Jump to content
IGNORED

Vinyl sounds better due to missing informtion in digital files.....


Recommended Posts

That's what it says here anyway.....

 

The Effects Of Digitisation On The Way In Which Music Is Experienced Today | Classic Album Sundays

 

If I wasn't such a chilled out chap, some of this kind of stuff could make me quite angry.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
That's what it says here anyway.....

 

The Effects Of Digitisation On The Way In Which Music Is Experienced Today | Classic Album Sundays

 

If I wasn't such a chilled out chap, some of this kind of stuff could make me quite angry.

 

Boy, that article is a bunch of ignorant "alternative facts". I have no quibble with people who prefer vinyl - just stop making the idiotic claim that vinyl reproduction is somehow intrinsically superior to digital.

 

The real irony is that most of these vinyl lovers don't even realize they are listening to a record derived from a digital master.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

It's not just vinyl. There has been a resurgence of cassette tapes recently, too, and I have actually heard people say that cassettes sound intrinsically better than CDs because they are analog rather than digital.

 

I wonder what percentage of those cassettes come from a completely analog production chain. Very few, I would guess.

Link to comment
It's not just vinyl. There has been a resurgence of cassette tapes recently, too, and I have actually heard people say that cassettes sound intrinsically better than CDs because they are analog rather than digital.

 

I wonder what percentage of those cassettes come from a completely analog production chain. Very few, I would guess.

 

There is actually an article on this very subject in this months 'Hifi News and Record Review'. The first point to note is that although it is true that there is a resurgence, the overall numbers are very small. The second point is that the majority of cassettes being produced are indeed from digital sources, however there are one or two bands planning to release material on cassette for the very reason that they can achieve a 100% 'non digital' recording. The only band actually mentioned was 'My Bloody Valentine' who apparently did not want any 'digital corruption'. (I also note that 'My Bloody Valentine's' website is currently offering vinyl, CD and 24/96 downloads, so at least they remain realistic about things)

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment

Agree with you... but tape can sound bloody wonderful.

 

 

 

It's not just vinyl. There has been a resurgence of cassette tapes recently, too, and I have actually heard people say that cassettes sound intrinsically better than CDs because they are analog rather than digital.

 

I wonder what percentage of those cassettes come from a completely analog production chain. Very few, I would guess.

Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Link to comment
That's what it says here anyway.....

 

The Effects Of Digitisation On The Way In Which Music Is Experienced Today | Classic Album Sundays

 

If I wasn't such a chilled out chap, some of this kind of stuff could make me quite angry.

 

Complete and utter nonsense! If a record sounds better than a CD it's because the CD wasn't as well mastered as the LP and I've seen (heard?) that for myself. People seem to forget (because society has a seemingly short memory) that in the heyday of the LP most records sounded terrible and were fraught with manufacturing defects. Warping, a condition called underfill, detritus in the grooves from packaging, indifferent mastering, eccentric punching of the center hole, noisy vinyl mix (mostly on pop and "budget" classical labels (like Vox Turnabout), and poor remasters. For example, listen to an original RCA Red Seal of Also Sprach Zarathustra with Reiner and the Chicago Philharmonic, then listen to any of the various remasterings by RCA of that same performance. The original is real Hi-Fi store demonstration material, on the Victrola re-issue you can barely hear the opening organ note, and on the later RCA Gold re-issue you can hear it, but it is an octave higher in frequency! At least with CD, you don't get as many manufacturing defects. Of all the thousands of CDs in my collection, I don't remember ever receiving a defective one. Can't say that about records. I can't count the number of times I had to return to Tower Records to exchange a defective pressing an hour or so after purchasing it, only to find that their entire stock of that title had the same manufacturing defect. One I particularly remember was a "Vox Box" from the mid '70's of the "Complete Orchestral Works of Maurice Ravel" with the Minnesota Orchestra under Stanislaw Skrowaczewski. Every copy I obtained was defective in some way and I wanted the set badly because the performances were marvelous and I could tell that beneath all the noisy vinyl and underfill, the set contained magnificent performances that (would have) sounded magnificent as well (Produced by Marc Aubort And Joanna Nikrenz) I had to wait until the 1990's for Vox/Turnabout to release the set on two 2-disc CD packages to hear it properly! I'm not saying that an LP can't sound spectacular, they can. But it seems that most people who think that LPs sound better than CDs are pop music listeners who might just possibly get that opinion by comparing modern CD reissues of works originally released on LP and who notice the highly compressed audio on the CD when compared to the Vinyl. Like I've said before, I'm essentially media agnostic. The media of choice to me, is generally determined by where the music I want is located. If it's 78s then I'll get off of 78s, if it's LP, I'll take LP (or even 45 EP) if it's CD, then CD it is etc, etc.

