More Format Wars?

[microstrip]

(...) The people fanatically defending that horrible electric sound probably haven't ever been in the same room as a proper, modern Edison Phonograph. (...)

I own an Edison GEM, an Edison Home and a Columbia model A phonographs and about thirty cylinders. Each phonograph sounds different - although I have not carried DBTs - but I still prefer my system using a Studer A80 and the Tapeproject tapes. Perhaps I must carry a proper scientific DBT between the phonographs and my system, my preference for it is probably due to expectation bias.

 

[Groucho]

Actually the earliest stereo/tape recordings are amazing and light years ahead of anything that was released in digital's infancy. I'll put a 58/59/60 Contemporary, Prestige, Blue Note, Mercury, RCA, Decca, EMI, etc. against anything done at the beginning of the digital era. And you also gloss over that most of the best digital releases of that era were analog recordings.

But the fact remains that digital recording was developed in order to get around the deficiencies of analogue, not just for fun or to annoy vinyl-o-philes. And it hit the target at almost the very first attempt in the 1970s when digital 'insurance copies' were auditioned against the state-of-the-art direct-to-disc recordings and judged by the label to be better, and they never looked back - their reputations and incomes were on the line when making that initial choice.

Analogue enthusiasts can claim measurement-transcending 'musicality' as much as they like, but it's fascinating to look at a moment when music professionals without an axe to grind chose early digital over state-of-the-art analogue. We can list a lot of technological development of digital in the intervening period; I think the improvments in vinyl would be quite a short list.

(I believe there was one a few years ago: the linear tracking tone arm. How are you all getting on with those?)

 

[microstrip]

But a few early, and truly superb sounding CDs ... Trinity Sessions 88, Cafe Blue 94, Barry Diament LZ & Bob Marley originals ...

I have never listened to a Led Zeppelin CD that could sound comparable to a good pressing LP, our preferences can be different. Anyway it is curious that you refer to Barry Diament - I am going to quote a sentence from him in an interview I recently have read :

"I remember hearing my first CDs then and thinking that the removal of hiss, crackles and wow and flutter (speed irregularities) was a good thing but the sound of the instruments themselves was not the great improvement it was promoted as being. In fact, I found my vinyl records to much more closely represent what I was used to hearing in the studio."

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-barry-diament-soundkeeper-recordings.

I think the whole interview is worth reading in the context of this thread. He is a strong supporter of the 24-bit/192kHz format, and critical of 44.1/16.

 

[rockitman]

I have never listened to a Led Zeppelin CD that could sound comparable to a good pressing LP, our preferences can be different.

Being a huge LZ fan, I can tell you that I hardly listened to them on CD. In short, they are horrid sounding. The Classic Records 45 rpm are the best, besides the tape and that includes the RL LZ2 pressing. The Classic Records 45 of LZ2 is a much better/ less distorted than the RL and just as dynamic, if not more. Perhaps I don't have Barry D's remaster versions.

 

[TBone]

I have never listened to a Led Zeppelin CD that could sound comparable to a good pressing LP, our preferences can be different.

Fine; I own MF, RTI, Japanees, German, original pressings, and remasters of LZ on LP ... I also the original BD mastered LZ3 ... therefore ... unless you've heard this particular Barry Diament mastered version compared to the remastered CDs or LPs above ... any comparative "preference" is redundant.

tb1

 

[mep]

But the fact remains that digital recording was developed in order to get around the deficiencies of analogue, not just for fun or to annoy vinyl-o-philes. And it hit the target at almost the very first attempt in the 1970s when digital 'insurance copies' were auditioned against the state-of-the-art direct-to-disc recordings and judged by the label to be better, and they never looked back - their reputations and incomes were on the line when making that initial choice.

Where did that fairy tale come from? What label? What direct to disc recordings? What digital insurance copy? Details please. Hurry, my B.S. detector meter is pegged.

 

[TBone]

I recently have read :

"I remember hearing my first CDs then and thinking that the removal of hiss, crackles and wow and flutter (speed irregularities) was a good thing but the sound of the instruments themselves was not the great improvement it was promoted as being. In fact, I found my vinyl records to much more closely represent what I was used to hearing in the studio."

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-barry-diament-soundkeeper-recordings.

I think the whole interview is worth reading in the context of this thread. He is a strong supporter of the 24-bit/192kHz format, and critical of 44.1/16.

You're confusing my intent ... I'm not championing the CD over LP ... and it's no surprise he'd prefer the vinyl versions simply because he's not deaf. I also consider my best LZ vinyl easily superior to his CD as well ... but that doesn't negate the fact that his LZ3 CD sounds better than the LZ3 remasters on LP & CD.

tb1

 

[TBone]

Hurry, my B.S. detector meter is pegged.

the mirror talks back, doesn't it?

 

[dallasjustice]

Will the PONO format only play on PONO hardware, like SACD?

 

[Groucho]

Where did that fairy tale come from? What label? What direct to disc recordings? What digital insurance copy? Details please. Hurry, my B.S. detector meter is pegged.

