When is enough, enough, or how to get off the bandwagon??

[Bill Hart]

Doesn't the very existence of this part of the debate- whether a digital format is capable of sounding as good, or better than analog- also prove the point- that one must keep changing or upgrading to find new/better equipment that realizes the potential of digital?

 

[rbbert]

evidence, my man, evidence. where is it to support that thought? what makes you think that 'done right' 24/96 PCM has more information than analog? you've just thrown that out there, you have not made a case for it.

Posts #89 & 98. This is getting circular; if you don't understand, that's OK. At the moment, I can't think of any other way to explain it. It's just arithmetic, pretty basic.

 

[JackD201]

What is the actual quantization equivalent of 1/4" analog tape anyway? I have seen the math for film and for the approximation of vinyl/PVC but not analog tape.

The link to the paper would be much appreciated.

 

[rbbert]

What is the actual quantization equivalent of 1/4" analog tape anyway? I've not seen the math but I have seen the math for the approximation of vinyl/PVC.

That would depend on the specific tape formulation (size and composition of particles) as well as tape speed and track width, but even under the most optimistic assumptions it's only going to come close to 24/96, and higher density digital will far exceed it.

 

[DaveyF]

From the first post - so sad:

Today, one of my a'phile friends commented to me that this is his 40th year in the hobby and he still wasn't really that happy with the sound he was getting.

Imagine doing anything for 40 years and remaining dissatisfied.

Interesting point Soundproof. Knowing my friend's personality, i do not think that he is particularly depressed about his situation. I do believe that he is like many of us, a 'perfectionist', and that due to this he has never really obtained what he considers a perfect sound. I have a feeling that in order to be an a'phile, one has to have a little bit of this personality trait, i certainly know that I do. BTW, don't kid yourself, my friend has a system that would make many of us jealous. It doesn't sound bad in any way, although there is something about it that leaves me a little cold.
I think the problem lies in the fact that he uses too many room treatments and this tends to suck the 'life' away from his system a little bit.

OTOH, are any of us really truly 100% satisfied with our systems, so much so that we will NOT be upgrading anything ever again and will leave what we have alone and just listen contently into the future, with NO changes whatsoever?

 

[JackD201]

That would depend on the specific tape formulation (size and composition of particles) as well as tape speed and track width, but even under the most optimistic assumptions it's only going to come close to 24/96, and higher density digital will far exceed it.

If I'm not mistaken +10.5 tape is available. Any quantization equivalent for +10.5 tape vs digital? I'm guessing it would be based on the particles in the area in contact with the tape head.

 

[NorthStar]

Should we all concentrate on analog turntables and LPs and analog R2R tape decks & tape mediums? ...No cassette tapes, no 8-track tapes, and no VHS tapes though.

...And simply abandon digital playback with its information missing anyway, and that nothing will ever reconstruct back?

Is digital enough to get off the bandwagon, and espouse analog in the new era?
Then we can all steam (stream?) our albums for better information' retrieval, and purchase vinyl's steamers, cleaners, defrosters, reinvigorators, contractors, dispensers, rectifiers, ....

And we can oxidize (metallica particles) our tapes by buying oxidation machines (iron man) with new formulations to enhance, protect and consolidate our precious music. ...And perhaps ask the record companies to bring back open-real tapes for our music archives?

Yes I think that would be best, and the investment should be minimal in conformance to the music quality gained from it. :b

Don't you all agree as well?

 

[rbbert]

If I'm not mistaken +10.5 tape is available. Any quantization equivalent for +10.5 tape vs digital? I'm guessing it would be based on the particles in the area in contact with the tape head.

Quantization of video is pretty straightforward; both film and digital video shoot in static frames, just count or calculate the number of silver particles per frame of film and make sure you have at least that number of pixels per frame of digital video.

In audio, digital recording uses "frames" but analog tape does not. Nevertheless...back around the time Sony was introducing DSD I read an analysis by an electrical engineer (sorry, no citation available) trying to analyze it this way. Assuming picogram (10 to the -12th gram) size for the iron oxide particles (and I have no idea if this is actual size or some theoretical minimum), then in one channel of 30 IPS 1/2" stereo tape there are about 0.5 x 10 to the 12th particles in one second of tape, or about 0.5 x 10 to the 7th particles in 1/96,000 second, which is comparable to 2 to the 24th (about 1.6 x 10 to the 7th) digital bits.

