Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Rexp]

Curious how you would qualify "seem" here.

Well phone videos like the one below are compressed by YouTube but still sound good, hard to know what the true potential is.

 

[hopkins]

This is definitely true. But consider...a Billie Eilish song has around 100 edits, often for each syllable of a word, just for the lead vocal, and potentially dozens to hundreds of vocal tracks. This has become very common in pop music, numerous takes per syllable. For instruments, maybe 1-2 bars max (if there are real instruments) between punches. Songs now have hundreds of total tracks. In 1966 Dylan had...3 tracks.

I'm not specifically talking about single take recording, or recording without editing. I worked as an intern and assistant engineer in what were the last days of analog 24 track "rock" studios. The work load, and pace where far higher in Pro Tools projects, as where the number and pace of edits, often leading to very much homogenized performances that didn't really breathe. And we weren't even snapping instruments to a tempo grid, tuning the vocals, or replacing things with samples.

Bands that would come in and record to tape would have more preparation, a slower and less frantic tracking process, and far, far, far fewer edits. Often without a click track. And this also weighted towards instrumentalists, with multiple microphone recordings, whereas today most of the instruments are likely to be MIDI sequenced virtual instruments or samples.

There were people like Butch Vig who would track the Smashing Pumpkins drums two bars at a time, and then manually align the kick and snare drums with razor blade and tape on the multitrack. But this was so prohibitive to do, there was a huge incentive not to overdo it.

What you see is that popular artists are more studio workhouses than old-fashioned performers, and their contribution is intimately tied with the digital composition and editing process. And not surprisingly, their live performances rely heavily on backing tracks, effects/autotune, and often lip-sync.

I hear you, but if the results sound good, that's all that matters (to me at least). You can tell listening to a Billie Eilish studio album that she is no Celine Dion when it comes to singing abilities/technique, even if her voice is heavily processed. Eilish's appeal is in her compositions and the "ambiance"/atmosphere she creates in her songs.

Eilish does tour, and people attend her concerts (never been to one). I don't think people who go see her would even care if some of it is not "live" as long as they enjoy the experience. Personally, I would not bother to go see her live - but I rarely go to see pop music (last one was over 10 years ago - Chrissie Hynde...who in fact is back here in Paris soon). If what you are after is "unadulterated" talent, it's still out there to be heard - a friend saw Kingfish live this summer at Montreux and loved it - not to mention classical, jazz, and many other genres where digital processing is absent.

All this does not explain why direct to disc was not more widely adopted.

 

[Lagonda]

I get that - it makes things easy for some. But has the proportion of bad musicians risen? The bad ones recorded then too - we simply don't listen to them today, they are forgotten. Technology offers opportunities as well. If an instrument is not recorded well, it can be overdubbed. Charles Mingus famously overdubbed his bass on an album (I forget which one) for that reason.

Vis a vis being able to record in a single take, I don't know how meaningful that is. Even in the "old days" bands rehearsed, and did several takes in the recording studios. It was also a creative process.

I was reading this wikipedia entry recently about this Dylan song:

Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There were 20 takes... I don't think anyone would call the session musicians "untalented".

"Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again" was written by Dylan,[5] who sang and played harmonica on the song, with Kooper on organ, and members of the A-Team of studio musicians that had been engaged for the album sessions: Charlie McCoy, Wayne Moss and Joe South (guitars), Hargus Robbins (piano), Henry Strzelecki (electric bass) and Kenneth Buttrey (drums).[6] All 20 takes of the song were recorded in the early hours of February 17, 1966, at Columbia Records's Studio A. Dylan reworked the song in the studio, revising lyrics and changing the song's structure as he recorded different takes. According to Clinton Heylin, most of the revisions were to the song's arrangement, rather than to the words. Eventually, after recording for three hours, a master take, the twentieth and final take, lasting seven minutes and six seconds, was chosen.[7][5] It was released as the second track on side two of Dylan's seventh studio album, the double album Blonde on Blonde, on June 20, 1966..."

Edit - found the reference to Mingus overdubbing his bass. He did it first on the 1953 Massey Hall concert:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1117432338280884&id=100038357721046

Dylans out-takes and alternative versions have created a whole sub category of his work, often with very good sound. They were often not manipulated as much in the studio as the album versions.

 

[mtemur]

All this does not explain why direct to disc was not more widely adopted.

Direct-to-disc (D2D) sessions are limited because only one set of lacquers can be cut per session, and only a limited number of records can be pressed from that single set. This is one of the main reasons D2D isn't more widely adopted, among other factors.

