This should be in the SQ vs. Measurement thread but that has derailed off topic.
Here are some examples:
1) The intro of Water of Love, Dire Straits, eponymous, wood block being hit, sounds entirely different on the vinyl rip, like a wood block being hit with natural reverb and echo. The CD version of same sounds thin, as if a thin sheet of wood is being hit, not a wooden block. I have the CD, remasters, d/l as well as a FLAC vinyl rip of the original vinyl (my total music collection numbered just under 10,000 pieces).
2) 1:20 to 1:50 Big Star, Ballad of El Goodo, #1 Record, the sticks hitting the cymbals sound like wood hitting brass from 1:20 to 1:50. They don't sound like this on my two CD's or any other digital format.
The two above examples mention the treble, but nothing approaching the 22khz region, closer to 5k to 9k, a complaint about the hash of digital treble that has existed since the first products were placed into a listening chain.
Here are two images that convey what I believe is the issue.
Group 1
This is the measurement-is-all-group, and the engineer's perspective on sound reproduction, recording, etc.:
The above is that group and their perspective wrt measurements and SQ and FR. The large BLACK circle is what they think the entire possible known field of study for sound reproduction, the human ear and system interface, audio quality, etc. can be. The RED is what we now know, and the PURPLE circle indicates what any given one of you think that you know within the context of what is currently known as the entire field (the purple circle). Some engineers may think that their knowledge encompasses nearly all of what is believed now. In that case their PURPLE circle will be as large as the RED circle.
Group 2
This is the listen-and-decide, the human ear can detect details that cannot now be measured (but may be in the future) group.
The above is my perspective on this. The large BLACK circle is what I think and believe the entire possible known field of study for sound reproduction, the human ear and system interface, audio quality, etc. can ever be. What we now know is that RED pixel at the end of the arrow pointing at it. What anyone of us know within that area is thus not visible at this resolution. An engineer with multiple PhD's would be a barely visible PURPLE pixel with magnification, and I would be far less than that.
Group 1 thinks that they know most or even up to 95% of what there is to know about this subject, and I believe that no one even has knowledge of .0001% of what there is to know about this subject. Group 2 believe that we don't know one millionth of what there is to learn about sound, its reproduction, how humans perceive it, and how to make a sound system that reproduces performances.
Engineers in Group 1 are hammers, but they think they are Gods.
Group 1 are only useful to a point and beyond that point, when the topic of sound reproduction arises, Group 2 and the human ear and brain are far superior to our current measurement technology as of 2014. Thus designing a system using currently known solid engineering principles is just the beginning, and then one must embark on a series of trial and error propositions to obtain the best sound.
So far what I have found is that amateur, at home, FLAC rips of vinyl, are superior to nearly all digital professional remasters of the same source material, no matter what era or level of digital technology is used.
This should not be so for many reasons, least of which is that amateurs at home should not be able to rip vinyl and have it sound superior to someone with access to state of the art or top of the line professional equipment and access to either original masters or 1st generation regional safety copies.
If this is due to the remastering process, and many in thread have stated as such, then we should fire all the professionals and just let the average person rip vinyl pressings for digital release at their home set up, as those sound as good or better than the pro mastering of most digital chain or end product. Many have AB'd the two and mentioned they cannot tell the difference often, except for the groove noise and occasional click or pop. If that is the case to casual listeners, that vinyl on a high end system sounds the same as digital after 35 years of digital, then clearly the analogue vinyl mastering chain is, and was, the equal or better of digital.
I am not the first person to suggest this sonic difference, there are many who hear this and that is why so many are ripping vinyl at home to FLAC or higher resolutions.
These issues were mentioned by those with high-end analogue systems from 1978 to 1983, but they were shouted down because the money invested had to be justified. The vocabulary used, the flaws pointed out, were the same mentioned then as mentioned now.
This is one of the main reasons (there are dozens) for the death of high fidelity, as garbage in results in garbage out. Pop recordings of Top 10 acts in the 60's used studio musicians, The Clique, and The Wrecking Crew. Those recordings sound great. The modern version of that is the person making music on a computer in a pro studio. ""The xx"" and all others. Those recordings sound terrible.
No matter how high end a system, if you play something recorded by The Wrecking Crew, original vinyl, it will sound very good; but if you play something recorded on digital or converted/mastered to digital, it will sound terrible - and most music is digital these days.
This is why so many FLAC rippers are ripping pre-1983 vinyl. Post-1983, digital began to encroach into studios in small areas at first and resulting in a pure digital chain in 2014.