 

[DaveyF]

Here's my question to you guys, isn't the vinyl recording going to have basically more accuracy than the tape or the digital system, based on the way the stylus tracks the groove vs. the read of the laser or the tape head? There are no drop-off's or missed digits, it's a pure analog signal....At least that's my take on this discussion.

 

[JackD201]

I'm a vinyl guy but would disagree with the general statement. Too many variables like quality of the vinyl, stylus shape, alignment and that's just the beginning of a very long list of things that can keep a pick up from extracting all the information.

 

[DaveyF]

I'm a vinyl guy but would disagree with the general statement. Too many variables like quality of the vinyl, stylus shape, alignment and that's just the beginning of a very long list of things that can keep a pick up from extracting all the information.

Jack, all of what you say is a factor in analog, however, I would think that there are even more variables in digital; not sure about tape. But my point is that if all else is equal and we assume that the set up and playback of the vinyl is correct, then to my ears the medium has a greater potential than digital. This is what I hear in my system and what I have heard in most other well set up analog systems vs. most well set up digital systems, I guess YMMV.

 

[JackD201]

I guess it does All I know is I like the sound of good vinyl more than good digital. What I can't tell is what is more accurate at most any instance.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Here's my question to you guys, isn't the vinyl recording going to have basically more accuracy than the tape or the digital system, based on the way the stylus tracks the groove vs. the read of the laser or the tape head? There are no drop-off's or missed digits, it's a pure analog signal....At least that's my take on this discussion.

Listen to a lacquer vs. the final LP. That'll tell you everything you need to know There's no way it's closer to the tape.

 

[Soundproof]

Listen to a lacquer vs. the final LP. That'll tell you everything you need to know There's no way it's closer to the tape.

Yes, or the DMM metal masterplate ...

Vinyl is a filtered preference, relating to the original image as does a photograph shot through a filter for effect, to the original subject.

Here's the original image:

Here's the same subject shot through a Sunset Filter. Shot in similar light as the previous one.

Vinyl creates a pleasing distortion, that gives us a semblance of the chaotic sound reflections in a good performance space, without the excessive purity that is the side effect of most modern recording techniques.

 

[JackD201]

While I'd worked with everything from 2" Tape, digital tape and DAWs down to 1/4" or CD dubs I've never had access to a Tape to LP chain much less a Direct to Disc chain. Maybe someday but the chance of that ever happening is so remote I don't even think about it.

 

[microstrip]

Here's my question to you guys, isn't the vinyl recording going to have basically more accuracy than the tape or the digital system, based on the way the stylus tracks the groove vs. the read of the laser or the tape head? There are no drop-off's or missed digits, it's a pure analog signal....At least that's my take on this discussion.

It has been shown long time ago that there are no drop-offs or missed digits in digital. The issues with digital must be elsewhere. But there is hope for audiophiles - quoted from a recent Dieter Burmester interview:


What do you overall think about the discussion digital vs. analog in relation to the sound of music?
Both have advantages. I don’t want to discuss the downsides… one can talk good or badly about all technical objects. I recently declared a patent, with which one can make all digital sound carriers sound like vinyl records. One should not ignore in this discussion that the production of analog records runs completely digital – from the microphone to the mixer consoles to the processing, all is done digitally.

The only Dieter Burmester patent I found describes a Device and method for shaping a digital audio signal - it looks just a way of emulating vinyl shortcomings!
But it is from 2008, perhaps there is something else I am not aware.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=PYutAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=20080219462&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rxi-T4DuHIO50QXv2ehM&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA

 

[MylesBAstor]

Yes, or the DMM metal masterplate ...

Vinyl is a filtered preference, relating to the original image as does a photograph shot through a filter for effect, to the original subject.

Here's the original image:

Here's the same subject shot through a Sunset Filter. Shot in similar light as the previous one.

Vinyl creates a pleasing distortion, that gives us a semblance of the chaotic sound reflections in a good performance space, without the excessive purity that is the side effect of most modern recording techniques.

Each and every medium has its issues: none are perfect. Otherwise our systems would sound much closer to the real thing. The question is which distortions are kinder to the ear?

