|
|
Post by hcsunshine90 on Nov 27, 2014 6:08:40 GMT -5
happy thanksgiving y'all. I was going to title this "analog AND digital", but it is partly a response to Keith L's thread titled "digital is better". anyway, listen to David Fricke of rolling stone magazine interview Bob Weir with thoughts on analog and digital music. Weir states, "they do stress tests and stuff like that and have pretty much born out that your body resists digital music whereas analog music it welcomes it". now I'm saying, I remember the first time I listened to a CD and yes, it sounded so good, but yet sounded like there was something wrong with the music, and that it caused me stress on some level. maybe we've all just got used to this sound... www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoyq1qGiP6I ...caveat: I listen to both analog and digital music. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 27, 2014 8:42:02 GMT -5
Sounds like Bob's had one too many tokes..........
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Nov 27, 2014 14:12:44 GMT -5
Stress tests - where did they do these tests? Gitmo? Are we going to get a new spec for gear: Total Harmonic Stress?
:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 27, 2014 17:21:26 GMT -5
Hey, I can write fiction too!
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Nov 27, 2014 21:36:57 GMT -5
Hmm, interesting topic here. Pops, clicks, surface noise of the vinyl. Wow, and Flutter. All of which is absent from digital. I am an "analog" hound since the beginning, and I will tell you, digital is more convenient, and the days of cleaning records, replacing belts, and cleaning tape recorder heads, biasing, and aligning tape for a tape machine in question is all over. Do I miss it? Uh, not really. I miss some of the additional odd order harmonics it may throw in the song making it fatter sounding. Was it better, or correct. Hmm, I differ that to Keith L.
All I know is that digital does not have mean poor sounding. With so many quality streams available, newest one I am looking at, Tidal, I don't really care for analog anymore. Only too happy to get rid of those analog boxes. Setup my playlist on my computerized device, send it to a quality DAC to my Stealths, color me happy. End of story.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanaudio on Feb 12, 2015 1:31:16 GMT -5
Is digital more convenient? Yes!
Does it sound better? No.
Does it sound as good? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It has more to do with the quality of the actual recording and mastering than the medium of playback. Example, Steeley Dan sounds excellent on vinyl and digital. Outkast sounds like they were recorded on a child's toy tape deck and sounds bad no matter what you play them on.
I would say that, on the whole, a high end turntable and cartridge will give you better sound than a high end digital source, whether it be a universal disc player, a media server, etc. The problem is that nowadays a high end turntable and cartridge will easily cost you the same as a new Lexus, and can push up into Corvette or even Porsche territory quickly. And an Oppo cost a grand. Hmmmm.
I still keep my old NAD (mid 80's) turntable up and running, and enjou BOTH digital and analog recordings.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanaudio on Feb 12, 2015 1:45:18 GMT -5
A view of my turntable; the NAD 5120. I got it somewhere between 84 and 86. Can't remember exactly when.  Has a flat tone arm Basically, a modified piece of circuit board. |
|
|
|
Post by jcam2881 on Feb 12, 2015 8:12:18 GMT -5
A view of my turntable; the NAD 5120. I got it somewhere between 84 and 86. Can't remember exactly when. View AttachmentHas a flat tone arm Basically, a modified piece of circuit board. I asked four of my junior colleagues (I'm 35) the other night what is your favorite album to listen to... All 4 said what?? I don't know what you mean.. They said you mean a record? We only listen to songs - I like Rihanna ... Ugh- face palm ! None of the 4 have any CDs and they all claim to not even own a CD player. |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Feb 12, 2015 8:22:35 GMT -5
Stress tests - where did they do these tests? Gitmo? Are we going to get a new spec for gear: Total Harmonic Stress? :-) Post Musical Stress Syndrome? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 12, 2015 11:00:51 GMT -5
For the most part I agree with you... but I will throw in one more detail from the "purist perspective". Whether you like the sound of a high-end turntable or not is up to you, but there is no turntable and cartridge AT ANY PRICE (and, yes, that includes the $100,000 ones) that is CAPABLE of reproducing an audio signal as accurately as a 24/192 digital recording. You can argue 'til the cows come home about whether the digital recording is "perfect" or whether "you can hear the flaws" or whether "the analog version sounds better", but there is no debate whatsoever about the fact that the noise, distortion, and frequency response variations in even the absolute best analog vinyl equipment ARE significant enough to be audible. (And, ignoring the player itself, vinyl itself is incapable of noise and distortion performance to equal even a "plain old CD". Regardless of what "digital distortion" you may or may not really hear from a CD, or whether you find the flaws in vinyl more or less annoying, vinyl clearly has levels of distortion and noise that are absolutely audible. The fact that you may prefer certain flaws over others doesn't change the fact that vinyl has very poor noise and distortion performance. You show me a record that can deliver a MEASURED S/N of 120 dB, a THD of less than 0.005%, and a frequency response flat within +/- 0.1 dB and I'll eat it - including all the metalwork on the turntable. And, no, I'm not a fanatic ONLY for the measurements, but the surface noise and distortion on vinyl always drove me nuts, and a single bad scratch would send me back to the record store looking for "a good copy"... which is why I don't do vinyl anymore.) Again, from an absolute purist point of view, try this experiment.... Find the two "best" combinations of turntable, cartridge, and phono preamp you can; play your favorite album on them both; and listen carefully. Can you hear a difference between them? (I'll bet you answered "yes"). Well