 

[SoundMann]

Direct-to-disc (D2D) sessions are limited because only one set of lacquers can be cut per session, and only a limited number of records can be pressed from that single set. This is one of the main reasons D2D isn't more widely adopted, among other factors.

Well, I did invent a format that may have solved these issues. But nobody seems to be the least bit interested in it

 

[Rexp]

Well, I did invent a format that may have solved these issues. But nobody seems to be the least bit interested in it

I believe a new format is required, what did you invent?

 

[SoundMann]

I believe a new format is required, what did you invent?

Technically, it is a full spectrum frequency-modulated optical analog disc format.

 

[treitz3]

Then respectfully put that on a different thread to be discussed. It has no place on this thread, as it is off topic.

Tom

 

[skinnyfla]

I had an Audio Note 1.1 DAC a number of years ago. It wasn't my cup of tea, found it lifeless

… proves how different tastes are… I‘ve been looking for a DAC for many years in the 5-12k price range and ended with a 2.1x Signature by AN because it is simply the most analog, warm and musical sounding DAC in my system… wonderful machine… guess everyone meeds to make their own experience…

 

[Rexp]

… proves how different tastes are… I‘ve been looking for a DAC for many years in the 5-12k price range and ended with a 2.1x Signature by AN because it is simply the most analog, warm and musical sounding DAC in my system… wonderful machine… guess everyone meeds to make their own experience…

If one accepts most digital recordings have digital distortion embedded into them, it then becomes a question of how best to amealerate the situation. AN DAC's do a good job of masking the digital distortion to allow the music to come through. Same reason why digital recordings often sound better on vinyl.

 

[adrianywu]

Do you think they had the talent to play a whole new album worth of material without screwing up in a single take?

They had the talent to play live in front of thousands.

 

[skinnyfla]

If one accepts most digital recordings have digital distortion embedded into them, it then becomes a question of how best to amealerate the situation. AN DAC's do a good job of masking the digital distortion to allow the music to come through. Same reason why digital recordings often sound better on vinyl.

... well, I don`t know what they do technically and I don`t know whether it is technically correct or wrong... but AN DACs (at least from the 2.1x Sig. upwards) produce a sound that is rich, warm, colorful, has space and just seems musical, maybe not as resolving or analytical as others, but tonally very satisfying... of course it is still digital, but they get close(ish) to what I like about vinyl.

Not in the least harsh or fatiguing... just goes to prove that tastes and listening habits are extremely individual... I would suppose that applies to formats/sources as well as setups within that format, one may prefer digital over analog and the other way around and one may enjoy a more resolving setup over a fuller richer sound within any given format... an vice versa...

Part of the reason why I have never understood these discussions, one can`t argue about personal taste. It might be another discussion to see what is objectively better - but that has never been of interest to me, very often products that are "objectively" more accurate sound fatiguing to me.

 

[facten]

proves how different tastes are… I‘ve been looking for a DAC for many years in the 5-12k price range and ended with a 2.1x Signature by AN because it is simply the most analog, warm and musical sounding DAC

Actually our taste preference in DACs isn't really different. For whatever reason at the time I had the AN it just didn't do it for me ; maybe it was a lack of synergy with the other components I had at the time. I have a Modwright Elysee tube DAC in my 2nd system, and had a Mojo Audio EVO Mystique in my main system both of which I'd characterize as having the relative sound signature you describe above. The DAC in my Neodio Origine S2 CD player has a similar signature. I purchased it versus theTron Signature DAC that I auditioned at the same time. While IMHO the Tron is an excellent DAC I passed on it because for me the sound was too transparent/analytical. I have found in the past having a DAC with that signature was fatiguing to listen to after an hour or so.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

If one accepts most digital recordings have digital distortion embedded into them, it then becomes a question of how best to amealerate the situation. AN DAC's do a good job of masking the digital distortion to allow the music to come through. Same reason why digital recordings often sound better on vinyl.

i think this is a flawed perspective. while digital can add nasties which with the right dac can be 'fixed' (see the Wadax feed-forward error correction process), fundamentally the issue for digital recordings are sins of omission. analog is not perfect either, but is relatively musically complete. and the better analog recordings do not smear musical peaks. which on direct compare are easy to hear.

so it's what's not there with digital which is the unfixable thing.