And the problem is that very few of todays recordings actually capture the sense of space. Part of the problem are the costs associated with a recording eg. union rates, etc. So it's much easier to record and correct after rather than getting it right to start with. So it's get them in, get it on the hard disc and get them out asap. And that's backed up by for instance Sony asking a leading digital designer at one time to help them create a digital effects file of different recording spaces that could be added post production.

Not that most listeners really care about the sense of a hall. Nowadays, they [record labels] seem fixated on eliminating any any mistakes on the recording. Hence the bar by bar recording, instead of a whole movement of yesteryear. Hence, the lack of feeling of continuity of many recordings.

 

[Soundproof]

It's even worse than that, Myles. Individual voices in a finished recording can have been supplied by artists playing in completely different locations, working to a guide-track. And will in most cases have been supplied by artists appearing at the recording venue at different times - it's rare to have them playing together, ensemble style, any more.
Worst case they are recording where it's most convenient for them. In order to be able to blend the various contributions into an apparent whole, it's important to eliminate any hint of contribution from the performance space, which is why close-mike techniques come in handy. And then one adds artificial room-reverb to the final result - track-by-track, and then to the entirety - in order to create a semblance of space to the result. There are variations to this, but most modern studios do not have a useable "room tone" and most recordings are therefore done as dry as possible.

BUT - our ears are smarter, in spite of the engineers claiming no one can tell when the reverb is "real" or "dialed in." But we know - because when we hear a recording that's done in-situ, in a well recorded real space, the music settles in our ears in a much more realistic way. This is the "secret" behind, for instance, 2L's success - they are recording in real reverberant spaces that are suitable for music, and choose the venue according to the piece. Thus totally trumping the piecemeal, canned and processed nonsense that passes for recorded music in most instances - nonsense to the ear, if one is accustomed to the real thing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

First of all the "problem" is not that the cost of recording has gone up so much that studios are cutting corners. The cost of recording has fallen so far off a cliff that many big expensive studios are on the verge of bankrupcy. A talented engineer can set up a studio capable of recording and processing modern multi-track recordings for less than what you could pay for a good analog board back in the day. Unadjusted for inflation.

Secondly, the "problem" is neither new nor digital. It is the methodology through which modern recordings are made - specifically, performances assembled from parts recorded separately, with little or no natural ambience. It has been decades since studio recordings were typically made with more than a rhythm section playing all at once. Vocals, solos, horn sections, string sections -- these are all over-dubbed. Increasingly, as Soundproof points out, they are overdubs done in different studios, in different cities. There is no "original event." There is no "performance space." There is no natural ambience. And yes, I repeat myself. As long as we keep talking around that reality, I'll continue to repeat myself.

There are exceptions, of course, but outside of classical they are exceedingly rare. See "Barry Diamet."

This is the way records have been made since the late 60s. Any significant ambience is created, processed in at post-production. Can the noises of vinyl create another layer of pseudo-space? They can and they do and it is probably the only viable explanation for people who think vinyl sounds better than decent tape. But you have no control over it. You can't turn it up or down to balance with the space that was created on the recording. You can't turn it up or down to balance with the ambience of your room. It is a universal, one-size-fits-all ambience. You get the same vinyl "ambience" on an intimate recording of a solo guitar that you get on the latest vinyl remaster of the Smash Hits of KISS.

There's got to be a better way, and all respect to Mr. Burmester, I seriously doubt that it is digitally emulating the distortions of vinyl. That might be quite marketable in the high end, but a variable, programmable effect would make a lot more sense. You know....those pre-programmed spaces in AV recievers. Only better.

Tim

 

[Bill Hart]

Tim: All true re modern recording practice and the lack of a natural acoustic. But can we take it a step further? Does alot of modern, top of the line home reproduction equipment (I'm not talking about throwback stuff like Shindo) strive to work best with this type of program material? I heard that Shelby Lynne cover of that old Dusty Springfield song played back over a big, expensive system that represented the 'best' from a group of well regarded manufacturers and it was 'hyper-real,' overblown and sounded like amped up hi-fi- very good, but not realistic. Maybe it was the choice of program material, but this was the demo track selected by a manufacturer's representative. And that, of course, was over a system that most people would never spend the money to own. Maybe, on earbuds, it sounded better than average. (And yes, I know, even in the 60s, recordings were designed to sound good over the radio, as the common denominator).
I assume Myles was talking about classical recording, not pop. Geez, you could put together a cheap pro-tools studio for less than the 'entertainment' budget of a single night in a real studio.