then, since there can only be one possible objective PERFECT reproduction of the original, if they sound different, then at least one of them is wrong... and quite possibly both. It's simple; if both were perfect, then they would sound identical. I'm more inclined to attribute "the decline of the music scene" to the listeners. If you're referring to sound quality, then it's pretty obvious that THE overwhelming factor is the fact that the majority of listeners are listening to their music on either the tiny little speakers in smart phones or on a $10 pair of ear buds. If you're referring to the music itself, you can probably credit that to the fact that, as more and more things compete for our attention, and less and less people actually sit down and LISTEN to music carefully, the priority is more for a song to catch your attention immediately rather than to be "so good you listen for details". And a song that's so catchy that everyone listens to it will be a success - even if it's also so annoying that nobody can stand it after a week. (Although I do recall a time when the "classic rock" I listen to was considered to be "modern junk", so musical preference is always going to be a moving target.) The one way in which I do agree that digital media has contributed to this decline is in terms of accessibility. As it has become easier for anyone to master an album in their basement with $200 worth of software, this HAS to have contributed to the huge amount of amateurish and poorly mastered music out there. (Of course, on the positive side, it gives us a lot more variety, and gives many artists an opportunity to publish who you wouldn't ever have heard of otherwise; but, on the negative side, it gives us a lot more mediocre crap to wade through to find those few extra gems.) Is digital more convenient? Yes! Does it sound better? No. Does it sound as good? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It has more to do with the quality of the actual recording and mastering than the medium of playback. Example, Steeley Dan sounds excellent on vinyl and digital. Outkast sounds like they were recorded on a child's toy tape deck and sounds bad no matter what you play them on. I would say that, on the whole, a high end turntable and cartridge will give you better sound than a high end digital source, whether it be a universal disc player, a media server, etc. The problem is that nowadays a high end turntable and cartridge will easily cost you the same as a new Lexus, and can push up into Corvette or even Porsche territory quickly. And an Oppo cost a grand. Hmmmm. I still keep my old NAD (mid 80's) turntable up and running, and enjou BOTH digital and analog recordings. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 12, 2015 11:53:09 GMT -5
Don't overlook the garbage being marketed as music these days......anyone watch the grammys?
Kanye West, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanaudio on Feb 12, 2015 12:41:31 GMT -5
Keith,
For the most part I agree with you. Whether digital or analog, if you have the original master, the sound would be as close to perfect as you can get and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. However, the more steps you add to the production process the more likely the sound degrades by the time it reaches you. Older works (think classic rock from the sixties and seventies) were analog mastered and converting them to digital adds extra steps to the production process that adds to the probability that the sound will degrade. By the same token, something digitally mastered 2 years ago will have extra steps to make it an analog recording, increasing the probability that the sound will degrade.
The main reason I keep my turntable, however, is that I've noticed the record labels have a tendency to switch the songs on older works when they put them on cd or make them available. Prime example is the Beatles' Rubber Soul. Basically a soft/folk rock type album. On the original album it opened with I've Just Seen a Face. On the cd it opens with Drive My Car, which sticks out like a sore thumb.
As far as longevity, like you said, digital by a mile.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 12, 2015 13:18:33 GMT -5
Keith, For the most part I agree with you. Whether digital or analog, if you have the original master, the sound would be as close to perfect as you can get and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. However, the more steps you add to the production process the more likely the sound degrades by the time it reaches you. Older works (think classic rock from the sixties and seventies) were analog mastered and converting them to digital adds extra steps to the production process that adds to the probability that the sound will degrade. By the same token, something digitally mastered 2 years ago will have extra steps to make it an analog recording, increasing the probability that the sound will degrade. The main reason I keep my turntable, however, is that I've noticed the record labels have a tendency to switch the songs on older works when they put them on cd or make them available. Prime example is the Beatles' Rubber Soul. Basically a soft/folk rock type album. On the original album it opened with I've Just Seen a Face. On the cd it opens with Drive My Car, which sticks out like a sore thumb. As far as longevity, like you said, digital by a mile. Records were routinely recorded with the loudest/bassiest music in the outer edges because of the issues with inner grooves not handling those as well as the outer grooves. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 12, 2015 16:29:22 GMT -5