The rational thing to do in 1978-1983, the position that would have been in line with the Scientific Method, would have been this:
CD Red Book digital measures better than what we have now, however it sounds inferior in many aspects that we currently cannot measure. Instead of disavowing what our ears hear, we have decided to wait to implement an industry wide digital standard until the sonic quality is closer to that of a good analogue system and reproduction chain.
^THAT would have been the scientific thing to do, not tell everyone that their senses are lying to them and that they cannot hear.
It should not be difficult to admit ""we don't know as much as we think we do"" or ""perhaps we are wrong"".
Here are some examples:
1) The intro of Water of Love, Dire Straits, eponymous, wood block being hit, sounds entirely different on the vinyl rip, like a wood block being hit with natural reverb and echo. The CD version of same sounds thin, as if a thin sheet of wood is being hit, not a wooden block. I have the CD, remasters, d/l as well as a FLAC vinyl rip of the original vinyl (my total music collection numbered just under 10,000 pieces).
2) 1:20 to 1:50 Big Star, Ballad of El Goodo, #1 Record, the sticks hitting the cymbals sound like wood hitting brass from 1:20 to 1:50. They don't sound like this on my two CD's or any other digital format.
The two above examples mention the treble, but nothing approaching the 22khz region, closer to 5k to 9k, a complaint about the hash of digital treble that has existed since the first products were placed into a listening chain.
Here are two images that convey what I believe is the issue.
Group 1
This is the measurement-is-all-group, and the engineer's perspective on sound reproduction, recording, etc.:
The above is that group and their perspective wrt measurements and SQ and FR. The large BLACK circle is what they think the entire possible known field of study for sound reproduction, the human ear and system interface, audio quality, etc. can be. The RED is what we now know, and the PURPLE circle indicates what any given one of you think that you know within the context of what is currently known as the entire field (the purple circle). Some engineers may think that their knowledge encompasses nearly all of what is believed now. In that case their PURPLE circle will be as large as the RED circle.
Group 2
This is the listen-and-decide, the human ear can detect details that cannot now be measured (but may be in the future) group.
The above is my perspective on this. The large BLACK circle is what I think and believe the entire possible known field of study for sound reproduction, the human ear and system interface, audio quality, etc. can ever be. What we now know is that RED pixel at the end of the arrow pointing at it. What anyone of us know within that area is thus not visible at this resolution. An engineer with multiple PhD's would be a barely visible PURPLE pixel with magnification, and I would be far less than that.
Group 1 thinks that they know most or even up to 95% of what there is to know about this subject, and I believe that no one even has knowledge of .0001% of what there is to know about this subject. Group 2 believe that we don't know one millionth of what there is to learn about sound, its reproduction, how humans perceive it, and how to make a sound system that reproduces performances.
Engineers in Group 1 are hammers, but they think they are Gods.
Group 1 are only useful to a point and beyond that point, when the topic of sound reproduction arises, Group 2 and the human ear and brain are far superior to our current measurement technology as of 2014. Thus designing a system using currently known solid engineering principles is just the beginning, and then one must embark on a series of trial and error propositions to obtain the best sound.
So far what I have found is that amateur, at home, FLAC rips of vinyl, are superior to nearly all digital professional remasters of the same source material, no matter what era or level of digital technology is used.
This should not be so for many reasons, least of which is that amateurs at home should not be able to rip vinyl and have it sound superior to someone with access to state of the art or top of the line professional equipment and access to either original masters or 1st generation regional safety copies.
If this is due to the remastering process, and many in thread have stated as such, then we should fire all the professionals and just let the average person rip vinyl pressings for digital release at their home set up, as those sound as good or better than the pro mastering of most digital chain or end product. Many have AB'd the two and mentioned they cannot tell the difference often, except for the groove noise and occasional click or pop. If that is the case to casual listeners, that vinyl on a high end system sounds the same as digital after 35 years of digital, then clearly the analogue vinyl mastering chain is, and was, the equal or better of digital.
I am not the first person to suggest this sonic difference, there are many who hear this and that is why so many are ripping vinyl at home to FLAC or higher resolutions.
These issues were mentioned by those with high-end analogue systems from 1978 to 1983, but they were shouted down because the money invested had to be justified. The vocabulary used, the flaws pointed out, were the same mentioned then as mentioned now.
This is one of the main reasons (there are dozens) for the death of high fidelity, as garbage in results in garbage out. Pop recordings of Top 10 acts in the 60's used studio musicians, The Clique, and The Wrecking Crew. Those recordings sound great. The modern version of that is the person making music on a computer in a pro studio. ""The xx"" and all others. Those recordings sound terrible.
