It's a shame this thread has deviated so far from the intent of the original poster, it just seems to be going nowhere. Can we move back in the direction of discussing real and perceived differences between LP mastered on analog tape or digital mastering systems or has run its course and should be closed?
I have given a definition of proper design earlier in this thread, kicked your butts in the right direction, the rest is up to you.
I've never asked for a definition, I've been asking all along for a falsifiable test. So I can take a piece of kit and run down your checklist to see if it passes or fails.
Any progress on that yet?
Any progress on that yet?
Back OT...
I have been listening to a number of recordings taken down simultaneously to two track analog (Telefunken m28/m15) and 24 bit digital. I must say that i do like the analog better. There is more "drive" and percieved dynamics in the analog tape versions. This is a subjective observation of course. I do have a few master tape copies that i play from time to time and i must say that both the CD and vinyl final products falls way short of the master, though i must say that the LP preserves best what i like most in the master.
One more interesting thing looking at new vinyl pressings is an article in Danish/Swedish High Fidelity magazine a few years ago. They observed the dynamic behaviour of a few recordings and found that on many occasions, the digital version was more heavily compressed.
Today i guess that we in some cases get better performance from vinyl than from CD because someone deliberately made the CD inferior.
BR,
Anders
I have been listening to a number of recordings taken down simultaneously to two track analog (Telefunken m28/m15) and 24 bit digital. I must say that i do like the analog better. There is more "drive" and percieved dynamics in the analog tape versions. This is a subjective observation of course. I do have a few master tape copies that i play from time to time and i must say that both the CD and vinyl final products falls way short of the master, though i must say that the LP preserves best what i like most in the master.
One more interesting thing looking at new vinyl pressings is an article in Danish/Swedish High Fidelity magazine a few years ago. They observed the dynamic behaviour of a few recordings and found that on many occasions, the digital version was more heavily compressed.
Today i guess that we in some cases get better performance from vinyl than from CD because someone deliberately made the CD inferior.
BR,
Anders
Anders, your observations on the dynamic range of CD recordings and LPs of the same material is interesting, and on the few recordings where I have both (Usually bundled) the CD is somewhat more dynamically constrained.
The other interesting comment I could make is that stage depth and imaging seem better on the vinyl than CD (or ripped to flac and played via my media server) - leaves me wondering if my I need to work on my dac design, although 24/192 materials sounds quite good.
The other interesting comment I could make is that stage depth and imaging seem better on the vinyl than CD (or ripped to flac and played via my media server) - leaves me wondering if my I need to work on my dac design, although 24/192 materials sounds quite good.
I agree with other posters. The problem isn't the recording medium it's the mastering process and the operators.
I think that CD should have better dynamic range than vinyl. Some people I assume prefer the compressed dynamic range! Modern CDs are often louder so sound more 'impressive' at the expense of dynamic range. It's dissapointing.
Once the CD master has been messed up no amount of electronics like better DACs is going to help.
I think that CD should have better dynamic range than vinyl. Some people I assume prefer the compressed dynamic range! Modern CDs are often louder so sound more 'impressive' at the expense of dynamic range. It's dissapointing.
Once the CD master has been messed up no amount of electronics like better DACs is going to help.
Magnesaurus (TM), the 351.5 (TM) All-Tube Analog(TM) Master Recorder of Performance Recordings (R)
If you don't mind listening to some hiss, dynamic range of this machine is around 95dB. It is a highly tweeked Ampex 351. So, I guess it was possible to some decent sound out of tape. I have no experience with these machines though, except that I owned a preamp for a while.
That would be my suggestion too. DACs do vary quite a considerable amount in terms of soundstage depth. I'd really like to understand why this is.
My first NOS DAC (a TDA1543) I didn't listen to much at all because I was so unimpressed with its flat presentationi compared to the S-D DAC I had at the time. But in part this turned out to be implementation dependent.
of course the 1st question is is this effect real
and the test is simple - double blind switching good ADC/DAC inline with the supposed ""good imaging" analog source
has anyone established that the difference exists - at what bit rate, resolution?
in controlled, blind testing?
and the test is simple - double blind switching good ADC/DAC inline with the supposed ""good imaging" analog source
has anyone established that the difference exists - at what bit rate, resolution?
in controlled, blind testing?
you know the terms of the debate quite well I think
subjective sense impression, even those requiring sophisticated and largely unknown neural processing can still be explored by DBT - can you tell using your ears only, with controls for known pyschoacoustic and perceptual psychology effects
subjective sense impression, even those requiring sophisticated and largely unknown neural processing can still be explored by DBT - can you tell using your ears only, with controls for known pyschoacoustic and perceptual psychology effects
Yep, I do and it puzzles me no end that objectivists in audio are the only people I caome across who pretend that placebo effect (which we presumably both acknowledge is what we're talking about) isn't real.
Tape compression. In the right hands its a marvelous tool, but its an effect and takes away from the "real" sound, which is what digital gives you. People love to listen to effects, and thats why there will never be a consensus on what good quality sound is. People dont like real. Hell, most people (including audiophiles, maybe especially audiophiles) have no idea what real is, so they forever chase their tails in search of it.
I've got a Steinway piano located between the speakers for comparison and emotional expression. The LP's as music source on piano material don't go soft enough or loud enough. Most CD's are worse, although the media is not at fault. The marketing department is.
I wonder if the piano strings vibrate when music is played through the speakers. I know they are damped by the hammers, but it still makes me wonder.
I find LPs more dynamic than CDs as well. Although, not in absolute terms of SPL. Something about music when presented properly, gets our attention, "strikes a chord," as they say. Increased attention? acuity? heightened state?
Personally, I think its marketing too, though not their fault either. Generally, older recordings has more of a sense of space.
Personally, I think its marketing too, though not their fault either. Generally, older recordings has more of a sense of space.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.