 

George

Link to comment
But it seems that most people who think that LPs sound better than CDs are pop music listeners

 

I must be the exception that proves your rule George, as my listening is 99% classical but, even though digital interests me more and makes up the majority of my listening these days, I still find vinyl (by which I mean analogue recordings, ASD, SXL, SAX etc from late 50s through to early 80s) to be consistently superior SQ-wise and by some margin. In a number of cases I have the exact same recording on both vinyl and as a CD reissue and pretty much without exception the vinyl simply sounds more like live music than the CD. A good example being Boult's Apostles on HMV - fabulous dynamics on vinyl, by comparison "squashed" sounding and ditchwater dull on CD.

 

I'm not making any technical claims for vinyl, just reporting on the evidence of my own senses as an alternative viewpoint. However, could there be SQ advantages to be gained in keeping things in the analogue domain from recording to reproduction, rather than sampling, encoding and then decoding the sound?

Link to comment

It is also possible the distortion is euphonic, and that the de-emphasized, mono bass component sounds better to people as well, along with the comfort of nostalgia with the pops, clicks, wow, flutter and gradual degradation of the source material with each play. Plus people use the album covers to help remove the seeds from their marijuana that they will combust and inhale to make the vinyl sound superior.

Link to comment
I must be the exception that proves your rule George, as my listening is 99% classical but, even though digital interests me more and makes up the majority of my listening these days, I still find vinyl (by which I mean analogue recordings, ASD, SXL, SAX etc from late 50s through to early 80s) to be consistently superior SQ-wise and by some margin. In a number of cases I have the exact same recording on both vinyl and as a CD reissue and pretty much without exception the vinyl simply sounds more like live music than the CD. A good example being Boult's Apostles on HMV - fabulous dynamics on vinyl, by comparison "squashed" sounding and ditchwater dull on CD.

 

I'm not making any technical claims for vinyl, just reporting on the evidence of my own senses as an alternative viewpoint. However, could there be SQ advantages to be gained in keeping things in the analogue domain from recording to reproduction, rather than sampling, encoding and then decoding the sound?

 

Jonathan Valin in an editorial in the April 2017 The Abso!ute Sound also makes an argument for vinyl bettering computer audio sonically. Unlike you, though, he overreaches and his piece is filled with errors, half truths, bias and far less open mindedness than your views above.

 

You are not the exception, though, these days. The vinyl resurgence seems real, but sales numbers of new LPs are still miniscule compared to digital.

 

My listening is 99% classical as well. I personally do not agree with you at all, however, as to the sonic superiority of vinyl. I am fortunate to have a fair number of friends with similarly decent systems, typically around the $50k range, mostly more or some less. None of us still spins vinyl and some have sold their LPs, often thousands of them, and also their fairly pricey vinyl player rigs. None of us misses it. Two of my group are recording critics of some note for audiophile magazines with massive collections of all media, including LP. Most of us attend classical concerts with some regularity.

 

Mostly, the highest SQ praise in my circle is for new recordings natively done in hi rez on SACD, BD-A and -V and downloads. About half of us distinctly prefer hi rez multichannel over stereo for best sound which is most faithful to the original live music in our view. I personally am more radical and I do not even listen to CDs as a rule. But, some of my friends do like remastered older stereo or even mono recordings on occasion, but always via digital playback.