 

[chuck]

i think this is a flawed perspective. while digital can add nasties which with the right dac can be 'fixed' (see the Wadax feed-forward error correction process), fundamentally the issue for digital recordings are sins of omission. analog is not perfect either, but is relatively musically complete. and the better analog recordings do not smear musical peaks. which on direct compare are easy to hear.

so it's what's not there with digital which is the unfixable thing.

That is not what I have heard and seems to be contrary to what recording engineers have said. for example see the Bernie Grundman Audio Salon YT and numerous articles on the topic. Patricia Barber's recording engineer Ulrike Schwartz said the same thing. The vinyl grooves can only hold a certain amount of information that can be picked up by the stylus which imposes compromises that do not need to be made when making CDs from the tape master or of course from digital recordings. For example, Warner Classics remastered from the original tape CD reissue of the Klemperer Beethoven 7th compared to the original German pressing LP, there is more musical information on the CD. The DG TOS Kleiber Beethoven 7th sounds great but there is smearing that is not present on the MTT SFS SACD. The Decca reissue LP of the Solti CSO Beethoven 9th has smearing not present on the Rattle BSO CD or the MTT SFS SACD.

Can you please cite examples where there is smearing on the CD or SACD but not on the LP?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That is not what I have heard and seems to be contrary to what recording engineers have said. for example see the Bernie Grundman Audio Salon YT and numerous articles on the topic. Patricia Barber's recording engineer Ulrike Schwartz said the same thing. The vinyl grooves can only hold a certain amount of information that can be picked up by the stylus which imposes compromises that do not need to be made when making CDs from the tape master or of course from digital recordings. For example, Warner Classics remastered from the original tape CD reissue of the Klemperer Beethoven 7th compared to the original German pressing LP, there is more musical information on the CD. The DG TOS Kleiber Beethoven 7th sounds great but there is smearing that is not present on the MTT SFS SACD. The Decca reissue LP of the Solti CSO Beethoven 9th has smearing not present on the Rattle BSO CD or the MTT SFS SACD.

everyone has an opinion. i'm a listener. and what i hear is based on recordings on media at the end of the process.

Can you please cite examples where there is smearing on the CD or SACD but not on the LP?

ok. Ben Webster Live at the Renaissance. "Georgia On My Mind". drum whack about 2 minutes in, hits a 130+ watt peak on my darTZeel 468 mono blocks on the 45rpm vinyl, and hits less than 80 watt peaks on the digital at the same steady SPL. smears the peaks.

i have a 100/1000 like this. all you want to hear. digital just does not capture the event in the same way. every damn time.

digital still sounds good. but can't keep up.

 

[morricab]

everyone has an opinion. i'm a listener. and what i hear is based on recordings on media at the end of the process.

ok. Ben Webster Live at the Renaissance. "Georgia On My Mind". drum whack about 2 minutes in, hits a 130+ watt peak on my darTZeel 468 mono blocks on the 45rpm vinyl, and hits less than 80 watt peaks on the digital at the same steady SPL. smears the peaks.

i have a 100/1000 like this. all you want to hear. digital just does not capture the event in the same way. every damn time.

digital still sounds good. but can't keep up.

Maybe a better DAC?

 

[hopkins]

ok. Ben Webster Live at the Renaissance. "Georgia On My Mind". drum whack about 2 minutes in, hits a 130+ watt peak on my darTZeel 468 mono blocks on the 45rpm vinyl, and hits less than 80 watt peaks on the digital at the same steady SPL. smears the peaks.

Not that it contradicts your point, but I just wanted to note that here are two sets of tapes for this session, as explained in the liner notes of the CD, so you should make sure you compared the same sources (mono vs mono, or stereo vs stereo):

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Not that it contradicts your point, but I just wanted to note that here are two sets of tapes for this session, as explained in the liner notes of the CD, so you should make sure you compared the same sources (mono vs mono, or stereo vs stereo):

View attachment 136503

Analog Productions used the same tapes for both the Lp and digital.

but there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of examples. this is not anything unique. just one i can cite off the top of my head and on my heavy rotation. and i enjoy the digital too.

just find any Lp and digital from the same tape with a drum kit and just......listen.

 

[hopkins]

Analog Productions used the same tapes for both the Lp and digital.

but there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of examples. this is not anything unique. just one i can cite off the top of my head and on my heavy rotation. and i enjoy the digital too.

just find any Lp and digital from the same tape with a drum kit and just......listen.

At least it was a heads up for those wanting to compare, not meant to contradict your findings, which I agree with (and that's why I occasionally purchase LPs...).