The truth about vinyl.vinyl vs digital

[DaveC]

Ah, the logic of self-exception. No wonder you're never wrong.

I don't know what your problem is here. Why did you come here picking a fight?

You are trolling, which is against TOU of this website and I've reported you for it. I don't need this crap and you should know better. You're acting like a child.

I also DID NOT exclude myself at all, but you didn't read carefully, you just wanted to skip to the part where you attack me for no reason at all.

EDIT: You also called out a moderation decision in public which is against TOU and very disrespectful. If you have an issue handle it in private with some discretion. That applies to both my own posts as well as Ron's moderation. Your response wasn't anywhere near on-topic to either me or Ron. Since your posts aren't on-topic what was the point? What was your intent behind these posts? IMO, you should be given a time-out for your temper tantrum.

I sent you a PM, you can respond to that if you have any further problems with me, and if you have issues with mods and moderation take that offline too.

 

[microstrip]

I've done a number of recordings with DSD, and it is actually the format and not just the mastering that gives greater quality. High res digital is similar, but less impressive. (...)

IMHO the number of pure DSD recordings available in the market is not enough to support such statement. According to my consumer perspective I do not see anything miraculous in DSD when compared with HiRez, although many times general I preferred the SACD to the CD of a recording.

Also the mastering is such a complex and diverse process that in can't be summarized in a single word in audio discussions. As far as I know pure DSD limits significantly the possibilities of mastering. Can I ask how you carried it in your recordings?

 

[tima]

Even here on WBF with extremely experienced members we have 100% subjective analysis of sound with little to no technical understanding and as a result some conclusions are made that have no basis in reality.

What I mean is that people draw incorrect conclusions about why they hear what they hear. Those with little to no technical understanding of audio, combined with not understanding logic are far more likely to come to incorrect conclusions.

I can tell you subjective preference has a basis in real, objective truth whether folks want to believe it or not.

Dave, these are examples of what I'll call "judgemental arrogance". You regularly proclaim to others about 'objective truth' and 'logical fallacies' as if you are positioned to pass judgement on the great unwashed. For myself and (I speculate) others here do not appreciate continually being told that people have "little to no technical understanding" and "draw incorrect conclusions." Perhaps you don't see it this way but these frequent comments come across as lecturing. This not the first thread.

In my second post in this thread I decided to poke a little fun asking if one of your judgements about coming to "questionable conclusions" might apply to something you wrote. That actually is a question of logic. Broad premises sometimes lead to broad conclusions. Rather than seeing the logical issue, possible humor, or at least irony, you were triggered, in effect saying no, your judgement did not apply to yourself. Now, calling me "a child" and I "should know better" and saying some rather rude things in a private post. Then you instruct me on how to repond to you. There it is. As my friend at work liked to say in his '90's vernacular: cop a chill, dude.

 

[Gregadd]

I love both analog and digital equally the same.I enjoy them both and couldn’t be without either.

Good for you.
You do understand there are those who thought from the outset that analog is inherently inferior and ultimately unnecessary. Multiple formats cost money. People who have the power to make that happen have worked to make analog disappear. One of their tactics is to spread misinformation.

 

[bonzo75]

Good for you.
You do understand there are those who thought from the outset that analog is inherently inferior and ultimately unnecessary. Multiple formats cost money. People who have the power to make that happen have worked to make analog disappear. One of their tactics is to spread misinformation.

Are these the same people who were involved in 911 and in faking the moon landing?

 

[microstrip]

Good for you.
You do understand there are those who thought from the outset that analog is inherently inferior and ultimately unnecessary. Multiple formats cost money. People who have the power to make that happen have worked to make analog disappear. One of their tactics is to spread misinformation.

As long as we want to debate too general and ambiguous terms there is little to be told than misinformation. It is an intrinsic problem of short post or videos.

Analog and digital , Inferior and superior, necessary and unnecessary. Unless we carefully express what we are really wanting to say our sentences can be arbitrary interpreted as right or wrong.