 

In answer to your question, no, there are no SQ advantages to keeping things in the analog domain from recording to reproduction in the opinion of most listeners, me included. Sales statistics bear this out. There are also huge disadvantages technically and economically in going back to an all analog and electromechanical recording, mastering, manufacturing and distribution model.

 

I will also cite an example. Generally considered the greatest recording project of all time is the Wagner Ring under Solti, produced by Culshaw for British Decca in 4 album releases over many years. Several friends and I, of course, own the LPs. We also have heard both the CD remasterings. The first was bad. The second better, but arguably still not up to the LPs.

 

Now, we also have the Decca remastering on BD-A and the Esoteric on SACD. One friend wrote up the Decca remastering in his review in a prominent magazine. Our consensus is that the Solti Ring has never sounded better than from the Decca BD-A. The limited edition Esoteric SACD is not quite at that same level, but makes one wonder why even listen to the LPs? We see no reason. And, I would add that this is apparent on playback from a $500-$1200 Oppo player or from a PC into a decent DAC. Our comparisons used vinyl playback schemes quite outrageously more expensive than that.

 

The LPs captured state of the art sound for their day, and it is always a thrill to listen to, but it is now frozen in time. The evolution of digital technology is clearly evident from hearing the various attempts to recapture that sound, including the early fumbles and stumbles which I think have been overcome quite successfully today.

Link to comment
I must be the exception that proves your rule George, as my listening is 99% classical but, even though digital interests me more and makes up the majority of my listening these days, I still find vinyl (by which I mean analogue recordings, ASD, SXL, SAX etc from late 50s through to early 80s) to be consistently superior SQ-wise and by some margin. In a number of cases I have the exact same recording on both vinyl and as a CD reissue and pretty much without exception the vinyl simply sounds more like live music than the CD. A good example being Boult's Apostles on HMV - fabulous dynamics on vinyl, by comparison "squashed" sounding and ditchwater dull on CD.

 

I too have examples of that. Probably everyone who listens to both have examples where the LP sounds much better than the CD. I also have examples where a CD of a performance sounds better than an SACD, or even a 24/96 of the same performance. I just don't believe that it is strictly the the fault of the any of the various media. The production process for both digital and vinyl is long and complicated and there are plenty of places for engineers to meddle by adding what they think sounds "better" than the microphone capture along the way.

I'm not making any technical claims for vinyl, just reporting on the evidence of my own senses as an alternative viewpoint. However, could there be SQ advantages to be gained in keeping things in the analogue domain from recording to reproduction, rather than sampling, encoding and then decoding the sound?

 

I've made enough digital and analog recordings to be able to say with some confidence that a well-made digital master sounds better than an equally well made analog master. Have you ever compared (back in the analog days) an HMV pressing to the Angel (Capitol) pressing from the same master? The HMV invariably sounded MUCH better. I used to buy an Angel of a new release and then when I found the HMV import (usually with an "Odeon" label covering the HMV logo) I would replace the Angel with the HMV! I don't know where in the chain, that Capitol screwed up. Never did figure it out. Did HMV send Capitol an inferior cutting master? Or did Capitol's Angel division try to make the HMV sound "better" by changing the EQ?

George

Link to comment

 

 

I've made enough digital and analog recordings to be able to say with some confidence that a well-made digital master sounds better than an equally well made analog master. Have you ever compared (back in the analog days) an HMV pressing to the Angel (Capitol) pressing from the same master? The HMV invariably sounded MUCH better. I used to buy an Angel of a new release and then when I found the HMV import (usually with an "Odeon" label covering the HMV logo) I would replace the Angel with the HMV! I don't know where in the chain, that Capitol screwed up. Never did figure it out. Did HMV send Capitol an inferior cutting master? Or did Capitol's Angel division try to make the HMV sound "better" by changing the EQ?

 

All of the above are possible. I don't know about classical, but in other types of music I've read about all of those scenarios occurring between EMI and daughter labels in the States.