Charming.

 

[TBone]

Being a huge LZ fan

Off topic question, have you heard any "great" sounding copies of Physical Graffiti?

tb1

 

[TBone]

Will the PONO format only play on PONO hardware, like SACD?

I'm assuming at this point, it's a proprietary system ... so hardware will become a factor. And again, so could DRM.

I'm more into open-source ...

tb1

 

[TBone]

Audiophiles will not, but some "digitalphiles" will smile at your words and tell you that you only listen to 13, at best 14, the remaining 3 or 2 are placebos.

That's actually pretty funny!

tb1

 

[Groucho]

I'm assuming at this point, it's a proprietary system ... so hardware will become a factor. And again, so could DRM.

I'm more into open-source ...

It's a very interesting issue. My own active speaker system relies on having access to the unencrypted audio stream, so I can perform crossover filtering, phase correction etc. on it. With an ordinary PC I have access to that stream so I could, theoretically, take a copy of anything that goes through the system. Would I be allowed to implement my own active crossover with PONO?

 

[TBone]

It's a very interesting issue. My own active speaker system relies on having access to the unencrypted audio stream, so I can perform crossover filtering, phase correction etc. on it. With an ordinary PC I have access to that stream so I could, theoretically, take a copy of anything that goes through the system. Would I be allowed to implement my own active crossover with PONO?

I have no idea. I've not seen any specs ...

 

[MylesBAstor]

But the fact remains that digital recording was developed in order to get around the deficiencies of analogue, not just for fun or to annoy vinyl-o-philes. And it hit the target at almost the very first attempt in the 1970s when digital 'insurance copies' were auditioned against the state-of-the-art direct-to-disc recordings and judged by the label to be better, and they never looked back - their reputations and incomes were on the line when making that initial choice.

You're kidding right? Care to share what you're smoking? I think that listening to all that early digital destroyed your hearing. Puhleeze.

Analogue enthusiasts can claim measurement-transcending 'musicality' as much as they like, but it's fascinating to look at a moment when music professionals without an axe to grind chose early digital over state-of-the-art analogue. We can list a lot of technological development of digital in the intervening period; I think the improvments in vinyl would be quite a short list.

(I believe there was one a few years ago: the linear tracking tone arm. How are you all getting on with those?)

I can quote just as many as you can to the negative.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-5...who-recorded-nirvana-still-using-analog-tape/

And the linear tracking arm is hardly new news. Look up Jacob and Rabinow and Dennessen. I really can't believe how poorly informed you are about the improvements that have/are taking place in analog. And Marks BS meter is now broken.

 

[tailspn]

This entire discussion is conflating sound quality of various formats with mastering techniques. IMO, there is no real sound quality measure, objective or subjective in any studio recording cited here, only preferences. And how they're reproduced is the same measure, purely a preference.

Only a natural acoustic environment recording, without post processing other than editing, and with the express intent of capturing and reproducing the acoustic event AND environment has any measure of judging sound quality. They can be referenced back to one's experience of that instrument/group in a live environment. All the rest is simply audio art. Mastering techniques aimed at creating a sound where without that mastering art, none could exist. There's no reference-able content back to an original, since the original doesn't exist.

 

[TBone]

Hmmm, let me think, great early CD's ... how about Famous Blue Raincoat (87) and Tracy Chapmans 88 premier. If memory serves, I think both are based on 16 bit original masters. The LP versions were critically acclaimed by media and audiophiles alike. Many audiophiles didn't realize (or care) that they were grooving to 16bit on LP. Hell, they used to play these "LPs" at all the trade shows!!!

tb1

 

[MylesBAstor]

This entire discussion is conflating sound quality of various formats with mastering techniques. IMO, there is no real sound quality measure, objective or subjective in any studio recording cited here, only preferences. And how they're reproduced is the same measure, purely a preference.

Only a natural acoustic environment recording, without post processing other than editing, and with the express intent of capturing and reproducing the acoustic event AND environment has any measure of judging sound quality. They can be referenced back to one's experience of that instrument/group in a live environment. All the rest is simply audio art. Mastering techniques aimed at creating a sound where without that mastering art, none could exist. There's no reference-able content back to an original, since the original doesn't exist.

Yes but some of us have endeavored to explore both sides of the issue eg. being in the studio during the recording/mastering process as well as critiquing the final product. Funny thing is that when you talk to the best in the business say like Alan Sides, he'll be the first to admit not only don't we know it all, but there are issues that people are loathe to talk about with the digital recording and mastering process. People here would have you believe all is well in the Garden of Eden. Seems to me that the best use for digital is to notch out 3k to get rid of sibilance.

 

[TBone]

Seems to me that the best use for digital is to notch out 3k to get rid of sibilance.

That, I can relate ... because the high frequency capability of digital has long been my personal bug-a-boo; since 83.

But why stop there ... they should use that notch filter on every Rolling Stone hi-rez remaster I've heard, Jeff Beck, Police ... etc. That said, some of my more crappy sounding LP's could use that notch filter ...