Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[SoundMann]

So why berate your "fellow musicians"?

I am only acknowleging the fact they couldn't achieve what they did in a single take.

 

[hopkins]

I am only acknowleging the fact they couldn't achieve what they did in a single take.

Because they are not talented, as you stated? Is that a "fact"?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Perhaps screw-up is the wrong term here as this isn't exactly what I was referring to though. The best musicians of the 60's, 70's and early 80's had the most polished and refined acts on record, the kind that completely moved and engaged a listener regardless of its technical proficiencies.

This is not something that is achieved in a single take.

the Beatles commonly did dozens, up to 100 takes. not real world for d-t-d.

agree all other things being equal that we would all appreciate if those optimal performances might have been recorded d-t-d.

OTOH i view them as absolutely perfectly imperfect.

 

[SoundMann]

Because they are not talented, as you stated? Is that a "fact"?

Show me someone who can?

 

[hopkins]

Show me someone who can?

Its always amusing to see how people presenting themselves as "experts" on music think this is going to give them authority when it comes to "audio". I suspect in your case it's just a posture.

 

[Lagonda]

Show me someone who can?

I would put money on a good result from Van Morrison, he never disappoints live !

 

[SoundMann]

Its always amusing to see how people presenting themselves as "experts" on music think this is going to give them authority when it comes to "audio". I suspect in your case it's just a posture.

You seem to be new here. My audio expertise has been documented in this very forum.

 

[SoundMann]

I would put money on a good result from Van Morrison, he never disappoints live !

If any band could have done it, Rush would have been at the top of the list.

 

[hopkins]

You seem to be new here. My audio expertise has been documented in this very forum.

I'm not challenging your audio "expertise"...

 

[hopkins]

If any band could have done it, Rush would have been at the top of the list.

Lol. Musicians have been recording "direct to disc" from the 1920s to the 1950s before recording to tape. So all of a sudden, because of a technical innovation, musicians somehow became "less talented"? This is absurd and makes no sense. Stick to audio...

 

[SoundMann]

Lol. Musicians have been recording "direct to disc" from the 1920s to the 1950s before recording to tape. So all of a sudden, because of a technical innovation, musicians somehow became "less talented"? This is absurd and makes no sense. Stick to audio...

You are twisting what I said to serve your own agenda!

 

[hopkins]

You are twisting what I said to serve your own agenda!

I have no agenda (aside for trying to avoid posting complete nonsense)

 

[treitz3]

.....and now back to our regularly scheduled topic....

(Hint, hint...)

Tom

 

[Ian B]

There is little doubt that modern high resolution digital, esp. DSD, is technically superior to analogue, which has remained more or less static since the introduction of Dolby SR in the early 1990s. From a recording point of view, I would challenge anyone to distinguish a live mic feed from one encoded and decoded in real time with DSD. I have done this often, and cannot tell a difference. However, the process of recording the signal onto a storage medium and the retrieval can introduce some artifacts, depending on the equipment. These artifacts are miniscule when compared to those introduced during the mastering and production of vinyl records. The only argument I can see is whether analogue recordings, esp. those from the golden age of stereo between 1954 and the mid-1970s, are best served by staying analogue or digitized. I would say if properly done, they are best digitized for the majority of users. This means encoding with minimal manipulation into high rez DSD. Of the 400 or so transfers I have done so far from my master tapes, I would say pretty much all of them are superior to commercially available vinyl LPs, whether these are original releases or audiophile reissues. But I must also say that many commercial digital reissues of old recordings have not been done well. The redbook CD files should not even be considered nowadays, and even the high rez transfers were either upsampled from low resolution files, or done without much care, which is reflected in the end result. For new recordings, there is little point in the extra expense of using analogue tape, other than for commercial reasons. Unfortunately, few modern digital recordings are being made with the same care and technical expertise afforded the classic analogue recordings of the golden age. Oftentimes, the best recorded versions of certain pieces remain those made 60 years ago. And if no well transferred digital reissues of these recordings are available, vinyl remains the best option unless one has access to the master tapes. Of course, the original 4-track tapes of these recordings, if in good condition, will almost always be superior to the vinyl records, and often cost less than the new audiophile reissues, but this is a separate topic in itself.

This exactly. I would say, a lot of analog tape still sounds better than a number of DSD capable ADC/DAC chains. But it's the closest, and least lossy way to get the sound of the original analog input, without the noise and character of tape. It's the only digital format that feels like analog, retains the same depth, and a satisfyingly complete level of detail.

But even if we had way more 2x and 4x DSD recordings/transfers, the greater problem today is lower engineering standards, lower performance standards (reliant on digital editing), and the demise of big studious with good acoustics and high end microphones.

Pretty tough place to be, esp for new music that general sounds polluted with the grain/haze of DSP plugins. For old tape recordings, and direct recordings of acoustic instruments, you can't do better than a high quality DSD.

 

[Ian B]

Lol. Musicians have been recording "direct to disc" from the 1920s to the 1950s before recording to tape. So all of a sudden, because of a technical innovation, musicians somehow became "less talented"? This is absurd and makes no sense. Stick to audio...

Consider what can be done with endless punches/edits/comps, autotune, grid alignment, drum replacement etc etc, MIDI instruments, there is definitely a lower expectation of technical performance than in the era of tape.