 

If the relationship was anything like the relationship in pop music between Capitol and the mother company, EMI, it could be that Capitol did not get the original master or even a first generation copy, but a slightly different, even inferior version. It's well documented that this happened with popular music, even with a group like the Beatles.

 

Or, the American vinyl and/or pressings were just lower quality?

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
All of the above are possible. I don't know about classical, but in other types of music I've read about all of those scenarios occurring between EMI and daughter labels in the States.

 

If the relationship was anything like the relationship in pop music between Capitol and the mother company, EMI, it could be that Capitol did not get the original master or even a first generation copy, but a slightly different, even inferior version. It's well documented that this happened with popular music, even with a group like the Beatles.

 

Or, the American vinyl and/or pressings were just lower quality?

 

Well, no record company sends a master to an over-seas affiliate. They're two valuable. In the vinyl days, the mother company usually sent the affiliate what was called a "cutting master". This is a copy of the edited-for-production master tape with all of the "mastering moves" already applied. The cutting masters sent to Capitol (for the Angel division) are basically made in tandem with the one used for British release. It SHOULD be the same. The only thing that I can figure is that the mastering engineers at Capitol/Angel differed philosophically from their counterparts in England, OR their disk mastering equipment, was from a different manufacturer (there were basically two making cutting heads in those days: Neumann and Ortophon [there may have been a Japanese manufacturer too, but I've never heard of it] and it is possible that their correct EQ curves were different and EMI's mastering moves, while correct for the British equipment, was wrong for the US equipment. Possibly, nobody at Capitol/Angel thought that the differences were profound enough to take the trouble (and expense) to re-equalize for the American mastering house).

George

Link to comment
I must be the exception that proves your rule George, as my listening is 99% classical but, even though digital interests me more and makes up the majority of my listening these days, I still find vinyl (by which I mean analogue recordings, ASD, SXL, SAX etc from late 50s through to early 80s) to be consistently superior SQ-wise and by some margin. In a number of cases I have the exact same recording on both vinyl and as a CD reissue and pretty much without exception the vinyl simply sounds more like live music than the CD. A good example being Boult's Apostles on HMV - fabulous dynamics on vinyl, by comparison "squashed" sounding and ditchwater dull on CD.

 

I'm not making any technical claims for vinyl, just reporting on the evidence of my own senses as an alternative viewpoint. However, could there be SQ advantages to be gained in keeping things in the analogue domain from recording to reproduction, rather than sampling, encoding and then decoding the sound?

 

I'm with you. And I listen to jazz and rock mostly. Nothing beats the convenience and ease of sitting on my sofa and music surfing with my iPhone but for pure musicality my vinyl rig generally beats my digital rig hands down. There's so much more dimensionality and space. My vinyl rig is modest but is still more than I spent on my digital though. I'm afraid to invest in digital due to its rate of evolution.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
It's not just vinyl. There has been a resurgence of cassette tapes recently, too, and I have actually heard people say that cassettes sound intrinsically better than CDs because they are analog rather than digital.

 

Why not? For him subjectivelly cassetes sound better. It is his right.

 

Where we get brain (subjective) perception as criteria, we have no any proofs.

 

The differences between analogue and digital recordings is a hugely contested one, although just about any serious audiophile will tell you that vinyl records produce a better sound than digital recordings because they contain more sonic detail. http://classicalbumsundays.com/the-effects-of-digitisation-on-the-way-in-which-music-is-experienced-today/

 

I even don't doubt in these words.

 

First. Sound quality (as vinyl as analog) depend on implementation.

 

Second. Vinyl contains more distortions, that can be considered as element of art but nont fidelity (minimal loses). So there really more additional details (additional harmonics).

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Why not? For him subjectivelly cassetes sound better. It is his right.

 

Where we get brain (subjective) perception as criteria, we have no any proofs.

 

I don't get the feeling that people are expressing these opinions based on critical listening. It's just a "fact" that any analog recording is better than any digital recording.

