Well, this is embarrassing ... manyyyyy moons ago, a small group of people over, my amp over-extend it's limit in one channel, suddenly one very expensive woofer flashed and went silent ... playing: Celine Dion's Power of Love.
Great article on "Analogue Warmth"
- Thread starter Blizzard
- Start date
- Status
Well, this is embarrassing ... manyyyyy moons ago, a small group of people over, my amp over-extend it's limit in one channel, suddenly one very expensive woofer flashed and went silent ... playing: Celine Dion's Power of Love.
like a horse kicked it i bet
well, some may claim, much like watching Hendrix light his guitar on fire, until you destroy your own equipment, you'll never reach true audiophile nirvana ...
yea but celine dion doing it for you is kinda the opposite of what jim was on about
well, Hendrix is #1 by default, so lets just say I gained a new respect for Celine's power ...
i was joking about your linn a very lazy joke at that.. soz
np, didn't lose any feathers ... I'd enjoy ridiculing my own system/gear as much as the next guy ...
This is a well-written article and at least goes to some length to try and objectively quantify stereotypical (pun not intended) analogue sound. However, having carefully read it twice, I notice there is no mention of engineers such as Kenneth Wilkinson who managed to preserve that "analogue warmth" regardless of whether he was working with pure tubed equipment in the early 60s, transistor-equipped, Dolby "A" equipment in the 70s or even Decca's early bespoke purely digital 18 bit, 48 KHz equipment in the very late 70s to very early 80s...
For my own part I am a vinyl listener but not because I think it is better. It is because many professional engineers simply do not have a sufficient grasp of digital technology to recognise the pitfalls and how easy it is to destroy the sound during the original recording session and during mastering or remastering. These are typically the same sort of people who go onto forums (not this one luckily, so far as I can tell)and say that because it is all noughts and ones, nothing matters. The problem is that with digital, everything matters and it matters - audibly - to an obsessive degree. These same people will also tell you that 16 bit is good enough simply because it theoretically covers the dynamic range of an orchestral performance. You then try to explain to them that it makes violins and wind sound like nonsense because the harmonics are not accurately captured and are grossly distorted with so little low-level bits, to which they then reply that it doesn't matter because you can't hear them anyway. And then they will also say that 44.1 KHz is good enough because no-one can hear above 20 Khz and even if they could, there is no music "up there" that is audible. You then tell them that the 44.1 Khz limit completely fails to take into account the obviously audible effect of low pass filtering on the audible spectrum, no matter how sophisticated, nor the effects such a low sample rate has on transient attacks and "timing" (listen to a violinist put the bow on a string and start to move the bow at 96 KHz versus 44.1 KHz). So when you try to tell them you really need to go to 88.1 KHz or beyond to avoid all that, they then provide links to their favourite blind test-of-the-month to back it all up, failing to acknowledge the point that you've already done that type of testing yourself for 2 years (as have the engineers who actually do know what they are doing) and have completely and utterly failed to "make" 16/44.1 transparent, no matter what the process or sophistication of the products used. They are also the same people who when you try to look up their body of professional work, it either does not exist at all or it sounds like garbage. On the other hand, you then look up the body of work from those people who really do have a grasp on the pitfalls of digital (for example, blokes like Keith Johnson, Bernie Grundman, Bob Katz, Ryan Smith, etc, etc) and suddenly you find awards or praise left, right and centre and workloads so heavy that you have to wait a year to get a job done.
The bottom line is that I honestly cannot stand the term "analogue warmth" because I hear this so-called "warmth" daily in every single 24 bit digital file that I own, except the ones created by the type of "noughts and ones" people I mentioned in my second paragraph (yes, I can name precise names that come up over and over again but I am not going to for obvious reasons).
I will still only buy vinyl simply because I have invested too much money into it over the years and have quite a decent collection (for me) to then go around and spend far more on digital releases - even high res ones from people who really know what they are doing. It's got nothing to do with "analogue warmth". It is simply because there are both insufficient engineers living today who truly have the all-encompassing grasp on digital to make to truly transparent to the source and the fact that I made my format and investment decisions some years ago and wish to stick to it.
The bottom line is that I do not believe in analogue warmth, that analogue sounds better or that digital sounds bad. Everything is equal these days - it is the humans involved in the overall processes - taking into specific account their ability, experience and equipment choice - who make something good or bad.