No matter how high end a system, if you play something recorded by The Wrecking Crew, original vinyl, it will sound very good; but if you play something recorded on digital or converted/mastered to digital, it will sound terrible - and most music is digital these days.
This is why so many FLAC rippers are ripping pre-1983 vinyl. Post-1983, digital began to encroach into studios in small areas at first and resulting in a pure digital chain in 2014.
The rational thing to do in 1978-1983, the position that would have been in line with the Scientific Method, would have been this:
CD Red Book digital measures better than what we have now, however it sounds inferior in many aspects that we currently cannot measure. Instead of disavowing what our ears hear, we have decided to wait to implement an industry wide digital standard until the sonic quality is closer to that of a good analogue system and reproduction chain.
^THAT would have been the scientific thing to do, not tell everyone that their senses are lying to them and that they cannot hear.
It should not be difficult to admit ""we don't know as much as we think we do"" or ""perhaps we are wrong"".
Last edited:
Unfortunately, miragem3i, you're doing nothing to dispel the notion that you're having a bit of a rant. Your perspective is that because, you, personally, have not enjoyed high quality digital playback, therefore it doesn't exist - just allow yourself to conceive of the possibility that this doesn't apply to everyone, please ...
As an example, I have not used analogue playback for 30 years, and every time I hear vinyl I don't drop to my knees, and cry, "What a fool I've been!!" In fact, lately LP playback is getting worse, if anything, by the standards of the last audio show I visited - the medium has not the slightest attraction for me ...
As an example, I have not used analogue playback for 30 years, and every time I hear vinyl I don't drop to my knees, and cry, "What a fool I've been!!" In fact, lately LP playback is getting worse, if anything, by the standards of the last audio show I visited - the medium has not the slightest attraction for me ...
What if both of them are wrong?
ie its not the medium its the equipment or the recording method..
there was a time when I was quite pleased that both CD and my Linn Sondek sounded the same...
I was convinced that I would never match my analogue system..
Whats happened now is both technologies have become old..
Its like everything else its made cheaply for mass production...you have to ask that when mass production takes place..is this the top level available or to customer market demand ie how much can you make on it and how easy is it to throw together!
I hate to say it, however audio doesn't sell unless its linked to an AV system! Or market driven<<the people that buy want fashion!
Young people want what other people envy..look at headphones for an example or Apple products..
Ask how many would swap there phone for a hifi?
Even music has evolved (as it should)..whos number 1 in the charts? Does anyone care? How much can you spend on a turntable? how much do you need to spend to get close with digital? The digital issue is more likely the format..you cant compare with analogue .. unless you take the master that the CD was made with and put it on LP. Then play it back with high resolution..put it behind a curtain and test yourself..reproduce the LP with a digital recording of it!
I believe what you like about analogue is the interaction of RIAA or NAB when reproduced..dolby/metal compensation chrome tapes etc
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
At a listening demonstration..
I had a demonstration of HIGH end digital..then the guy said here is another track and it sounded great then he said here is the original track..then he started laughing..
He said here look behind you...and the track I listened to was a recording of the original track and I couldn't tell the difference. And it was on tape!
So you have to ask yourself..if everything was equal the only other thing is convenience.. NB the recording was made while I was listening to the first track!
Yes then and there while I was sat listening..
I think like it or not its all going into the cloud..and you won't have a choice.
Even CD's will be like keeping classic cars alive!
How easy is it to download music how many even burn it? Its the computer that is the end of "Classic" HIFI.
Meet the dinosaur CD and LP..like it or not!
Its a bit like arguing that the Lunar module is better than the space shuttle..both are dinosaurs!
Regards
M. Gregg
I had a demonstration of HIGH end digital..then the guy said here is another track and it sounded great then he said here is the original track..then he started laughing..
He said here look behind you...and the track I listened to was a recording of the original track and I couldn't tell the difference. And it was on tape!
So you have to ask yourself..if everything was equal the only other thing is convenience.. NB the recording was made while I was listening to the first track!
Yes then and there while I was sat listening..
I think like it or not its all going into the cloud..and you won't have a choice.
Even CD's will be like keeping classic cars alive!
How easy is it to download music how many even burn it? Its the computer that is the end of "Classic" HIFI.
Meet the dinosaur CD and LP..like it or not!
