms of what equipment the conversion was done on, and were probably so small that, as far as licensing issues, they were simply way below the radar. I only tried it once, and, sadly, the particular place that did it - and whose name I charitably forget - did a truly awful job with the ripping.) However, it sure seems like a logical progression for the producer or distributor to offer a CD, a vinyl version, and a digital version OF a vinyl version as options. For places that are already selling a limited selection of "audiophile recordings", the ability to pick specific turntable and cartridge combinations seems logical to me. In terms of production, they'd only have to digitize each album they sell once with each of their ten "menu choice" turntable and cartridge combinations. Imagine the marketing... Buy the 24/96 recording for $19.99 Or the vinyl audiophile pressing for $29.99 Or enjoy all the benefits of hearing that audiophile vinyl pressing played on a really stellar turntable and cartridge combination, whenever you want to, for only $49.95 (choose any one of these ten classic and cutting edge vinyl playback equipment combinations) I love this idea! It's a niche market....but MAN will people buy it. There'll be lots of debate over which cartridge rip sounded better etc and the debate will hype the sales! I think it would be a niche success. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 29, 2014 15:54:35 GMT -5
While I appreciate your POV's and even given my own problems with reconciling the differences in digital audio vs digital visual arts I am also not willing to accept at face value that those differences in what we hear in vinyl are all due to the "additives" alone. However like you I am also cynical enough regarding the vast amount of recording companies/studios producing a different recipe for their vinyl release compared to their red book cd or high res downloads. But if there is a universal sensibility or appreciation I hear regarding vinyl playback it is that alive feeling. Surely this cannot be explained by what gets added to the mix vs the digital releases. And it is worth noting that many an audio engineer, recording engineer not to mention professional musicians prefer to listen to vinyl vs its digital counterparts. We may never get to the bottom of this issue or have a complete understanding but what ever it is I am also convinced there really is something else going on other than pure additives in the mix. And just for the record I DO NOT have a $3 grand cart or $10 grand TT. What I have is nice but nowhere near that level of investment. Many audiophiles are doing just what you suggest, ripping their vinyl to digital format. Michael Fremer mentioned this in his post this morning. Seems like a big headache to me, and reminds me of the old days or ripping your vinyl collection onto cassette tapes. Ah those were the days. I'm not familiar with the term "AAA vinyl" - but, in the past, the actual quality of the vinyl used was rather important. When vinyl is first produced, it is referred to as "virgin vinyl". In the old days, most LPs were pressed on vinyl that was a combination of virgin vinyl and recycled scraps. (These could include the little bits trimmed off after the discs are pressed, as well as whole recycled records, which could have been there because they had pressing flaws, or simply because they were returned as unsold. Humorously, sometimes even tiny bits of label would make it through the recycling process, and you would occasionally find a lump in your new record. Beyond that, the long chain molecules in plastic degrade from heat and mechanical processing, so "reused" vinyl has slightly poorer mechanical properties.) High-quality audiophile pressings were usually done on "pure virgin vinyl" - and often had lower levels of surface noise and fewer ticks and pops (presumably because of the better vinyl). I would assume that this is supposed to be something along those lines... either virgin vinyl, or "better than normal" vinyl. Compression has always been a sore subject. I agree that many recent releases have very little dynamic range... and I'm inclined to put that down to several things. Back in the old days, radio broadcasts were notorious for being highly compressed, both because of "the loudness wars" and for the more legitimate reason that, since cars used to typically be rather noisy, a lot of compression made the broadcast sound better when played in a car - which is where a lot of radio listening took place. Many people also would leave the radio on "as background music" at home - which, again, tends to lend itself to lots of compression. I'm guessing that today, with a lot of portable listening done through poor fitting ear buds, and in noisy environments, again compression "serves a purpose". You've also got the fact that now compression is easier. With modern digital processing, it's quite simple to achieve levels of compression that would have been impossible with old analog equipment - at least without producing horrible side effects. The ease with which you can do all sorts of fancy processing today certainly encourages people to do more of it.... which is unfortunate. As far as radio broadcasts, there was nothing "hidden" about the agenda. When people tune across the dial looking for a station, they are more likely to notice and stop at loud stations than quiet ones. Since (especially with FM) the absolute maximum loudness level is fixed by the broadcast format itself, the easiest way to raise the perceived loudness level is to raise the average level - which you do by applying liberal doses of compression. (It's quite a bit like juicing up the saturation on photos so they "stand out" more.) This is still done on radio broadcasts, and TV commercials, today. One thing I would be interested in seeing would be a more detailed breakdown of the types of compression involved. Virtually all vinyl recordings are in fact compressed - even those good sounding old ones. On the very good ones, that compression would be limited to compressing very loud high frequency content (to avoid overloading the cutter head or exceeding the tracking abilities of a cartridge), and compressing very loud low frequency