I think you're dead wrong. Somebody mucked with the mix. If you think that analog has less high frequency info than digital, I don't know what to say. Analog has no brick wall filter at 20 kHz.
Mike Fremer and an interesting observation
- Thread starter valkyrie
- Start date
I think you're dead wrong. Somebody mucked with the mix. If you think that analog has less high frequency info than digital, I don't know what to say. Analog has no brick wall filter at 20 kHz.
I don't expect to be in the majority in this crowd, Mark. But I am a guy sitting in a room playing guitar and singing, I've been doing that for almost 50 years, and prefer what you like but I'm here to tell you, the only way that particular vinyl is more real than that particular CD is if the strings on that guitar were stone dead. In which case I'll have to wonder how that CD manufactured such authentic-sounding string sound that wasn't there.
....and drowns a lot of high frequency information. One thing is for sure: there's the dividing line. Impossible to miss, even on a YouTube video. You guys can stop telling me what I haven't heard now. I've heard it. I just don't like it.
Tim
Did you watch the video Mark? The guy who produced the thing was there. He described the process. There was no re-mix.There was no EQ. And the "filter" on that vinyl was a hell of a lot lower than 20kHz, by the way.
What I think, is not that analog has less high frequency info that redbook, but that vinyl adds enough midrange to drown it. That's not just what I think, it's what I hear. Particularly in this example.
Tim
And it appeals because it sounds more real. Last night during my listening session I jotted down the following on my notepad:
Digital is soulless next to analog and if you don't understand that, you never will.
And it really does help to understand the differences if you get to hear both analog and digital on a regular basis in your room and on your system.
Digital is soulless next to analog and if you don't understand that, you never will.
And it really does help to understand the differences if you get to hear both analog and digital on a regular basis in your room and on your system.
Tim- He desribed how it was recorded which I understand. He didn't describe what happened along the way to make the CD version or the LP version. Somebody mucked with it. Actually, the sound of the YouTube video is pretty horrid and even on the CD version I don't think his guitar sounds good. Yes, it's more prominent in the mix, but it still sounds like crap to me. Even though the recording on YouTube is terrible, you can still tell his voice sounds much better than the CD version.
The bottom line is we know very well how the tape was recorded. What we don't know is what happened during the mastering to vinyl and the CD mastering. They are not the same mix and I would bet money on that.
What you fail to understand is that analog didn’t make the strings of his guitar sound they way they do. The way it was mastered made it sound that way. And let’s not forget the horrid recording of this event on YouTube. And I wouldn’t be hanging my hat on how ‘good’ his guitar sounded over the CD version. It still sucked.I don't expect to be in the majority in this crowd, Mark. But I am a guy sitting in a room playing guitar and singing, I've been doing that for almost 50 years, and prefer what you like but I'm here to tell you, the only way that particular vinyl is more real than that particular CD is if the strings on that guitar were stone dead. In which case I'll have to wonder how that CD manufactured such authentic-sounding string sound that wasn't there.
All you heard was a guitar sounding louder, not necessarily ‘better.’ And even through this crappy sounding video, his voice still sounded a 1000x times better via analog. Even a deaf man could hear the difference. Jeez, my recording of Sonny Rollins that I posted on WBF sounds like a million dollars compared to this video.
Okay, I just checked in at the 1:00 hour mark. If he described the difference before that, I missed it. But I don't care because if he captured it on the tape, it would have transferred to vinyl if it was mastered correctly. Did he say who mastered the vinyl? Does anyone besides you really want to claim that digital captures high frequencies better than analog?
Hi
Truly the CD trumps the LP in this demo.. I don't know what else anyone can say about this.. or else the mind is more powerful than I thought. The LP sounded muffled compared to the CD a simple as that. So what gives ? mhhh? And it is only CD? This particular LP does NOT sound to me more real ... maybe I am biased ... Not conclusive but interesting nonetheless and to hear this through an Internet digital stream in mp3!! and the differences are so audible ..could digital be that good? Nah !!!just a fluke...
Truly the CD trumps the LP in this demo.. I don't know what else anyone can say about this.. or else the mind is more powerful than I thought. The LP sounded muffled compared to the CD a simple as that. So what gives ? mhhh? And it is only CD? This particular LP does NOT sound to me more real ... maybe I am biased ... Not conclusive but interesting nonetheless and to hear this through an Internet digital stream in mp3!! and the differences are so audible ..could digital be that good? Nah !!!just a fluke...
No one mastered either. They set the levels during recording, recorded straight to 2-track, then took that direct to digital and cutting. It doesn't get any simpler, mark. It is what it is, and yes, it is effected by compression, but both media are effected, so....? Maybe detail in the vinyl was lost in translation that was somehow preserved in the digital? I don't know, I just know what I hear, and it sounds very familiar, though a bit exaggerated. This is what I hear in vinyl, relative to good digital. This is why I don't like the stuff. And as always, YMMV.
Ok I watched this a bunch of times. The LP absolutely sounds like a 3rd generation recording. As Tim, says, to me , it does not sound like an actual live person singing.
I know Chris Whitley very well, I own his whole discography. The CD to me represents the proper balance between vocal and guitar.
But.. this Youtube stream is so crappy, that this whole comparison, with out being there in the room, is kind of a joke.
I stand by my notion of preconceived notion and predetermined biases.
We also know nothing about the CD player or system used.
The crappy YouTube did well enough with Mr. Tambourine Man. But of course there are no Audiophile sacred cows being slain there, no need for excuses. I think the mp3, and the simplicity of these examples, may be exaggerating the differences here, but I don't think it is creating them out of thin air. All things being equal, simple, and of very high quality, there's your magic midrange; enjoy it. I'll pass.
Tim
Tim
I listened to this again this morning, and now I'm convinced that there's something wrong. Do I normally hear loss of high frequencies and an unnatural emphasis on midrange in vinyl? Yes. But this is beyond that. A well-recorded album shouldn't even be this bad. A 45 rpm 12" single? It just shouldn't be this muddy and rolled off. Even the Dylan example is significantly more subtle. Something is amiss with the playback of the Whitley vinyl. It sucks. And that may support my argument, but it's too bad to be true.
Tim
Tim
Tim, I agree
There is a vast difference between the vinyl & digital playback on that first track. It sounded to me like something was wrong with either the digital or vinyl - not sure which. I've never heard such a disparity before!
The Dylan tracks are actually of more interest as they are both digital but one is from a 3rd gen copy equed for vinyl (is this what was said?) & the other from the 1st gen master tape. There is a distinct difference between them. It is interesting in that I wonder if the difference is due to the 3rd gen or due to the equing for vinyl??
It's the vinyl that's wrong. Its pure mud. Something has completely obliterated the high frequency details in both the guitar and the voice. God knows it supports my beilefs, and I'd love to be that right, but after a good night's sleep and a fresh listen, I know it's not that easy; the difference between good digital and good vinyl is clearly audible, not subtle, but not that stark.
I suspect the answer is yes, with heavy weight in favor of eq. There is an audible difference a couple of generations down in tape, but it's not usually that dramatic. I don't know if this track is the one referred to, but one of those industry pros in that panel made the remark that something was "mastered for vinyl," and none of the rest of them contradicted him. Curious, because someone here was saying there is no such thing just the other day. Evidently there is. Maybe it's a submaster and the original is left untouched, but evidently that panel of pros believes there is such a thing as a "master" tape that is eq'd for vinyl.
Tim
Similar threads