That said, I agree with what is written in the article but I think it is important for to say that I call this "character" rather than warmth and it is purely due to the factors mentioned in the article and nothing more. Warmth to me somehow implies a very obvious colouration and to be honest, on good equipment, an old analogue recording from the early 60s is just as subjectively faithful to a performance as a fantastic modern recording.
For my own part I am a vinyl listener but not because I think it is better. It is because many professional engineers simply do not have a sufficient grasp of digital technology to recognise the pitfalls and how easy it is to destroy the sound during the original recording session and during mastering or remastering. These are typically the same sort of people who go onto forums (not this one luckily, so far as I can tell)and say that because it is all noughts and ones, nothing matters. The problem is that with digital, everything matters and it matters - audibly - to an obsessive degree. These same people will also tell you that 16 bit is good enough simply because it theoretically covers the dynamic range of an orchestral performance. You then try to explain to them that it makes violins and wind sound like nonsense because the harmonics are not accurately captured and are grossly distorted with so little low-level bits, to which they then reply that it doesn't matter because you can't hear them anyway. And then they will also say that 44.1 KHz is good enough because no-one can hear above 20 Khz and even if they could, there is no music "up there" that is audible. You then tell them that the 44.1 Khz limit completely fails to take into account the obviously audible effect of low pass filtering on the audible spectrum, no matter how sophisticated, nor the effects such a low sample rate has on transient attacks and "timing" (listen to a violinist put the bow on a string and start to move the bow at 96 KHz versus 44.1 KHz). So when you try to tell them you really need to go to 88.1 KHz or beyond to avoid all that, they then provide links to their favourite blind test-of-the-month to back it all up, failing to acknowledge the point that you've already done that type of testing yourself for 2 years (as have the engineers who actually do know what they are doing) and have completely and utterly failed to "make" 16/44.1 transparent, no matter what the process or sophistication of the products used. They are also the same people who when you try to look up their body of professional work, it either does not exist at all or it sounds like garbage. On the other hand, you then look up the body of work from those people who really do have a grasp on the pitfalls of digital (for example, blokes like Keith Johnson, Bernie Grundman, Bob Katz, Ryan Smith, etc, etc) and suddenly you find awards or praise left, right and centre and workloads so heavy that you have to wait a year to get a job done.
The bottom line is that I honestly cannot stand the term "analogue warmth" because I hear this so-called "warmth" daily in every single 24 bit digital file that I own, except the ones created by the type of "noughts and ones" people I mentioned in my second paragraph (yes, I can name precise names that come up over and over again but I am not going to for obvious reasons).
I will still only buy vinyl simply because I have invested too much money into it over the years and have quite a decent collection (for me) to then go around and spend far more on digital releases - even high res ones from people who really know what they are doing. It's got nothing to do with "analogue warmth". It is simply because there are both insufficient engineers living today who truly have the all-encompassing grasp on digital to make to truly transparent to the source and the fact that I made my format and investment decisions some years ago and wish to stick to it.
The bottom line is that I do not believe in analogue warmth, that analogue sounds better or that digital sounds bad. Everything is equal these days - it is the humans involved in the overall processes - taking into specific account their ability, experience and equipment choice - who make something good or bad.
That said, I agree with what is written in the article but I think it is important for to say that I call this "character" rather than warmth and it is purely due to the factors mentioned in the article and nothing more. Warmth to me somehow implies a very obvious colouration and to be honest, on good equipment, an old analogue recording from the early 60s is just as subjectively faithful to a performance as a fantastic modern recording.
Last edited:
I agree with your post. It really is the studio's job to make the music sound right. Our job with the playback equipment end is to reproduce what the studio has done in the most accurate way possible. But as you said, this can be unpleasant if the studio did a poor job. But what about when they did a great job? Do we want to add additional "Analogue warmth" and butcher what they accomplished?
"Analogue warmth" is just a euphemism for "Distortion and coloration" It has a much nicer ring to it than "distortion and coloration".
Those terms (although accurate) make some audiophiles cringe.
perhaps, from the outside looking in, this maybe true to some, but for those with enough experience, its just wayyyyyy too dismissive of analog's true advantages ...
My view is that I don't need my sound "warming" or "fattening up" if my listening environment doesn't preclude me from turning the volume up to realistic levels, and my system can handle it, with bass that can go all the way down. Take away one of those things, and all bets are off: my perception will be all Fletcher Munson'ed and/or bass-starved and then I may be in the market for 'an effects box' of some sort.