Link to comment
Jonathan Valin in an editorial in the April 2017 The Abso!ute Sound also makes an argument for vinyl bettering computer audio sonically. Unlike you, though, he overreaches and his piece is filled with errors, half truths, bias and far less open mindedness than your views above.

 

You are not the exception, though, these days. The vinyl resurgence seems real, but sales numbers of new LPs are still miniscule compared to digital.

 

My listening is 99% classical as well. I personally do not agree with you at all, however, as to the sonic superiority of vinyl. I am fortunate to have a fair number of friends with similarly decent systems, typically around the $50k range, mostly more or some less. None of us still spins vinyl and some have sold their LPs, often thousands of them, and also their fairly pricey vinyl player rigs. None of us misses it. Two of my group are recording critics of some note for audiophile magazines with massive collections of all media, including LP. Most of us attend classical concerts with some regularity.

 

Mostly, the highest SQ praise in my circle is for new recordings natively done in hi rez on SACD, BD-A and -V and downloads. About half of us distinctly prefer hi rez multichannel over stereo for best sound which is most faithful to the original live music in our view. I personally am more radical and I do not even listen to CDs as a rule. But, some of my friends do like remastered older stereo or even mono recordings on occasion, but always via digital playback.

 

In answer to your question, no, there are no SQ advantages to keeping things in the analog domain from recording to reproduction in the opinion of most listeners, me included. Sales statistics bear this out. There are also huge disadvantages technically and economically in going back to an all analog and electromechanical recording, mastering, manufacturing and distribution model.

 

I will also cite an example. Generally considered the greatest recording project of all time is the Wagner Ring under Solti, produced by Culshaw for British Decca in 4 album releases over many years. Several friends and I, of course, own the LPs. We also have heard both the CD remasterings. The first was bad. The second better, but arguably still not up to the LPs.

 

Now, we also have the Decca remastering on BD-A and the Esoteric on SACD. One friend wrote up the Decca remastering in his review in a prominent magazine. Our consensus is that the Solti Ring has never sounded better than from the Decca BD-A. The limited edition Esoteric SACD is not quite at that same level, but makes one wonder why even listen to the LPs? We see no reason. And, I would add that this is apparent on playback from a $500-$1200 Oppo player or from a PC into a decent DAC. Our comparisons used vinyl playback schemes quite outrageously more expensive than that.

 

The LPs captured state of the art sound for their day, and it is always a thrill to listen to, but it is now frozen in time. The evolution of digital technology is clearly evident from hearing the various attempts to recapture that sound, including the early fumbles and stumbles which I think have been overcome quite successfully today.

 

 

I too have the record set (bought it when the set included Culshaw's Book The Ring Resounding). But recently I received a recent Naxos Blu-Ray disc of Die Walkure with Matthias Goerne, Michelle DeYoung and the Hong Kong Philharmonic under Jaap van Zweden. It's 24/96 and (for FitzCaraldo) it's also 5.1 DTS surround. I have only listened to the 2.0 stereo version (I don't particularly value surround-sound, even for movies, If it's there, OK, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it), But it sounds so much better than the Solti on Decca (London Records) that it's pretty much a revelation, technically [the performance isn't as good though, but who can beat Wolfgang Windgassen and Brigit Nilsson conducted by Solti?])

 

I also agree with you that there is simply no reason to go back to electro-mechanical recording and reproduction. If the music you WANT is only available on Vinyl, or tape, or even 78s, then obviously, you have to have those playback formats to access it. For instance, I've a friend who is crazy about the conducting style of the "old Nazi" Wilhelm Furtwangler. He has dozens of 78 sets of Furtwangler conducting Bruckner, and all the LPs That Furtwangler recorded as well. Even though it's not true any more, for a about 20 years there was no Furtwangler available on CD. He had to buy the LPs and the used 78's. He did transfer the 78's to tape for convenience, but other than that, those were his only choices.

