Analog Apologist
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
- Status
There are just some people who are wound way too tight and they can't take it if everyone doesn't agree with their belief system. They actually get offended if you don't agree with them. I just want to have some fun and share some thoughts along the way. If you don't agree with things I say, I have no problems with that. We shouldn't all be sheep looking for our shepard. I want to break out of the flock and look over at the next pasture and see what is going on for myself.
There is music on Vinyl that may never appear on any digital format.
There is music on Digital that may never appear on LP or Tape.
In either case, the debate is moot.
Gimme both! I'm greedy!
There is music on Digital that may never appear on LP or Tape.
In either case, the debate is moot.
Gimme both! I'm greedy!
As Jiill Scott reminded me there has to be a yin and a yang to life. This site would be poorer with the absence of Ron or Mark. Time and and calm reflection allows one to see that maybe your opinion is not as strong and your opponents not as siliy as you first thought. I pose the following hypothetical. A life long Pepsi drinker says Coke tastes like swamp water and that he would never drink an off brand. When subjected to a blind test not only does he not pick Pepsi, he picks brand x. In a rematch he picks Pepsi. He is forced to admit the other colas are pretty damn good.
Myles-The funny thing is that I have obtained records from some digital converts and in most cases they were trash and had to be thrown out. Most of them sound like they were played on a $30 changer with a $5.00 cartridge with a quarter taped to the headshell. It is no wonder that people whose records were treated and abused like some of the ones that I have seen look at us like we have two heads when we tell them that analog sounds better than digital.
Long ago adopted the following policy: Yes digital is perfect-sell me your records. Now isn't that easy and like taking candy from a kid?
Do we have any members here working equally hard on their analog and digital? Someone trying to make everything the absolute best it can be?
Those people seem to always come to the conclusion that analog is superior, maybe it's an experience thing?
Sure, I would pay almost anything for a CD player that performed as well as my analog but that probably will not happen in my lifetime. The format we're allowed to own was set in stone twenty five years ago by Sony and Phillips.
The industry is watching Apple earn millions (billions?) from downloads, so the bean counters have no interest in a new digital format that accurately mirrors the master file. If anything the loudness wars and download schemes are crushing the tiny minority we represent.
The best LPs are now commonly $50.00 or more and not a lot of profit for any one person. Downloads are almost pure profit. No physical media, no material cost, no shipping, no defects no profit sharing with retailers and no returns. Digital is the format of the future, it will win in the end, I have no doubt. That being said, as with many things in life quality frequently looses the war against ease of use, convenience and profit.
A long time friend in the recording business, a guy responsible for some of the most important CD and LP releases out there is solidly an analog guy. At one of the New York shows a few years ago we had a long conversation and he shared a story. It was told to me in a tone of partial disbelief even though he was experiencing it first hand.
His conclusion from working with artists all the way through end product to the consumer is that a great digital master at rest in it's original source is a miracle to hear, even better than analog in some ways. But, any attempt to move, mix, downsample or transfer degrades it terribly and no one could fully understand why. He added that converting the digital master at the source, to analog and pressing to LP was more faithful than the CD. They seem to think moving, downsampling and whatever else to get to red book damages the files beyond repair. He concluded it might have to do with timing, clocks and sample rates.
Well, Gentlemen prefer blondes, and that's what I prefer (I guess that means I'm a Gentleman too)
If the CD sounds antiseptic then blame the artist/recording engineer. If there is one CD that sounds good to you, that proves it can work, and there's nothing inherently wrong with digital.
If you bought a Camus 1997 Cabernet wine that was corked would you give up wine altogether and move to beer?
What arrives at your ear from the loudspeaker is analog so this "our ear is analog" is not relevant.
I listened to analog for 25 years before hearing digital, so I know that analog can work: you can tap your foot to the music, party and have a great time listening to it. But digital is better right out of the box, without any work required.
If we are looking for work and want to work on something that would produce the greatest benefit how about fixing the recording and play chains so the quality is more consistent?
The biggest variable in sound quality is the recording (digital or analog) and the loudspeakers and their interaction with the room acoustics.
I'm not an expert on digital versus analog recordings. Based on current scientific evidence, measurements and listening my opinion is that digital is a better solution. When people come to conclusions about the sound quality of analog versus digital recordings I worry that they are comparing apples with oranges. You have to make sure the same master tape is being compared w/o someone unduly screwing up the sound of one versus the other.
Phil Ramone has said that when CD came out, many of the original analog master tapes - equalized, bass turned into mono, and compressed to compensate for the limitations of vinyl -- were simply mastered to CD without changes. The CD's sounded much worse than the vinyl releases because the masters were optimized for vinyl not CD. He said no wonder that people thought CD sounded bad: they were bad! But that had to do mostly with the gross incompetence of the record labels, and not due to any limitation with digital recordings and the technology.