content (to manage the required track spacing effectively). However, this would not extend to compressing everything simply to make it louder. (So, even though overall there is still lots of dynamic range left, the original dynamics have been fiddled with.) It wouldn't surprise me if today some modern "audiophile vinyl" releases might be compressed less than their digital counterparts... Personally, I'm cynical enough to believe that this was done deliberately since, if the vinyl release sounded exactly the same as the CD version except for more ticks and pops, then nobody would buy it. However, if I'm going to be stuck with choosing the vinyl version because it's mastered better, or the CD version because it avoids the serious flaws inherent in vinyl, I just hope they'll at least let me pay a bit extra for the high-def digital version and avoid all the drawbacks of both.... As far as photography - I'm with you 100% there as well. If someone wants to use old black & white film, or even a Holga, "for artistic reasons", that's fine by me... but if they want to start claiming that their Holga takes more accurate pictures than my d800, then they really need to go back to school. One thing I think all the vinyl lovers are missing, however, is that once they admit that the differences are additive, then all sorts of new possibilities open up (at least once the industry catches on)..... If you really like the way vinyl albums sound on a particular $3000 cartridge and $10,000 turntable, then all you have to do is make high-quality 24/96 digital recordings of albums played on that equipment. Then you can distribute perfect digital copies to everyone who has similar tastes - and they can be played back on equipment that doesn't require a mortgage to own. Vinyl lovers; imagine a library where you could rent or purchase perfect recordings of your favorite albums, played on your choice of the top ten most popular super-expensive cartridge and turntable combinations, at reasonable prices. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 29, 2014 16:52:23 GMT -5
Agreed... I was being a bit provocative there. However, from his statements, you can infer that the process of ripping and digitizing the vinyl version did NOT "destroy all the benefits of its being played from vinyl". (At least according to him, the digitized version of the vinyl version sounded far better than the other digital version...) Many vinyl fans seem to have the idea that, rather than that vinyl simply alters the audio signal in ways that they find pleasant, digitizing the audio somehow "breaks" it - and not digitizing it avoids that. If they were correct, and vinyl was simply accurate, while digital audio was not, then ripping the vinyl version to digital would "ruin" it, and none of the "virtues" of vinyl would survive the conversion process. In contrast, if, as I maintain, vinyl simply alters the sound in pleasant ways, and a digital recording can make a reasonable reproduction of the original, then it makes sense that a digital rip of a vinyl original would retain most of the "virtues" of the vinyl "original. If so, then it would make perfect sense to do things like making digital recordings of vinyl albums played on particular turntables, cartridges, and preamps (the digital recording would simply accurately preserve the individual distinctive "flavor" of each). Equally obviously, if I'm wrong, and converting the analog vinyl to digital somehow damages it so that it no longer sounds good, then there would be no point in doing this. I'm just taking the general case and saying that, if the digital rip of the vinyl version sounded that much better than the SACD version (to him), then clearly converting it to digital didn't ruin it outright (or cancel out the changes caused by its being converted to vinyl) after all  I actually find this to be very interesting..... Taking this as true, then it would lead to two conclusions: 1) Recording something onto vinyl clearly alters the sound. 2) Once the original has been altered by "being passed through the vinyl process", a digital recording does indeed reproduce the changes that result from being recorded onto and played back from vinyl. 2a) So, in still other words, a 24/96 digital RIP of a vinyl album "sounds like the vinyl album" - but lacks most of the drawbacks. So, QED, if you like the way vinyl sounds, but don't like the inconvenience and impermanence that go with it, then you should RIP all of your vinyl to digital copies. Well 2 and 2 a is not a necessary conclusion from his statement. We can't say that the digital reproduction of the digitized vinyl will sound like the vinyl rip. And we can't say that the analog to digital conversion of the vinyl recording was accurate. (I mean sure you can, but you'd be inferring from data). What we do get from the author's statement is that the vinyl rip sounded better than other digital recordings. Not that the digital recording sounded as good as a vinyl record. It's still a useful statement. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Oct 29, 2014 18:49:35 GMT -5
Preference vs. accuracy. I want to reproduce the additional odd order harmonics,that was intended by the producer, and artist as usually a bit of odd order fattens up the sound a bit. Hence that "analog" sound. Accurate like a $3.00 Bill, but I sometimes like it. However, fidelity implies a faithfulness to the original performance reproduced hopefully from a thoughtful, and talented individual. Which otherwise with today's digital tech, would be giving monkeys a license to create. I hear this crap music at work all the time. Irritating this. Fortunately there are some gems of work beautifully done whether or not digitally it sometimes just doesn't matter. I just love the great music.
|
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Oct 30, 2014 7:00:51 GMT -5
Wow alot of good reading here. To me DIGITAL is sure as heck more convenient and taken as a whole superior to vinyl. With that said I have found certain LPs superior to DIGITAL formats. One example is a copy of the Beatles Rubber Soul LP by MSFL. It sounds more open and has more punch on vinyl than any DIGITAL format to my ears.Even the original USA LP release is close.