 

But other than as a collector, if you have ever heard well recorded digital, you never want to go back to electro-mechanical recordings. Now, I will grant you that with regard to commercial recordings, vinyl does, more often than not, sound much better than the digital equivalent. But that's not digital's fault. It's the fault of modern recording engineers and producers who have a studio full electronic gadgets at their disposal, and want to use them to screw-with the sound. Mostly, it in the guise of dynamic range compression or the "loudness wars" as they're sometimes called. Sure, Red Book CD is capable of 96-dB of dynamic range. But buyers of CD NEVER GET THAT! Almost all CDs, irrespective of music genre get CDs with little more dynamic range than an LP and often a good deal less. The record industry believes that most people don't want a great deal of dynamic range because it makes them constantly play with the volume control to turn-up the soft passages and turn down the loud ones. There is no such thing as an audio compressor that doesn't play havoc with the sound it's processing. They introduce distortion, they audibly "pump" to various degrees depending on how fast they capture and release the sound they're compressing and many have peak limiters associated with them. No wonder many people prefer vinyl to digital. Even though it's a flawed premise that analogue sounds better than digital, most people are totally unaware of what modern electronic "gadgets" used in recording do to the sound of what's being recorded, and that lack of familiarity with the process they are hearing, makes them blame digital in general rather than the engineers and producers that are making the decisions that produce what they are hearing!

George

Link to comment
I too have the record set (bought it when the set included Culshaw's Book The Ring Resounding). But recently I received a recent Naxos Blu-Ray disc of Die Walkure with Matthias Goerne, Michelle DeYoung and the Hong Kong Philharmonic under Jaap van Zweden. It's 24/96 and (for FitzCaraldo) it's also 5.1 DTS surround. I have only listened to the 2.0 stereo version (I don't particularly value surround-sound, even for movies, If it's there, OK, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it), But it sounds so much better than the Solti on Decca (London Records) that it's pretty much a revelation, technically [the performance isn't as good though, but who can beat Wolfgang Windgassen and Brigit Nilsson conducted by Solti?])

 

I also agree with you that there is simply no reason to go back to electro-mechanical recording and reproduction. If the music you WANT is only available on Vinyl, or tape, or even 78s, then obviously, you have to have those playback formats to access it. For instance, I've a friend who is crazy about the conducting style of the "old Nazi" Wilhelm Furtwangler. He has dozens of 78 sets of Furtwangler conducting Bruckner, and all the LPs That Furtwangler recorded as well. Even though it's not true any more, for a about 20 years there was no Furtwangler available on CD. He had to buy the LPs and the used 78's. He did transfer the 78's to tape for convenience, but other than that, those were his only choices.

 

But other than as a collector, if you have ever heard well recorded digital, you never want to go back to electro-mechanical recordings. Now, I will grant you that with regard to commercial recordings, vinyl does, more often than not, sound much better than the digital equivalent. But that's not digital's fault. It's the fault of modern recording engineers and producers who have a studio full electronic gadgets at their disposal, and want to use them to screw-with the sound. Mostly, it in the guise of dynamic range compression or the "loudness wars" as they're sometimes called. Sure, Red Book CD is capable of 96-dB of dynamic range. But buyers of CD NEVER GET THAT! Almost all CDs, irrespective of music genre get CDs with little more dynamic range than an LP and often a good deal less. The record industry believes that most people don't want a great deal of dynamic range because it makes them constantly play with the volume control to turn-up the soft passages and turn down the loud ones. There is no such thing as an audio compressor that doesn't play havoc with the sound it's processing. They introduce distortion, they audibly "pump" to various degrees depending on how fast they capture and release the sound they're compressing and many have peak limiters associated with them. No wonder many people prefer vinyl to digital. Even though it's a flawed premise that analogue sounds better than digital, most people are totally unaware of what modern electronic "gadgets" used in recording do to the sound of what's being recorded, and that lack of familiarity with the process they are hearing, makes them blame digital in general rather than the engineers and producers that are making the decisions that produce what they are hearing!

 

How would you explain the situation where a 16/44 digital recording sounds much better on vinyl than CD? Thanks!