Sounds like sloppy mastering; I think also that Phil was referring to rock reissues. To wit, many of these companies didn't even go back to the original masters but some mixdown version; today, with all the rush to make vinyl, some of these companies even nowadays are using whatever source they can get their hands on eg. bad digital masters or any tape that is laying around. Many of these precious masters have been destroyed, stolen or misplaced as the music companies only concern was how much was it costing them to store the tapes.
That's the number one problem in evaluating reissues: What is the source--and that's the reason many of the Japanese and other reissues sound terrible to me. They are using later generation copies of the master tapes. One clear clue is a loss of bass punch.
The care taken in mastering LPs is exemplified by companies such as Analogue Productions, Music Matters Jazz and ORG. Steve, Kevin and Bernie go the extra mile to make sure they have the original tape when doing the remastering and their remastering electronics are state-of-the-art, often custom designed. Oh and yes, they use more antiquated technology in the remasterings of LPs (or CDs): tubes.
And I obviously don't place a lot of stock in the supposed scientific superiority of digital as it applies to music reproduction. For instance, there are significant differences in the product produced by different CD plants sent the same, exact digital file. Same thing goes with material with the same master being made with different metal/plastic.
Yes. Probably. I'm trying to find a path forward that is affordable for me. But as far as I know, those audiophiles who have demonstrated that they can go to the figurative "ends-of-the-earth" to achieve the very best analog, and who are now turning towards the very best digital, just can't get there from here. The DACs needed seem to be very, very scarce (unobtanium) and the digital files for great performances are more rare than R2R.
I wonder if there is an profitable, secure way to master-level, digital playback the way there is for analog (R2R and 45's).
They can't get there from here because the road is their destination. Take away the tweaking, the upgrading, the synergizing, and you take away their joy. They are often improving nothing, frequently making matters worse, but they're doing what they love. And neither quality DACs nor good digital files are rare or particularly expensive.
P
I'm raising my hand. I'm an equal opportunity user.
My front ends are on the SOTA side. Not the best perhaps but up there. I would say that on the entry level CD smacks down LP. I'm talking about a Made in God knows where DVD player vs. that NAD Turntable with the wacky P-mount at Radio Shack. Approaching a thousand bucks things get interesting like a Technics SL-1200 with a Shure or Ortofon MM cart vs say a Cayin tubed unit. Here I've found it becomes a recorded version issue. Going up to the tables with low self noise and pristine LPs, Digital's edge starts to erode rapidly leaving only the superiority in bass reproduction which in my opinion it holds all the way to the State of the Art. Midrange and Treble resolution however begins to favor LP. As far as I am concerned it really is a resolution issue. Someday digital will have equal or more resolution as a chemical based medium. The current digital formats fall short. There's a good paper that came out of the University of St. Andrews laboratory. I wish I could find it.
Most people that knock vinyl haven't been exposed to a well set up rig playing near mint records. Two very important points as set up is an art and so is finding good LPs! Sean is right in that out of the box digital HAS an edge. I'd say a tremendous one. I'm lucky I have friends that are masters at setting up turntables and have been able to mentor me. Otherwise I would have given up a long time ago.
True. LP playback has no digital black. Even the cleanest most pristine LP played with an excellent arm and cart on a table with no audible rumble and acoustic feedback has groove echo. Funny thing is if you put your ear close to your speaker the noise is something that sounds very familiar. It sounds like something we often take for granted. It sounds like room tone. I speculate that that is the reason our brains can filter out the noise easily. We filter out similar noise every waking hour. We don't live in anechoic chambers and what we normally consider silence is actually very far from it.
Quotes are Tonmeister
What's difficult for me is owning both formats and trying to go back and forth in my music library without becoming annoyed at the digital.
When you get analog right the ear and body do not need to adjust, the sound reaches your heart and soul bypassing all logic. Digital (at least in the format they let us have) annoys the ear and you must work to believe.
However, there are huge differences in peoples ability to discriminate. I know healthy, intelligent people that say MP3 sounds as good as CD and don't understand the need for analog at all.
Yep, it's a lot easier to screw up analog because it's all mechanical. An important friend in the audio business once said to me, "Analog playback sounds right because there really is an instrument, right there in your room re creating the original event"
I never thought of a turntable as an instrument but there is at least some truth in his statement. Getting it right with all the mechanical vibration, possibility of feedback, correct stylus force, overhang, VTA and extreme quality of all mechanical parts are critical. Get it right and playback is as quiet as CD and no contest on LPs ability to pull of a performance that sounds like real music.
My system achieves that on many LPs (certainly not all) but the few milliseconds of noise, even on the bad pressings is an equitable trade for me to have the other 99.999% closer to the music.