The thing is digital has come such a long way in the last couple years that very few people have the experience. Give it another 5 years when sound produced by DAC's like the Trinity, are obtainable for $500. All of the characteristics analogue buff's love about analogue, can be emulated with high resolution DSP. But the best part is, it can be disabled with a push of a button when the studio did their job well. Much easier and cheaper than changing out hardware for each album.
Precisely. I bet that most of those who dismiss analog have never heard top-level vinyl playback (I mean really top-level, which implies very big bucks, unfortunately). I have, and I have to concede that it does have advantages over most of the digital that I have heard (depending not just on recording quality but also on high-quality pressings that is; pressing quality is an achilles heel of vinyl).
And I say this because my ears, experienced with unamplified live music, tell me so, not because I am a vinyl guy and thus biased. On the contrary, I will never have a vinyl rig on my own, and I stick to Redbook CD instead as my only source of music, thank you very much.
Cool stuff to read the morning after Christmas day.
? The music...some music is warm to start with...others, they'll never be warm. ...Irregardless of the medium recording and the medium reproduction system. ...I think.
The artists, the musicians, the singers...some are warm, others are harsh in their singing/playing. ...The medium is only one aspect of the full reproduction chain.
But yes, tubes are warm, and John Fogerty (from C.C.R.) prefers his guitar tube amp.
Yesterday the music had more warmth in general because of the recording techniques and the mics of that time...reel-to-reel tape machines.
Today...reel-to-bits machines...but the music is also the transponder of a newer musical evolution. ...And warmth is in the music itself first, then in the way it is recorded, and transcribed, and reproduced.
Some LPs have no warmth, they were digitally recorded, some CDs have enormous amount of warmth, they were recorded in the analogue domain.
Happy and Warm Holidays, like big snow flakes falling from the sky in slow-motion when the temperature is smooth outside (warm).
'from the outside looking in' is a PC way of describing ignorance.
without considerable exposure to today's best analog these type comments are guesses only, and not even SWAG's (scientific wild ass ones) even. and I'm a digital lover who appreciates everything wonderful digital can do for the music.
I'd enjoy these negative analog generalizations to be in context with feedback on experiences with top level analog just once. but we know that will never happen.
I remember having a couple pro audio guys in my room a few years back doing a digital recording of a dtd pressing and hearing how short the digital hirez came to being able to match the vinyl. they were beside themselves and commented that they never knew analog could sound like that.
so viewpoints from the pro audio world on analog are a joke to me. they don't get it at all.
Very few have experience with tomorrows digital. They are basing their digital experience on obsolete digital from the past. Those who don't have experience with tomorrows digital, aren't in a position to judge.
It's kinda like sharing a review on the 2018 BMW M4, based on driving the 2007 M3.
See last post. Applies just the same.
Were they using the Merging Hapi with Pyramix and DSD 256 to make their digital recordings? Once again you are talking about the Ford model T. We have gone beyond that this day and age.
Sorry Blizz. This is twaddle. We don't have a "job" to do whatsoever. People who indulge in this hobby do it for *pleasure*. If that means vinyl, digital, iPod, ss, tubes, eq, tone controls, horns, panels, whatever else then that is the choice of the individual. Putting your didactic opinions on what people should or should not do is ignorant to say the least. Just accept that we all have different views of what we like and don't like.
Still 5 ears to wait? I had got the idea you had promised it for 2016! Lazy engineers ...
I have heard the dCS Vivaldi stack, and it compares very favorably to the best of analog, see post # 2. Note that I said "most of the digital that I have heard", not all digital.
Indeed, see also my post # 84 above.
And by the way, like you I am talking about top-level vinyl playback. From my experience I bet that my $ 8K digital playback will handily beat most vinyl playback in that same price range, at least in several areas crucial to me. On that level I'd say digital rules.
What you should conclude depends on if you're going on faith in some as of yet unmeasured magic in analog, or you're going by what we have right in front of us. If the latter, you could very easily conclude that I like much less distortion.
Tim
my analog has improved more than the digital from that time has. the gap is now wider, not narrower.
the difference between great redbook and dsd256 is much less than the different levels of analog. which you would only know about if you spent the time listening to it.
digital is wonderful in it's own right. it does not need to better or even equal analog. it's only when uninformed folks try to denigrate or marginalize the attributes of analog that we get into this stuff.
- Status
Similar threads