 

[PeterA]

Dave, these are examples of what I'll call "judgemental arrogance". You regularly proclaim to others about 'objective truth' and 'logical fallacies' as if you are positioned to pass judgement on the great unwashed. For myself and (I speculate) others here do not appreciate continually being told that people have "little to no technical understanding" and "draw incorrect conclusions." Perhaps you don't see it this way but these frequent comments come across as lecturing. This not the first thread.

In my second post in this thread I decided to poke a little fun asking if one of your judgements about coming to "questionable conclusions" might apply to something you wrote. That actually is a question of logic. Broad premises sometimes lead to broad conclusions. Rather than seeing the logical issue, possible humor, or at least irony, you were triggered, in effect saying no, your judgement did not apply to yourself. Now, calling me "a child" and I "should know better" and saying some rather rude things in a private post. Then you instruct me on how to repond to you. There it is. As my friend at work liked to say in his '90's vernacular: cop a chill, dude.

DaveC made some strong assertions early in the thread. I asked him twice to share examples of these incorrect conclusions reached by the subjectivists but he declined to do so. Without further clarification or examples to support his assertions, it becomes easier to dismiss them and move on.

It is a shame because in ddk’s response to Dave, there were some pretty provocative questions which if discussed might lead to a better understanding of the analog and digital formats, their differences, and why some prefer one or the other.

I think this is another one of those lost opportunities to further the discussion of an interesting topic.

 

[DonH50]

The newer Pink Floyd remasterings that I have been listening to lately on CD are not victims of the Loudness Wars. Very dynamic, no compression beyond what you might expect on the master tapes, short of hearing those tapes yourself.

Clasical and jazz, which I mostly listen to, in general seem hardly compressed on CD. For jazz I have done several comparisons with the same recordings on very good vinyl playback. No compression evident compared to the LP.

On the other hand, some classical orchestral LPs are clearly compressed compared to the same recording on CD.

That is great news! I actually had Pink Floyd in mind since I have an earlier CD of Animals that is practically unlistenable. I took a few measurements and it was pretty clear that it had been "gutted".

By and large my small-group jazz recordings comprise the best recordings, CD or vinyl, though of course that is a very general impression (so there are bad ones in the group). Classical is generally good as well, though IME suffers more from recording quality (CD or vinyl) than the technology (analog or digital). I do have a few "pop" classical CDs, basically recordings of just the best-known movements of major works, that are badly compressed.

Higher resolution has made mixing and mastering easier since those operations can require extreme dynamic range.

I keep thinking I should get my old TT out of the box and set it up again, but these days rarely have time to sit and listen as I did way back when. Maybe when I retire, in about 147 years...

 

[jeff1225]

Are these the same people who were involved in 911 and in faking the moon landing?

I’m convinced that JFK was killed by my old PS Audio DAC, the last DAC I owned. It almost killed my ears.

 

[jeff1225]

That is great news! I actually had Pink Floyd in mind since I have an earlier CD of Animals that is practically unlistenable. I took a few measurements and it was pretty clear that it had been "gutted".

By and large my small-group jazz recordings comprise the best recordings, CD or vinyl, though of course that is a very general impression (so there are bad ones in the group). Classical is generally good as well, though IME suffers more from recording quality (CD or vinyl) than the technology (analog or digital). I do have a few "pop" classical CDs, basically recordings of just the best-known movements of major works, that are badly compressed.

Higher resolution has made mixing and mastering easier since those operations can require extreme dynamic range.

I keep thinking I should get my old TT out of the box and set it up again, but these days rarely have time to sit and listen as I did way back when. Maybe when I retire, in about 147 years...

You have outlined the reason i have an analog only set up. I’m a big jazz fan and many of the CD transfers of jazz albums had a “gutted” (great term btw) sound. I collected jazz vinyl out of necessity.

I have a first pressing of Animals on vinyl, one of my favorite rock albums on my system.

 

[Al M.]

That is great news! I actually had Pink Floyd in mind since I have an earlier CD of Animals that is practically unlistenable. I took a few measurements and it was pretty clear that it had been "gutted".

So far I have Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here as new remastering, from which I know that they all were mastered by James Guthrie and Joel Plante.