And, for people trying to compare original vinyl recordings to their new "CD remastered" counterparts, there is yet another issue. It seems obvious that many early CD remasters were significantly remixed specifically to ensure that they sounded different enough from the vinyl original that people would consider them to be worth buying. It seems obvious that the treble on many early CDs is boosted far beyond what makes sense, or what sounds good, and the only possible explanation is that this was done so as to accentuate the "bright clean high end" that people expected from "digital music". (It's also quite likely that, since many early speakers were lacking in very high treble, many of those early CDs that sound "shrill and gritty" today might have sounded much better on the equipment they were typically played on when they were originally sold.) Keith, For the most part I agree with you. Whether digital or analog, if you have the original master, the sound would be as close to perfect as you can get and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. However, the more steps you add to the production process the more likely the sound degrades by the time it reaches you. Older works (think classic rock from the sixties and seventies) were analog mastered and converting them to digital adds extra steps to the production process that adds to the probability that the sound will degrade. By the same token, something digitally mastered 2 years ago will have extra steps to make it an analog recording, increasing the probability that the sound will degrade. The main reason I keep my turntable, however, is that I've noticed the record labels have a tendency to switch the songs on older works when they put them on cd or make them available. Prime example is the Beatles' Rubber Soul. Basically a soft/folk rock type album. On the original album it opened with I've Just Seen a Face. On the cd it opens with Drive My Car, which sticks out like a sore thumb. As far as longevity, like you said, digital by a mile. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Feb 13, 2015 11:39:08 GMT -5
The main reason I keep my turntable, however, is that I've noticed the record labels have a tendency to switch the songs on older works when they put them on cd or make them available. Prime example is the Beatles' Rubber Soul. Basically a soft/folk rock type album. On the original album it opened with I've Just Seen a Face. On the cd it opens with Drive My Car, which sticks out like a sore thumb. As far as longevity, like you said, digital by a mile. I believe on the original British EMI release "Drive My Car" was the opening track. You (like me) became familiar with the American Capitol Records release where several songs are different including the opening cut (I find "Drive My Car" a jarring opening as well. However, the EMI release is how the Beatles intended the album to be so from a purist perspective it is correct. This however is just another argument for digital music as you can now create a "Capitol Rubber Soul" playlist mixing tracks from the EMI Rubber Soul and Help albums. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmanaudio on Feb 14, 2015 11:51:11 GMT -5
The main reason I keep my turntable, however, is that I've noticed the record labels have a tendency to switch the songs on older works when they put them on cd or make them available. Prime example is the Beatles' Rubber Soul. Basically a soft/folk rock type album. On the original album it opened with I've Just Seen a Face. On the cd it opens with Drive My Car, which sticks out like a sore thumb. As far as longevity, like you said, digital by a mile. I believe on the original British EMI release "Drive My Car" was the opening track. You (like me) became familiar with the American Capitol Records release where several songs are different including the opening cut (I find "Drive My Car" a jarring opening as well. However, the EMI release is how the Beatles intended the album to be so from a purist perspective it is correct. This however is just another argument for digital music as you can now create a "Capitol Rubber Soul" playlist mixing tracks from the EMI Rubber Soul and Help albums. Yeah, the Original British release did have "Drive My Car" as the opening track. Never could figure that out. Just didn't go with the rest of the album. "I've Just Seen a Face" was on the British release of "Help". Damnedist thing though, I think "I've Just Seen a Face" doesn't fit on "Help". Go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by qualityaudio on Feb 14, 2015 13:00:12 GMT -5
When I moved cross country in 1985, I decided CD's, or some other digital format, was going to ultimately replace vinyl, so I decided to abandon analog then. Without a turntable for comparison, I'll never know the difference and find digital to be completely satisfying.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I do miss the machinery doing the work of producing music, however. Music used to always be accompanied by some kind of movement. I miss seeing the platter turning and the tonearm tracking the disk, or a pair of reels turning at slightly different speeds, or even a set of VU meters bouncing to the rhythms.
|
|
|
|
Post by MusicHead on Feb 14, 2015 17:05:10 GMT -5
I also believe that the limitation of vinyl led (and leads) recording and especially mixing engineers to be careful with levels and equalization. With digital it seems to me it is easy to be carried away and overdo things. As long as you stay under 0db FS you are pretty much safe. They don't call it "loudness war" for nothing :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanaudio on Feb 15, 2015 10:54:53 GMT -5
I do miss the machinery doing the work of producing music, however. Music used to always be accompanied by some kind of movement. I miss seeing the platter turning and the tonearm tracking the disk, or a pair of reels turning at slightly different speeds, or even a set of VU meters bouncing to the rhythms. There's something about VU meters. Pretty much useless as far as your listening enjoyment goes, but they look so cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 15, 2015 11:11:51 GMT -5
I think that the general population with mp3 as a choice of listen to in a crappie mobile device as their soul listening is a powerful element of why CD, and other sales of media suffer. I am not buying there is a decline in music due to digital, but in how we chose to listen. I am in a business that promotes the above mode of listen. Temporary I assure you as nothing here where I work has any semblance of fidelity. I like the Digital music, and analog too. Some new catchy well recorded tunes are out there if you look for them, instead of using your energy about what is not there anymore. Vinyl is doing well sure, but its slice of the musical pie is small. CD listening and Blu Ray and Hi res is where my world is. Putting all my music in my pocket with uncompressed audio in a 128gb thumb drive for almost free. How could that be bad.
|
|