But taken as a whole DIGITAL is more bulletproof and the wave of the future.Still I listen to LPs 30% of the time. I stay away from used ones in that no one takes care of LPs like I do
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmule on Oct 30, 2014 8:12:38 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with the term "AAA vinyl" - but, in the past, the actual quality of the vinyl used was rather important. When vinyl is first produced, it is referred to as "virgin vinyl". In the old days, most LPs were pressed on vinyl that was a combination of virgin vinyl and recycled scraps. (These could include the little bits trimmed off after the discs are pressed, as well as whole recycled records, which could have been there because they had pressing flaws, or simply because they were returned as unsold. Humorously, sometimes even tiny bits of label would make it through the recycling process, and you would occasionally find a lump in your new record. Beyond that, the long chain molecules in plastic degrade from heat and mechanical processing, so "reused" vinyl has slightly poorer mechanical properties.) High-quality audiophile pressings were usually done on "pure virgin vinyl" - and often had lower levels of surface noise and fewer ticks and pops (presumably because of the better vinyl). I would assume that this is supposed to be something along those lines... either virgin vinyl, or "better than normal" vinyl. Compression has always been a sore subject. I agree that many recent releases have very little dynamic range... and I'm inclined to put that down to several things. Back in the old days, radio broadcasts were notorious for being highly compressed, both because of "the loudness wars" and for the more legitimate reason that, since cars used to typically be rather noisy, a lot of compression made the broadcast sound better when played in a car - which is where a lot of radio listening took place. Many people also would leave the radio on "as background music" at home - which, again, tends to lend itself to lots of compression. I'm guessing that today, with a lot of portable listening done through poor fitting ear buds, and in noisy environments, again compression "serves a purpose". You've also got the fact that now compression is easier. With modern digital processing, it's quite simple to achieve levels of compression that would have been impossible with old analog equipment - at least without producing horrible side effects. The ease with which you can do all sorts of fancy processing today certainly encourages people to do more of it.... which is unfortunate. As far as radio broadcasts, there was nothing "hidden" about the agenda. When people tune across the dial looking for a station, they are more likely to notice and stop at loud stations than quiet ones. Since (especially with FM) the absolute maximum loudness level is fixed by the broadcast format itself, the easiest way to raise the perceived loudness level is to raise the average level - which you do by applying liberal doses of compression. (It's quite a bit like juicing up the saturation on photos so they "stand out" more.) This is still done on radio broadcasts, and TV commercials, today. One thing I would be interested in seeing would be a more detailed breakdown of the types of compression involved. Virtually all vinyl recordings are in fact compressed - even those good sounding old ones. On the very good ones, that compression would be limited to compressing very loud high frequency content (to avoid overloading the cutter head or exceeding the tracking abilities of a cartridge), and compressing very loud low frequency content (to manage the required track spacing effectively). However, this would not extend to compressing everything simply to make it louder. (So, even though overall there is still lots of dynamic range left, the original dynamics have been fiddled with.) It wouldn't surprise me if today some modern "audiophile vinyl" releases might be compressed less than their digital counterparts... Personally, I'm cynical enough to believe that this was done deliberately since, if the vinyl release sounded exactly the same as the CD version except for more ticks and pops, then nobody would buy it. However, if I'm going to be stuck with choosing the vinyl version because it's mastered better, or the CD version because it avoids the serious flaws inherent in vinyl, I just hope they'll at least let me pay a bit extra for the high-def digital version and avoid all the drawbacks of both.... As far as photography - I'm with you 100% there as well. If someone wants to use old black & white film, or even a Holga, "for artistic reasons", that's fine by me... but if they want to start claiming that their Holga takes more accurate pictures than my d800, then they really need to go back to school. One thing I think all the vinyl lovers are missing, however, is that once they admit that the differences are additive, then all sorts of new possibilities open up (at least once the industry catches on)..... If you really like the way vinyl albums sound on a particular $3000 cartridge and $10,000 turntable, then all you have to do is make high-quality 24/96 digital recordings of albums played on that equipment. Then you can distribute perfect digital copies to everyone who has similar tastes - and they can be played back on equipment that doesn't require a mortgage to own. Vinyl lovers; imagine a library where you could rent or purchase perfect recordings of your favorite albums, played on your choice of the top ten most popular super-expensive cartridge and turntable combinations, at reasonable prices. Thanks Bigmule. Not sure what AAA vinyl is unless you're just referring to well recorded vinyl in general and that makes sense. Agreed vinyl generally is considerably more expensive when shopping for new records compared to even hi res downloads and thats probably not going to change. What I do find odd and have previously stated within this thread is, I have yet to hear a digital distribution sound better than vinyl. The problem