James Guthrie has been involved with the band as engineer since 1978:

James Guthrie (record producer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first two mentioned are on Pink Floyd Records, released in 2016 (but mastered in 2011 I believe), WYWH is on Capitol Records, also released in 2016.

It is obvious that these remasterings are a labor of love and care. Not only are the dynamics and resolution very good, the masterings also have satisfying mid-bass, which is obviously important particularly for rock.

I just ordered Obscured by Clouds and Animals from Amazon:

Amazon.com

(Obscured by Clouds)

Amazon.com

(Animals)

These are also on Pink Floyd Records, 2016, so I assume that the same mastering engineers did the job.

 

[Robh3606]

Good for you.
You do understand there are those who thought from the outset that analog is inherently inferior and ultimately unnecessary. Multiple formats cost money. People who have the power to make that happen have worked to make analog disappear. One of their tactics is to spread misinformation.

Are you talking about the 80's when the record companies switched over to CD?? What was it "Perfect Sound Forever" or something similar.

Rob

 

[Al M.]

You have outlined the reason i have an analog only set up. I’m a big jazz fan and many of the CD transfers of jazz albums had a “gutted” (great term btw) sound. I collected jazz vinyl out of necessity.

This is understandable. Jazz can be hit and miss. I have two masterings on CD of Art Pepper + Eleven, as well as Miles Davis Sketches of Spain and prefer the later mastering on each. The Count Basie record 88 Basie Street sounds really great, with very good dynamics (even explosive on some tracks) and full timbre, on the regular $10 CD, but just awful -- "gutted" indeed -- on the audiophile XRCD (what a waste of money that was).

A lot of the digital remasterings on Blue Note, done by Rudy van Gelder himself, sound excellent on CD. I have heard a comparison of Lee Morgan's The Cooker on LP and digital, and the latter compares very favorably. I have that recording on a Lee Morgan 5-CD set from Blue Note, on which all 5 albums sound really good. Those masterings are from the late 1990s/early 2000s I believe.

I find a lot of new jazz recordings very good as well on digital.

I have a first pressing of Animals on vinyl, one of my favorite rock albums on my system.

When I come to visit you one day, this will be a must hear then!

 

[wil]

DaveC made some strong assertions early in the thread. I asked him twice to share examples of these incorrect conclusions reached by the subjectivists but he declined to do so. Without further clarification or examples to support his assertions, it becomes easier to dismiss them and move on.

It is a shame because in ddk’s response to Dave, there were some pretty provocative questions which if discussed might lead to a better understanding of the analog and digital formats, their differences, and why some prefer one or the other.

I think this is another one of those lost opportunities to further the discussion of an interesting topic.

I agree, another lost opportunity at the expense of dueling egos. I'll disagree as who lit the grenade in this particular (inevitable) brouhaha. As I recall, ddk threw out the gratuitous personal insult -- now moderator deleted. Of course it triggered -- just as it was intended to do. And this leads to a tribal attack on the one who was triggered. Nicely done.

I thought Dave C's observations were interesting. Maybe some don't like his presentation, but there's plenty of arrogance thrown around here from obvious to sideways insults that are far worse imo.

I sometimes wish there were a woman or two in this group. If there were actually any female audiophiles, I can't imagine one wanting to wade into this swimming hole, lol!

 

[Al M.]

Good for you.
You do understand there are those who thought from the outset that analog is inherently inferior and ultimately unnecessary. Multiple formats cost money. People who have the power to make that happen have worked to make analog disappear. One of their tactics is to spread misinformation.

As I pointed out previously on this thread, misinformation is spread from both sides, the digital camp AND the analog camp.

 

[microstrip]

DaveC made some strong assertions early in the thread. I asked him twice to share examples of these incorrect conclusions reached by the subjectivists but he declined to do so. Without further clarification or examples to support his assertions, it becomes easier to dismiss them and move on.

It is a shame because in ddk’s response to Dave, there were some pretty provocative questions which if discussed might lead to a better understanding of the analog and digital formats, their differences, and why some prefer one or the other.