Its a bit like arguing that the Lunar module is better than the space shuttle..both are dinosaurs!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
About all I know of this subject is that once, I went into a (very)... high end audio salon in Seattle with intent to A/B some vintage vinyl on the absolute best gear in the house, only switching out the source component. I honestly don't recall the details on the equipment but the speakers were in the 100K range, at 7 ft tall-ish, some other gawd awfully expensive tube gear, best cables in the house, high zoot separate transport with big clunky outboard DAC vs some TT that looked like industrial art... etc... this was during the .com boom when there was allot of money flying around Seattle. They had Hunky Dory on hand in both versions. First, the cd. Yeah... absolutely spectacular it was, just everything you could want and couldn't imagine how it could get any better. Then the analog, well... stupendous became instead -SUBLIME, in a way that made my mouth drop open, the music was "immeasurably" (get it?) better, I'll never forget it.
One more thought,
I don't think High Fidelity is dead and it won't ever die..however it might be called something else..people will always want sound reproduction probably linked to AV and Films..
If the question is HIFI separates limited..Its probably already dead it just hasn't fallen over yet!
Will Vinyl be with us for ever..come on are you kidding..its the second hand shops for nostalgic collectors of the future and a curiosity for museums.
can you really see it in another 100 years?
I see some 16 year old looking at a record and saying whats that? Well people that thought sound reproduction was important used to drag a diamond through the grooves..then the child says how did you connect to it? Well you rotated it at 33rpm..like this piece of plastic called a CD..
I can't demonstrate it because we don't use electricity any more! Whats electricity?
It ran through metal conductors before we used radiant energy..
Its called market forces!
Regards
M. Gregg
I don't think High Fidelity is dead and it won't ever die..however it might be called something else..people will always want sound reproduction probably linked to AV and Films..
If the question is HIFI separates limited..Its probably already dead it just hasn't fallen over yet!
Will Vinyl be with us for ever..come on are you kidding..its the second hand shops for nostalgic collectors of the future and a curiosity for museums.
can you really see it in another 100 years?
I see some 16 year old looking at a record and saying whats that? Well people that thought sound reproduction was important used to drag a diamond through the grooves..then the child says how did you connect to it? Well you rotated it at 33rpm..like this piece of plastic called a CD..
I can't demonstrate it because we don't use electricity any more! Whats electricity?
It ran through metal conductors before we used radiant energy..
Its called market forces!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Most likely something like Audio Sensory Immersion - computing games and the like are showing the way: a mechanism which transports the participant, in sensory terms, to a totally different place from where you physically are - which means, of course, that it has to be completely realistic, "convincing",
. It won't "pretend" to be somewhere "foreign", an obvious fake - every fibre of your being will be certain that you really are in the environment that's being "projected" - the holodeck experience, IOW ...
Just for interest,
What digital music did next: the future of audio revealed | News | TechRadar
Regards
M. Gregg
What digital music did next: the future of audio revealed | News | TechRadar
Regards
M. Gregg
...and then you play that kid a recording of something from the era he would know and like and think is cool, and compare it to his digital source.
Like many young listeners, he would instantly realise the vinyl is superior. Then he would embark on a life long journey of enriching musical experiences.
I see this once in a while - a 17 year old hears a good recording on vinyl for the first time and realises that what his friends listen to is crap.
If someone buys a digital song 69 cents to 1.99 in revenue are generated and the artist receives perhaps 30 cents of that.
If someone streams a digital song, it must be streamed from 50 to 80 times to generate the same amount of revenue as ONE SALE.
The continued collapse of music industry revenue is all but assured, yet the quality of new releases is not as high yet everyone can make music now on their smartphone or laptop.
This is progress?
Well fas42 it might be because your listening to records made AFTER 2000 buddy which 99% will NOT BE THE ANALOG MASTER!!!! (It will be digital transferred to the record)fas42 said:
If you want GOOD ANALOGUE SOUND,you have to get records from about 1989 or older.... (And even then its spotty from 1979 to 1989)
The newest mainstream record I have that sounds good is MADONNA's "True blue" album in 1986 -- They mixed it SEPERATLY for digital so the record is true analogue..... (I have the cassette of this album also.....It also sounds good)
Then I have Babyfaces 2nd album (R&B) -- 1989 and that sounds good also.......
But there has been several 80s albums I had that I got rid of because it was digitally mixed or somehow compromised AND DID NOT SOUND GOOD AT ALL!!
Listen to the whos 1971 album "WHOS NEXT" (Decca FIRST PRESSSING) -- You will hear good analogue my friend
Last edited:
The situation is a little more complicated, as most things in life usually are, . I have heard superb vinyl, on a number of occasions - and also hideously dreadful - on very, very expensive gear, where just about everything that can be wrong with reproduction, was - and no-one said a word ... . Sometimes, the ritual is more important than the reality, methinks.
In age of recording terms, I listen to almost nothing from 1990 on - the median age of what I listen to would probably be around the mid '60s.