Where do I apply?
Seriously, I do that in my own system and very slowly resolve problems that exist in every playback chain and loudspeaker. I judge based on having heard thousands of systems over many years and the only goal is playback that sounds like music.
The room is at least half the system, and why I spent a fortune doing my RBDG design.
After that, there are easily a dozen high end speakers I could own and be as happy with. Many top tier speaker with proper set up and associated electronics can deliver absolutely wonderful sound.
Other than my Dali Megaline the ones that first comes to mind are Evolution Acoustics, Avalon, Magneplanar 20.1, Sound-Lab, Kharma Exquisite, Dynaudio Master, Tidal Sunray and so on.
If I actually had to make this choice I would put in the time and travel and make an informed guess as to which would be the best fit in my space and listening habits.
Surely you don't believe analog and digital are not without sonic signature?
What's difficult for me is owning both formats and trying to go back and forth in my music library without becoming annoyed at the digital.
When you get analog right the ear and body do not need to adjust, the sound reaches your heart and soul bypassing all logic. Digital (at least in the format they let us have) annoys the ear and you must work to believe.
However, there are huge differences in peoples ability to discriminate. I know healthy, intelligent people that say MP3 sounds as good as CD and don't understand the need for analog at all.
Yep, it's a lot easier to screw up analog because it's all mechanical. An important friend in the audio business once said to me, "Analog playback sounds right because there really is an instrument, right there in your room re creating the original event"
I never thought of a turntable as an instrument but there is at least some truth in his statement. Getting it right with all the mechanical vibration, possibility of feedback, correct stylus force, overhang, VTA and extreme quality of all mechanical parts are critical. Get it right and playback is as quiet as CD and no contest on LPs ability to pull of a performance that sounds like real music.
My system achieves that on many LPs (certainly not all) but the few milliseconds of noise, even on the bad pressings is an equitable trade for me to have the other 99.999% closer to the music.
Where do I apply?
Seriously, I do that in my own system and very slowly resolve problems that exist in every playback chain and loudspeaker. I judge based on having heard thousands of systems over many years and the only goal is playback that sounds like music.
The room is at least half the system, and why I spent a fortune doing my RBDG design.
After that, there are easily a dozen high end speakers I could own and be as happy with. Many top tier speaker with proper set up and associated electronics can deliver absolutely wonderful sound.
Other than my Dali Megaline the ones that first comes to mind are Evolution Acoustics, Avalon, Magneplanar 20.1, Sound-Lab, Kharma Exquisite, Dynaudio Master, Tidal Sunray and so on.
If I actually had to make this choice I would put in the time and travel and make an informed guess as to which would be the best fit in my space and listening habits.
Jack,
Add to that when you are fortunate enough to have not only a near pristine and clean LP but one that is remarkably pressed with the proper balance and "body" of highs, midrange, bass, etc. and a well set-up vinyl system will really shine and show what is possible. From my system and my experience, when this all comes together the vinyl performs better than my digital front end of upgraded (modified equipment) and I expect that will remain unchanged after I add an upgraded/modified jitter reducing piece.
Rich
Add to that when you are fortunate enough to have not only a near pristine and clean LP but one that is remarkably pressed with the proper balance and "body" of highs, midrange, bass, etc. and a well set-up vinyl system will really shine and show what is possible. From my system and my experience, when this all comes together the vinyl performs better than my digital front end of upgraded (modified equipment) and I expect that will remain unchanged after I add an upgraded/modified jitter reducing piece.
Rich
Oh Rich and add to that the sense of history and wonder of how something pressed as far back as the 50s or 60s using Fred Flintstone monitoring systems could have so much information their makers didn't even know were in there! They were using optics and not electronic measuring devices. Then wonder how they survived the better part of a century to make it into our hands in such pristine condition
By the way I'm buying this book
http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/books/non-fiction/article6674875.ece
Looks like a good read
By the way I'm buying this book
http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/books/non-fiction/article6674875.ece
Looks like a good read
You sound like a person that has no control over the outcome of their system and then take out your anger those that do.
If you think good digital files are easy to come by how about posting where they can be obtained. My guess is you're going to say HD Tracks or something equal. If you sincerely think that is state of the art you need to get out more.
Albert, do you have any of the Minnesota Orchestra hybrids? I did not personally measure the same, but someone I know did and we're talking 85 dB of dynamic range.
I don't listen much to classical and don't see your comment having any connection to the post by PP.
Oh and sorry for adding this late, my reaction was due to the attitude of PP basically saying that all of us have our head up our ass and tweaking away to reach some level of personal gratification since we (obviously) have no idea what the heck we're doing.
- Status
Similar threads