with this statement is its near impossible to make an apples to apples comparison. Just yesterday I learned of something of great interest to this thread which might go some distance in explaining some of the difference between digital and vinyl distribution. There is a website called dr.loudness-war.infothat has a huge data base of recordings including the various digital distributions as well as vinyl. One can compare the Dynamic Range of each of the releases and as often as not the digital releases will have more compressed DR compared to its vinyl counterpart. Go figure. Hidden agendas from the recording studios to release the same material at different levels? I don't know and we may never know. Regardless the problem I have in understanding this situation is the visual counterpart to the scenario. I am now in my 30th year as a professional photographer, cut my teeth on film for a very long time, the analog equivalent of tape in the recording industry but was a very early adopter with digital capture back in the mid 90's with some extremely high resolution digital gear that goes way beyond Nikons and Canons. My first digital setup cost me $18 + grand. I am known for my color correction and accuracy and work with artist from all over the country within this vain. Make no mistake for those who know what they are doing with equivalent gear digital capture annihilates any film that has ever been made now or in the past for accuracy and dynamic range. Its not even close by a long shot. So for me reconciling the difference in digital photography vs digital audio is extremely difficult especially when so many vinyl releases are mastered from digital sources masters. It would be the equivalent of making a digital photograph, then burning that file to film (which can be done) and declaring it to be better than the digital original. Its preposterous when it comes to photography, yet with audio it almost seems the order of the day. With this in mind, it becomes clearly evident that somewhere along the way these digital master recordings get stepped on… a lot apparently. Why, we can only conjecture. And it is worth noting there are some fabulous digital recordings and releases. One that comes to mind is Anne Akiko Meyers release earlier in the year of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. I don't care how many times you have heard this by whomever, brace yourself for this high res digital download on HD Tracks. It will blow you away not just for the performance which is extraordinary but for its sonics as well. Hope this helps. All I can say is blah blah blah. Neither analog nor digital is "perfect". Accuracy in audio is nonsense. Accurate to what? One guy's mastering opinion on his own loudspeakers? In video, no argument: there are video standards. Every video mastering suite has a calibrated monitor. There's no such thing in audio. After every story about the vinyl revival come a stream of bitter, angry digital enthusiasts. They can't seem to stand another music lover's pleasure coming from records. All I can think of is that they are not having such a great time listening to their CDs, not to mention their MP3s. CDs? I can't listen to them and never could. Not from DAY 1 when they were declared sonically superior to LPs which they certainly weren't with their brick wall filtering and in the early days positively awful filters. They've gotten better but records still sound way better and that's easily provable to any skeptic. Takes only a few minutes. I do it all the time with CDs of their choosing compared to 40 year old records played very often. Record wear, like CD's sonic superiority is a myth. Measurements? I listen. As for pops and clicks, clean records have none to few and the better your turntable the more detail you hear and the better impulse type noises are suppressed. And let me tell you, if pops and clicks ruin music for you better not go see live. People are sneezing, barfing, coughing all over the place--and especially don't go see classical music. The audiences are OLD: they are coughing, sneezing, choking, throat clearing, having strokes, and even dying. But somehow the music is so compelling you easily tune out those distraction. The bottom line is for many of us (MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME), we can sit down and be mesmerized by an album side and listen without distraction. Put on a CD or even a high rez file and we're doing other things in a few minutes. I went to the Munich Audio show and in the JBL room they were playing the SACD of Oscar Peterson's "We Get Requests" album. I had a 96k/24 bit vinyl rip of the double 45rpm set. Both the SACD and LP set were produced from the same master tape and issued by Analogue Productions. After "Quiet Nights" played on SACD I popped the USB stick into the computer and we listened to the vinyl rip. First of all there were NO artifacts of vinyl playback: no rumble, no pops and clicks, no noise. BUT EVERYONE in the room agreed that the vinyl rip DESTROYED the SACD. It was not even close. I really don't care if what vinyl does is additive. All recordings are B.S. When digital first started being used what did studios do first upon listening? They bought TUBE MIKES and TUBE COMPRESSORS. Anything to warm up the sound. Those were ADDITIVE choices. In the end it's the final sound that counts and it's easy to prove to anyone that good vinyl sounds better. Period. More difficult to get right? Yes. Less convenient? Yes. But that's not the argument. I'm winning this argument. Thank you for your OPINION. Why don't you register as a member here instead of just a guest, or is this just a temporary stop while you haul your flame thrower around to various forums?  |
|
|
|
Post by bigmule on Oct 30, 2014 8:31:08 GMT -5