Link to comment
How would you explain the situation where a 16/44 digital recording sounds much better on vinyl than CD? Thanks!

 

Vinyl mastering introduces a lot of distortion. Obviously, some (or maybe all) of it is a euphonic coloration that people think sounds good. I mean what else could it be?

George

Link to comment
Vinyl mastering introduces a lot of distortion. Obviously, some (or maybe all) of it is a euphonic coloration that people think sounds good. I mean what else could it be?

The same applies to tape, does tape mastering add euphonic coloration too?

Link to comment

I love vinyl, and over the years I have amassed a large vinyl collection that I love and adore. In my experience, I never 'warmed' to CD, and even though I bought MANY over the years, I always thought that it was 'missing something' compared to vinyl.

Then came SACD. WOW! At last I had found a medium that IMO more-or-less equaled the quality of music that vinyl could reproduce. And multichannel too, if I wanted :-)

A few years ago, I started downloading Hires FLAC files, but felt underwhelmed at first. Until that is, I changed my media player to a Lumin D1. This thing, combined with Hires audio files just trounces anything I can get from both vinyl, and SACD.

So in my opinion, and experience, don't criticise digital until you've heard it 'properly'.

 

Sent from my E6653 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
The same applies to tape, does tape mastering add euphonic coloration too?

 

Tape saturation is the sweetest form of compression there is. In the 70s and 80s producers relied on it. With the advent of digital this effect was taken away from them.

Link to comment
Tape saturation is the sweetest form of compression there is. In the 70s and 80s producers relied on it. With the advent of digital this effect was taken away from them.

Take the soundtrack from 'Philadelphia' (made in 1993) for example, presumably the tape came from the same digital master as the CD. The tape sounds great, the CD horrible. Can that be totally down to tape saturation? I once tried recording the CD on tape, still sounded horrible...

Link to comment
Take the soundtrack from 'Philadelphia' (made in 1993) for example, presumably the tape came from the same digital master as the CD. The tape sounds great, the CD horrible. Can that be totally down to tape saturation? I once tried recording the CD on tape, still sounded horrible...

 

OTOH some CDs recorded to tape sound better than the CD. In those instances the missing pieces theory is not substantiated. I personally just think we like analog saturation.

Link to comment
The same applies to tape, does tape mastering add euphonic coloration too?

 

Not in the same way. Analog magnetic recording is inherently non-linear. When wire recording was tried in the 1930's, they didn't understand why the recordings were so terribly distorted. During WWII, Allied listening stations in England monitoring German Radio stations were puzzled that they would hear a broadcast by German radio of, say, the Dresden State Radio Orchestra giving a concert on nights when they KNEW that Dresden was under heavy and relentless bomber attack. Yet, the background was perfectly silent (this was AM/Short Wave) with no accompanying bomb blasts. Blasts that surely must be there, because the RAF was at that same time, targeting the city center where the concert hall was. It wasn't until the waning days of the war, when advanced teams of U.S. and British technicians, looking for German technology stumbled across German radio studios and found the the huge Magnetophons (tape recorders) and discovered how these concerts were accomplished. Jack Mullin of the U.S. Army, figured out what the Germans had done. They had added a high-frequency, out of band signal to the magnetic recordings on reels of paper tape, and this signal had linearized the magnetic tape recording process giving high quality, low distortion, low noise recordings and those concerts given without interruption on nights when air raids were occurring were pre-recorded.

 

Other than tape lack of proper tape biasing, the only coloration is when tape is over-modulated. IOW, when the recordist pushes the record level to a point where the playback distortion exceeded 3%.

 

BTW, American Tech teams consisting of people like Richard Orr, Jack Mullin and Alexander M. Poniatoff dismantled many German Magnetophons and shipped them, piece-by-piece back to the USA, and after the war, Orr started a company called Orradio and made "Irish" brand recording tape, substituting acetate film for paper and another entrepreneur, Poniatoff started Ampex (Poniatoff's initials A.M.P. with EX for excellence added to the end because a company named AMP already existed!).

George

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...