I think this is another one of those lost opportunities to further the discussion of an interesting topic.

Peter,

IMHO such line of thought - just looking at incorrect conclusions presented by both sides would not bring us anywhere than the usual confrontation. You and I could easily write a long list just with examples from WBF posts and I think no one would appreciate or learn anything new from it.

IMHO debates should be fed from the subject contents, not from poster personality and animosities.

 

[Robh3606]

As I pointed out previously on this thread, misinformation is spread from both sides, the digital camp AND the analog camp.

I find the whole issue rather strange as all media is encoded/decoded in one form or another and must always be presented in an analog format at the end of the chain. The quality of the final analog stage is absolutely critical in it's importance. So there should be no camps so to speak, digital relies on the analog stages.

You could find disagreement about which is the weakest link and may need the most improvement but in the end it's all interdependent.

Rob

 

[bonzo75]

The weakest link is the recordings. That is where analog is quite superior.

Also, the flexibility. Analog can be tweaked much more to suit the system.

 

[PeterA]

DaveC: " ...some conclusions are made that have no basis in reality."

Audio is both infuriating and interesting because we don't understand it fully and as a result often come to questionable conclusions.

Even here on WBF with extremely experienced members we have 100% subjective analysis of sound with little to no technical understanding and as a result some conclusions are made that have no basis in reality.

Al M.: "....misinformation is spread from both sides...."

As I pointed out previously on this thread, misinformation is spread from both sides, the digital camp AND the analog camp.

Microstrip: ..."incorrect conclusions presented by both sides..."

Peter,

IMHO such line of thought - just looking at incorrect conclusions presented by both sides would not bring us anywhere than the usual confrontation. You and I could easily write a long list just with examples from WBF posts and I think no one would appreciate or learn anything new from it.

IMHO debates should be fed from the subject contents, not from poster personality and animosities.

Fransisco, frankly I am having difficulty understanding what you three are claiming here: questionable conclusions, misinformation, incorrect conclusions. We can't get to a better understanding about this topic if no one is willing to clarify what they mean and to cite examples to futher the discussion.

Here is one attempt to directly get to the heart of the issue. Agree or disagree with ddk's statement, I think it is worth contemplating. And his questions are worth trying to answer.

High end sound reproduction is about sound quality which is both objective and subjective not measurements. It's actually measurements and technical hype that have no correlation to sound and ie reality! [personal criticism deleted]

Since you're science-ing it stating it as if they're facts expand on these "psychoacoustically preferred" distortions and artifacts? What are they, what specific frequencies and supporting data?

david

Personalities are not the issue, that is a diversion. You, Al, and Dave have made some interesting claims. Why not give examples and discuss them? This is an audio discussion forum. Understanding why you are describing them that way is how we begin to learn things and perhaps how the industry at large can move forward to improve sound reproduction. Or we can simply avoid controversial ideas for fear of offending people who disagree and simply move on getting nowhere toward a better understanding of this interesting topic.

 

[DonH50]

So far I have Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here as new remastering, from which I know that they all were mastered by James Guthrie and Joel Plante.

James Guthrie has been involved with the band as engineer since 1978:

James Guthrie (record producer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first two mentioned are on Pink Floyd Records, released in 2016 (but mastered in 2011 I believe), WYWH is on Capitol Records, also released in 2016.

It is obvious that these remasterings are a labor of love and care. Not only are the dynamics and resolution very good, the masterings also have satisfying mid-bass, which is obviously important particularly for rock.

I just ordered Obscured by Clouds and Animals from Amazon:

Amazon.com

(Obscured by Clouds)

Amazon.com

(Animals)

These are also on Pink Floyd Records, 2016, so I assume that the same mastering engineers did the job.

Thank you! I am probably going to have to revise my opinions since my copies are much older. There was a lot of angst in the original switch from LP to CD, and then in the late 80's through the 90's some simply horrible "third party" remasters (Guthrie not involved) were released and that has probably colored my opinion. There were plenty of bad records released during that time, too, as well as many good ones (e.g. the rise of the "audiophile" records from the likes of Sheffield, Telarc, et. al.)