All I can say is blah blah blah. Neither analog nor digital is "perfect". Accuracy in audio is nonsense. Accurate to what? One guy's mastering opinion on his own loudspeakers? In video, no argument: there are video standards. Every video mastering suite has a calibrated monitor. There's no such thing in audio. After every story about the vinyl revival come a stream of bitter, angry digital enthusiasts. They can't seem to stand another music lover's pleasure coming from records. All I can think of is that they are not having such a great time listening to their CDs, not to mention their MP3s. CDs? I can't listen to them and never could. Not from DAY 1 when they were declared sonically superior to LPs which they certainly weren't with their brick wall filtering and in the early days positively awful filters. They've gotten better but records still sound way better and that's easily provable to any skeptic. Takes only a few minutes. I do it all the time with CDs of their choosing compared to 40 year old records played very often. Record wear, like CD's sonic superiority is a myth. Measurements? I listen. As for pops and clicks, clean records have none to few and the better your turntable the more detail you hear and the better impulse type noises are suppressed. And let me tell you, if pops and clicks ruin music for you better not go see live. People are sneezing, barfing, coughing all over the place--and especially don't go see classical music. The audiences are OLD: they are coughing, sneezing, choking, throat clearing, having strokes, and even dying. But somehow the music is so compelling you easily tune out those distraction. The bottom line is for many of us (MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME), we can sit down and be mesmerized by an album side and listen without distraction. Put on a CD or even a high rez file and we're doing other things in a few minutes. I went to the Munich Audio show and in the JBL room they were playing the SACD of Oscar Peterson's "We Get Requests" album. I had a 96k/24 bit vinyl rip of the double 45rpm set. Both the SACD and LP set were produced from the same master tape and issued by Analogue Productions. After "Quiet Nights" played on SACD I popped the USB stick into the computer and we listened to the vinyl rip. First of all there were NO artifacts of vinyl playback: no rumble, no pops and clicks, no noise. BUT EVERYONE in the room agreed that the vinyl rip DESTROYED the SACD. It was not even close. I really don't care if what vinyl does is additive. All recordings are B.S. When digital first started being used what did studios do first upon listening? They bought TUBE MIKES and TUBE COMPRESSORS. Anything to warm up the sound. Those were ADDITIVE choices. In the end it's the final sound that counts and it's easy to prove to anyone that good vinyl sounds better. Period. More difficult to get right? Yes. Less convenient? Yes. But that's not the argument. I'm winning this argument. Thank you for your OPINION. Why don't you register as a member here instead of just a guest, or is this just a temporary stop while you haul your flame thrower around to various forums? Hi Monku, I invited Fremer to this thread as a guest, so you direct blame to me for his involvement. However, you must keep in mind, Keith started this debate, and was expecting to stir the pot -I just added an extra ingredient. So I think we should welcome someone as recognized as Michael Fremer taking the time to post on Emotiva's website - I think that is fantastic for Emotiva This business is 100% opinion based, who really cares if your neighbor listens to vinyl or digital, if they are taling the time to enjoy the music, that is what is important. I suggest you do a little research on the Beatles Mono vinyl box set, and you will quickly learn that Fremer played a big role in having that set released all analogue (AAA) rather than digitally mastered vinyl....wonder why they would choose to do that???...hhmmmm. Digital is different than analogue - just how the color red is different than the color green...no one can prove to me one color is superior. I love vinyl, always have, always will. I also own the Grateful Dead Europe 72 box set on CD, and all Dave's picks series on CD, which use the Plangent process (interesting process, which is digital) to remove the rumble of the tape head from the recording - this can only be done digitally, and I am thankful for that. Like or hate the Dead, the fact is they were using Mcintosh amps back in the 70's...they have alway been meticulous about sound quality. So, this debate will never end, but I hope it does't interfere with the reason why we are all on this site....to simply the enjoy music. Regards, Tony |
|
|
|
Post by bigmule on Oct 30, 2014 8:48:34 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with the term "AAA vinyl" - but, in the past, the actual quality of the vinyl used was rather important. When vinyl is first produced, it is referred to as "virgin vinyl". In the old days, most LPs were pressed on vinyl that was a combination of virgin vinyl and recycled scraps. (These could include the little bits trimmed off after the discs are pressed, as well as whole recycled records, which could have been there because they had pressing flaws, or simply because they were returned as unsold. Humorously, sometimes even tiny bits of label would make it through the recycling process, and you would occasionally find a lump in your new record. Beyond that, the long chain molecules in plastic degrade from heat and mechanical processing, so "reused" vinyl has slightly poorer mechanical properties.) High-quality audiophile pressings were usually done on "pure virgin vinyl" - and often had lower levels of surface noise and fewer ticks and pops (presumably because of the better vinyl). I would assume that this is supposed to be something along those lines... either virgin vinyl, or "better than normal" vinyl. Compression has always been a sore subject. I agree that many recent releases have very little dynamic range... and I'm inclined to put that down to several things. Back in the old days, radio broadcasts were notorious for being highly compressed, both because of "the loudness wars" and for the more legitimate reason that, since cars used to typically be rather noisy, a lot of compression made the broadcast sound better when