What digital recording allows for, is more intense dynamic contrasts - and lesser playback does not handle this gracefully, it's tripped up with this type of material. An optimised system can handle it cleanly, and presents it correctly, which is also completely "musical". You can hear all the rounded edges on older analogue material, which also sounds "musical" - it's just a different style of presentation.
. I have heard superb vinyl, on a number of occasions - and also hideously dreadful - on very, very expensive gear, where just about everything that can be wrong with reproduction, was - and no-one said a word ... . Sometimes, the ritual is more important than the reality, methinks.In age of recording terms, I listen to almost nothing from 1990 on - the median age of what I listen to would probably be around the mid '60s.
What digital recording allows for, is more intense dynamic contrasts - and lesser playback does not handle this gracefully, it's tripped up with this type of material. An optimised system can handle it cleanly, and presents it correctly, which is also completely "musical". You can hear all the rounded edges on older analogue material, which also sounds "musical" - it's just a different style of presentation.
You're right, but they don't care. If you want to go to the next step, listen to even older recordings made with tube electronics,
before the solid state studios took over. Ever seen the schematic of a modern studio mixing console?
Looks like they threw in as many op amps, coupling capacitors, controls, etc. as they could.
Want even more pain? Find some "direct to disc" recordings and weep.
Last edited:
The same as... he puts a spoiler on his Escort and realizes that what his friends drive is crap.
Unless you've left something out??
Of the last three new recordings I physically purchased, one was produced by a national broadcaster; one was from a label specialising in not-screwing-with-the-sound and one was funded by a kickstarter project.
The fourth new recording was by Naxos. A particular recording that previously I'd have to have imported via a specialist at a large fee.
None was from a traditional highstreet retailer.
Meanwhile the pile of good old stuff piles up. Along with the downloads from old and new bands - all of whom are avoiding "the industry"
That is progress.
One can hear this on REM's '"Green" 1988 which clearly had a great deal of digital mixing done. Compare that to '"Murmur" 1982 done in a garage on analogue. The recent re-issues that all compress the sound on REM and The Clash catalogue are separate matters...
I could hear this from 1981-1988 as sound became ''shinier'' but less lively. Some sounded good during the transition - Rio and The Cult come to mind. Some had the sound ruined, much of The Smiths after 1985, for example.
I have a recent rip that the tech performed post-processing on the 1965 vinyl signal BEFORE the FLAC, and it has that flat, lifeless quality to it. The only way to retain the sound is directly rip it, and not to then put it into ANY digital medium for processing. Once you do that, mix, click removal, level adjustment, ANYTHING DIGITAL, the sound dies and becomes 2D and the treble takes that dive to hash land.
Best of course is the earliest pressing of the original vinyl, on an all analogue valve system.
I have recordings of people playing vinyl on their rigs, and the sound from that mp3 sounds vastly superior to my copy on my music server. The body, tonality, and all other positive aspects of vinyl are clearly present in a recording of a system. This is not even a rip - in room mic.
I use these as benchmarks to work towards, minus the in room acoustics of course.
Extremely poor attempt at an analogy.
More likely he test drives a 1968 Mercedes and realises that his friend's 2014 Escort is crap.
The fallacy is that newer is always better, that new is progress and old is inferior.
Fewer and fewer people remember what analogue sounded like on the radio; a vinyl promo copy sent out, and then is recorded on to a CART, which was a radio station industry 8-track like cartridge for playback of music online in a rotation at commercial stations, thus you heard a very early pressing on tape and that pressing then went into the library and was not played back often.
That young man has never heard good analogue sound on the radio or anywhere. Since dual chain of new releases is a thing of the past - record it in analogue, dedicated analogue and digital mastering and remixing chains that are completely separate - he does not know what he is missing as an all analogue version of Adele or what have you does not exist.
It is also easy, clear as day, to hear the valve-solid state transistion.
Best examples are Sinatra's LP's from that time, 1957 - 1963. It is instantly obvious when transistors showed up in his repro chain.
Best sound, so I have heard by rumour, was from that era (1955-1965) direct copy reel-to-reel. Real time one to one transfers or very low batch runs. Of course 60 year old mag tape just cannot survive that long in the average home.
Some real time cassettes from up to the early 80's sound good - MFSL of course, and others. The half speed masters have better treble and detail as well.
Ah well. At least I can get some of that glorious sound via the internets. Some of it, at least...
Why is the engineer who recorded Nirvana still using analog tape? - CNET
Steve Albini's Recording Philosophy..
In Utero and Surfer Rosa sound fantastic on LP..
Steve Albini's Recording Philosophy..
In Utero and Surfer Rosa sound fantastic on LP..
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.