I'd like to believe that, but persons with a lot of money at stake have presented expensive, high resolution digital media systems at trade shows that are as a general rule outshone by even LP-based systems. How can a digital system that sounds very close to an analogue one but lacks something (call it je ne sais quoi if you like) be described as being more accurate?
John
I use my audio system for listening to my favourite (has been already) recorded music, not "high end audio"...For anything to sound good, you need the greatest musicians.
Now would you please bring the Studer and record Handel's Messiah with Gardiner and the Monterverdi Choir over again. Thank you very much.
Maybe I'm being a bit hostile now, and I'm sorry for that... the thing is that I've been doing "audiophile" minimalist recordings like this myself, but totally lost interest in it. The problem is that you simply CAN'T get the chance to record really great performers this way. I have a load of recordings I've done myself, but never bother to listen to them since the musical performances are what they are.
I don't know musical performances well as you do, we are not pro in recording business,just for fun and hobby, my partner the owner of the house and system is a DIYER of making string musical equipments in hobby , violins or copy a AMATI's viola and also own a GUARNERI's cello. my job is design and make tube audio amp.
we taped in house not in studio with a mini concerts played by menbers of TSO( Toronto Symphony Orshestral) for fun.pool side is the place of best sounding in the house and can with room for more than 50 audiences,
we like compare those different sounds from different violins or how a home made copy can sound close to the original, also we try to reproduce the recorded can sound like the real one( better recording equipments to use), we analog lover beside vinyl R2R is the only choice, TAPE PROJECT's tape sound good but not too many clasical music, the only way to go is tape our own
I've only worked with high end consumer recorders and 'mid fi' commercial recorders and never once was I mistaken about source vs tape. I cannot tell digital playback from 'source' and once answered a recording while hearing myself on the recording. That was eerie.
If the digital copy of the analog recording is indistinguishable from the analog recording, what _I_ get from it is there is some distortion component in the analog system you find preferable. My take is if the digital is that good, why would it not be 'perfect' with the original material? Several of the analog recording faults I find annoying are wow and flutter which can be very pronounced with piano and guitar as any at all kills the reality. Inter-channel phase 'wobbles' as the tape wanders a bit through the transport is also a reality killer to me. There are also extremely short duration dropouts in the analog world. It would be an interesting experiment to take a digital master and add these anomalies to it.
A REAL question is: do people who did _not_ grow up with analog recordings find them preferable to digital recordings? Is it possible that when the defects are eliminated in the digital recording it somehow seems 'unreal' to those expecting the analog faults? When the first Dolby B cassettes were introduced in the early '70s, there were those who swore the high end was missing when frequency response tests showed no errors at all. Some folks KNEW that missing hiss meant missing highs and it took a lot of demonstrations to prove to them it was not the case. I'm just saying...
G²
Interestingly and perhaps only anecdotal - I do have several friends who grew up in the digital era and have only recently been exposed to analog, (LP and tape) and they all maintain it sounds better to them as well.
I don't have all the answers but try to look at it from a distance. You describe TWO conditions: a digital system sounding close to analog sounds just like analog with the same material! If the material is different any system can sound better or worse than any other one, independent of technology.
A few years I attended a listening session at the Hi-End show in Munich, comparing several systems: a digital harddisk-based streaming system, a large vintage Studer 1/2 inch tape machine, a 100k$ PL turntable set, and an SACD. (This was organised by the German magazine Audio).
What struck me was that the music that was transferred to the harddisk from the tape master sounded identical to the tape. But there was also a lot of material that was not very good on the digital system.
Another case: Two years ago I hunted down 4 different issues of a certain piece of music. The first issue was in parallel on LP and CD (on Paul Simon's Graceland), and the LP and CD were clearly from the same master and sounded identical to me. Subsequent versions of that particular song were issued in later years in 'Best of' and 'Greatest hits' type of CD's and sounded progressively more compressed, agressive and loud.
jd
I used to record off air for friends on a well tuned Nakamichi (just a casette, no Dolby) and they always commented on the sound no matter how cheap their player was. They said they could never get their players to sound that good. Same experience with VHS on a hi-end Panasonic NV-7200. The good source seemed to win over mediocre playback.
now the thread become analog vs digital, in the starter, I did try to say if no more moons for up grade in the whole system , then start record your own source, from there you will have microphone, cables ,mic pre amp ,recorder .etc; up grade again, I believe that a mic fresh recorded source play back by the same recorder will have a better result .no matter analog or digital, it only depand on your system good for digital or analog. my system is 4 way horn 4 tube SE power amp with no feed back from phono stage to power amp and all in transformer coupling, although a bite noise but good for R2R analog because I can hear the different between CD and Tape clearly
That's interesting, that you can clearly hear the difference through all the coloration of xformers and SE and no feedback and noise. Golden Ears truly !
jd
That's interesting, that you can clearly hear the difference through all the coloration of xformers and SE and no feedback and noise. Golden Ears truly !
jd
yes the difference is very clear in more live more emontion more like to the real one like when I taped it, but the CD recorded in the same time don't have that feeling in play back
Your idee fixe that only identically mastered recordings of the same material can be be used for comparing systems (presumably with ABX testing) is actually immaterial to the question at hand. The preference of tape over lp over cd is based on decades of listening to hundreds recordings with the result that the listener gravitates toward the source which sounds to him the most realistic and, yes, the least colored despite vacuum tubes and transformers in the circuit. No one time test can substitute for that kind of experience.
John
Last edited:
Well it's the preference of *some* for tape or lp or cd, not the world population at large I would think. And it's easy to demonstrate that SE and tube amps and xformers cause coloration. So IMHO it's a matter of preference, which not necessarily means that what you prefer is objectively most accurate/realistic in the sense that it neither subtracts nor adds to the original signal.
Some people prefer a Steinway, some prefer a Yamaha. The difference between them is coloration. Both are of course realistic in the sense that both are pianos.
jd
Interesting, I have Paul Simon's Graceland on CD, I really love the album but can't stand listening to it. It sounds absolutely awfull. Haven't listened to it for years. I've never known whether I got a dud CD, or whether it just sounds bad on my system. Actually I just had a look through my CD's (don't have that many) and couldn't find it, so maybe it was a cassette. I do have some CD's that sound bad too though, My White Stripes Elephant cd really really grates, but if I hear it on FM it sounds fine... Is it common to get a "bad" cd, ie if you bought another copy it would be fine?
Tony.
how do you know colorations had been add to the original ? unless you are doing ABX after recording right away with fresh memory, same instrument will sound different in different place, to judge a audio preference is by listen not by data, with 0 % distortion, no color very accurate 60 hz signal, can it be called a good sound ? just a hum noise !
The difference is appreciable if to listen at first to the original, then a digital copy 24bit\96 (192) kHz, for example. I have bought Nakamichi ZX-7 and I listen to analogue copies from vinyl
Try this with a level-matched blind comparison. You'll be surprised.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.