played in a car - which is where a lot of radio listening took place. Many people also would leave the radio on "as background music" at home - which, again, tends to lend itself to lots of compression. I'm guessing that today, with a lot of portable listening done through poor fitting ear buds, and in noisy environments, again compression "serves a purpose". You've also got the fact that now compression is easier. With modern digital processing, it's quite simple to achieve levels of compression that would have been impossible with old analog equipment - at least without producing horrible side effects. The ease with which you can do all sorts of fancy processing today certainly encourages people to do more of it.... which is unfortunate. As far as radio broadcasts, there was nothing "hidden" about the agenda. When people tune across the dial looking for a station, they are more likely to notice and stop at loud stations than quiet ones. Since (especially with FM) the absolute maximum loudness level is fixed by the broadcast format itself, the easiest way to raise the perceived loudness level is to raise the average level - which you do by applying liberal doses of compression. (It's quite a bit like juicing up the saturation on photos so they "stand out" more.) This is still done on radio broadcasts, and TV commercials, today. One thing I would be interested in seeing would be a more detailed breakdown of the types of compression involved. Virtually all vinyl recordings are in fact compressed - even those good sounding old ones. On the very good ones, that compression would be limited to compressing very loud high frequency content (to avoid overloading the cutter head or exceeding the tracking abilities of a cartridge), and compressing very loud low frequency content (to manage the required track spacing effectively). However, this would not extend to compressing everything simply to make it louder. (So, even though overall there is still lots of dynamic range left, the original dynamics have been fiddled with.) It wouldn't surprise me if today some modern "audiophile vinyl" releases might be compressed less than their digital counterparts... Personally, I'm cynical enough to believe that this was done deliberately since, if the vinyl release sounded exactly the same as the CD version except for more ticks and pops, then nobody would buy it. However, if I'm going to be stuck with choosing the vinyl version because it's mastered better, or the CD version because it avoids the serious flaws inherent in vinyl, I just hope they'll at least let me pay a bit extra for the high-def digital version and avoid all the drawbacks of both.... As far as photography - I'm with you 100% there as well. If someone wants to use old black & white film, or even a Holga, "for artistic reasons", that's fine by me... but if they want to start claiming that their Holga takes more accurate pictures than my d800, then they really need to go back to school. One thing I think all the vinyl lovers are missing, however, is that once they admit that the differences are additive, then all sorts of new possibilities open up (at least once the industry catches on)..... If you really like the way vinyl albums sound on a particular $3000 cartridge and $10,000 turntable, then all you have to do is make high-quality 24/96 digital recordings of albums played on that equipment. Then you can distribute perfect digital copies to everyone who has similar tastes - and they can be played back on equipment that doesn't require a mortgage to own. Vinyl lovers; imagine a library where you could rent or purchase perfect recordings of your favorite albums, played on your choice of the top ten most popular super-expensive cartridge and turntable combinations, at reasonable prices. Thanks Bigmule. Not sure what AAA vinyl is unless you're just referring to well recorded vinyl in general and that makes sense. Agreed vinyl generally is considerably more expensive when shopping for new records compared to even hi res downloads and thats probably not going to change. What I do find odd and have previously stated within this thread is, I have yet to hear a digital distribution sound better than vinyl. The problem with this statement is its near impossible to make an apples to apples comparison. Just yesterday I learned of something of great interest to this thread which might go some distance in explaining some of the difference between digital and vinyl distribution. There is a website called dr.loudness-war.infothat has a huge data base of recordings including the various digital distributions as well as vinyl. One can compare the Dynamic Range of each of the releases and as often as not the digital releases will have more compressed DR compared to its vinyl counterpart. Go figure. Hidden agendas from the recording studios to release the same material at different levels? I don't know and we may never know. Regardless the problem I have in understanding this situation is the visual counterpart to the scenario. I am now in my 30th year as a professional photographer, cut my teeth on film for a very long time, the analog equivalent of tape in the recording industry but was a very early adopter with digital capture back in the mid 90's with some extremely high resolution digital gear that goes way beyond Nikons and Canons. My first digital setup cost me $18 + grand. I am known for my color correction and accuracy and work with artist from all over the country within this vain. Make no mistake for those who know what they are doing with equivalent gear digital capture annihilates any film that has ever been made now or in the past for accuracy and dynamic range. Its not even close by a long shot. So for me reconciling the difference in digital photography vs digital audio is extremely difficult especially when so many vinyl releases are mastered from digital sources masters. It would be the equivalent of making a digital photograph, then burning that file to film (which can be done) and declaring it to be better than the digital original. Its preposterous when it comes to photography, yet with audio it almost seems the order of the day. With this in mind, it becomes clearly evident that somewhere along the way these digital master recordings get stepped on… a lot apparently. Why, we can only conjecture. And it is worth noting there are some fabulous digital recordings and releases. One that comes to mind is Anne Akiko Meyers release earlier in the year of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. I don't care how many times you have heard this by whomever, brace yourself for this high res digital download on HD Tracks. It will blow you away not just for the performance which is extraordinary but for its sonics as well. Hope this helps. AAA is referring to the mastering process....explained here from United Record Pressing (also a Nashville company): In ideal situations (i.e. just after winning the lottery) you'd record on reel-to-reel then have it mastered on analog equip- ment. There are things that experienced engineers do differently when mixing for vinyl. So in a perfect world it's AAA (analog recording, mixing and output). For those of you who remember when CDs first came around they all had codes on the package that said AAD (analog/ analog/digital) or ADD (analog/digital/digital). These days a lot of the vinyl could come out with a DDA on it because lots of it is recorded and mixed digitally before being transferred to vinyl. full link: www.tunecore.com/guides/basics_of_vinylhope that helps |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 30, 2014 9:12:45 GMT -5
Bigmule, thanks for clarifying AAA vinyl, makes sense now and yes I do remember those early days of cd's with the code on the back. Also thanks for inviting M. Fremer into the fray.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 30, 2014 11:41:11 GMT -5
All I can say is blah blah blah. Neither analog nor digital is "perfect". Accuracy in audio is nonsense. Accurate to what? One guy's mastering opinion on his own loudspeakers? In video, no argument: there are video standards. Every video mastering suite has a calibrated monitor. There's no such thing in audio. After every story about the vinyl revival come a stream of bitter, angry digital enthusiasts. They can't seem to stand another music lover's pleasure coming from records. All I can think of is that they are not having such a great time listening to their CDs, not to mention their MP3s. CDs? I can't listen to them and never could. Not from DAY 1 when they were declared sonically superior to LPs which they certainly weren't with their brick wall filtering and in the early days positively awful filters. They've gotten better but records still sound way better and that's easily provable to any skeptic. Takes only a few minutes. I do it all the time with CDs of their choosing compared to 40 year old records played very often. Record wear, like CD's sonic superiority is a myth. Measurements? I listen. As for pops and clicks, clean records have none to few and the better your turntable the more detail you hear and the better impulse type noises are suppressed. And let me tell you, if pops and clicks ruin music for you better not go see live. People are sneezing, barfing, coughing all over the place--and especially don't go see classical music. The audiences are OLD: they are coughing, sneezing, choking, throat clearing, having strokes, and even dying. But somehow the music is so compelling you easily tune out those distraction. The bottom line is for many of us (MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME), we can sit down and be mesmerized by an album side and listen without distraction. Put on a CD or even a high rez file and we're doing other things in a few minutes. I went to the Munich Audio show and in the JBL room they were playing the SACD of Oscar Peterson's "We Get Requests" album. I had a 96k/24 bit vinyl rip of the double 45rpm set. Both the SACD and LP set were produced from the same master tape and issued by Analogue Productions. After "Quiet Nights" played on SACD I popped the USB stick into the computer and we listened to the vinyl rip. First of all there were NO artifacts of vinyl playback: no rumble, no pops and clicks, no noise. BUT EVERYONE in the room agreed that the vinyl rip DESTROYED the SACD. It was not even close. I really don't care if what vinyl does is additive. All recordings are B.S. When digital first started being used what did studios do first upon listening? They bought TUBE MIKES and TUBE COMPRESSORS. Anything to warm up the sound. Those were ADDITIVE choices. In the end it's the final sound that counts and it's easy to prove to anyone that good vinyl sounds better. Period. More difficult to get right? Yes. Less convenient? Yes. But that's not the argument. I'm winning this argument. Talk about blah blah blah... |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Oct 30, 2014 11:52:55 GMT -5
All I can say is blah blah blah. Neither analog nor digital is "perfect". Accuracy in audio is nonsense. Accurate to what? One guy's mastering opinion on his own loudspeakers? In video, no argument: there are video standards. Every video mastering suite has a calibrated monitor. There's no such thing in audio. After every story about the vinyl revival come a stream of bitter, angry digital enthusiasts. They can't seem to stand another music lover's pleasure coming from records. All I can think of is that they are not having such a great time listening to their CDs, not to mention their MP3s. CDs? I can't listen to them and never could. Not from DAY 1 when they were declared sonically superior to LPs which they certainly weren't with their brick wall filtering and in the early days positively awful filters. They've gotten better but records still sound way better and that's easily provable to any skeptic. Takes only a few minutes. I do it all the time with CDs of their choosing compared to 40 year old records played very often. Record wear, like CD's sonic superiority is a myth. Measurements? I listen. As for pops and clicks, clean records have none to few and the better your turntable the more detail you hear and the better impulse type noises are suppressed. And let me tell you, if pops and clicks ruin music for you better not go see live. People are sneezing, barfing, coughing all over the place--and especially don't go see classical music. The audiences are OLD: they are coughing, sneezing, choking, throat clearing, having strokes, and even dying. But somehow the music is so compelling you easily tune out those distraction. The bottom line is for many of us (MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME), we can sit down and be mesmerized by an album side and listen without distraction. Put on a CD or even a high rez file and we're doing other things in a few minutes. I went to the Munich Audio show and in the JBL room they were playing the SACD of Oscar Peterson's "We Get Requests" album. I had a 96k/24 bit vinyl rip of the double 45rpm set. Both the SACD and LP set were produced from the same master tape and issued by Analogue Productions. After "Quiet Nights" played on SACD I popped the USB stick into the computer and we listened to the vinyl rip. First of all there were NO artifacts of vinyl playback: no rumble, no pops and clicks, no noise. BUT EVERYONE in the room agreed that the vinyl rip DESTROYED the SACD. It was not even close. I really don't care if what vinyl does is additive. All recordings are B.S. When digital first started being used what did studios do first upon listening? They bought TUBE MIKES and TUBE COMPRESSORS. Anything to warm up the sound. Those were ADDITIVE choices. In the end it's the final sound that counts and it's easy to prove to anyone that good vinyl sounds better. Period. More difficult to get right? Yes. Less convenient? Yes. But that's not the argument. I'm winning this argument. Talk about blah blah blah... I think you didn't interpret that correctly. The "All I can say is blah blah blah" was meant as a preface to the rest of the post to let you know what was coming, and the rest of the post confirmed that introductory sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Oct 30, 2014 12:04:31 GMT -5
All I can say is blah blah blah. Neither analog nor digital is "perfect". Accuracy in audio is nonsense. Accurate to what? One guy's mastering opinion on his own loudspeakers? In video, no argument: there are video standards. Every video mastering suite has a calibrated monitor. There's no such thing in audio. After every story about the vinyl revival come a stream of bitter, angry digital enthusiasts. They can't seem to stand another music lover's pleasure coming from records. All I can think of is that they are not having such a great time listening to their CDs, not to mention their MP3s. CDs? I can't listen to them and never could. Not from DAY 1 when they were declared sonically superior to LPs which they certainly weren't with their brick wall filtering and in the early days positively awful filters. They've gotten better but records still sound way better and that's easily provable to any skeptic. Takes only a few minutes. I do it all the time with CDs of their choosing compared to 40 year old records played very often. Record wear, like CD's sonic superiority is a myth. Measurements? I listen. As for pops and clicks, clean records have none to few and the better your turntable the more detail you hear and the better impulse type noises are suppressed. And let me tell you, if pops and clicks ruin music for you better not go see live. People are sneezing, barfing, coughing all over the place--and especially don't go see classical music. The audiences are OLD: they are coughing, sneezing, choking, throat clearing, having strokes, and even dying. But somehow the music is so compelling you easily tune out those distraction. The bottom line is for many of us (MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME), we can sit down and be mesmerized by an album side and listen without distraction. Put on a CD or even a high rez file and we're doing other things in a few minutes. I went to the Munich Audio show and in the JBL room they were playing the SACD of Oscar Peterson's "We Get Requests" album. I had a 96k/24 bit vinyl rip of the double 45rpm set. Both the SACD and LP set were produced from the same master tape and issued by Analogue Productions. After "Quiet Nights" played on SACD I popped the USB stick into the computer and we listened to the vinyl rip. First of all there were NO artifacts of vinyl playback: no rumble, no pops and clicks, no noise. BUT EVERYONE in the room agreed that the vinyl rip DESTROYED the SACD. It was not even close. I really don't care if what vinyl does is additive. All recordings are B.S. When digital first started being used what did studios do first upon listening? They bought TUBE MIKES and TUBE COMPRESSORS. Anything to warm up the sound. Those were ADDITIVE choices. In the end it's the final sound that counts and it's easy to prove to anyone that good vinyl sounds better. Period. More difficult to get right? Yes. Less convenient? Yes. But that's not the argument. I'm winning this argument. Talk about blah blah blah... More humor Geebo? |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 30, 2014 12:12:05 GMT -5
Talk about blah blah blah... I think you didn't interpret that correctly. The "All I can say is blah blah blah" was meant as a preface to the rest of the post to let you know what was coming, and the rest of the post confirmed that introductory sentence. Ah, I got it. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 30, 2014 12:13:51 GMT -5
Talk about blah blah blah... More humor Geebo? |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 30, 2014 12:21:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Oct 30, 2014 12:35:08 GMT -5
things a little foggy Jim. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 30, 2014 12:36:40 GMT -5
things a little foggy Jim. I feel like I'm reading a political thread, with campaign attack ads! "Vote for vinyl! Because digital will raise taxes and destroy your infrastructure!" "CDs cause high gas prices!" |
|
