I consider this to be a perfectly valid criticism of vinyl playback. It is one of the reasons I prefer tape over vinyl.All the crackling and cracking of the dust particles just annoys me.
I consider this to be a perfectly valid criticism of vinyl playback. It is one of the reasons I prefer tape over vinyl.All the crackling and cracking of the dust particles just annoys me.
Makes perfect sense. Why others would suggest otherwise is beyond my pay grade. All things being equal, how can anyone claim that they know how something sounds tò someone else and what they should prefer?
This is true. The commercial recording “analog” mastering for the the cutting house is different than the one for “digital” release; therefore not apples to apples comparisons.Is this first statement....
"Many times, the mixes and mastering are different from the digital version. So it's really comparing apples to oranges."
His own source material which he mastered himself."I much prefer to listen to vinyl at home because I love the colorations from the cutting process. It simply sounds more engaging to me - even if I know that the digital is more true to source."
True to what source?
With Mahler’s second there’s plenty of good to great performances but Otto Klemperer with the Philharmonia sits right up at the peak for me… along with Bruno Walter and NY Phil and Vladimir Jurowski with the London Phil… it’d be one of my one of my all time favourite Klemperer recordings as well. It’s a benchmark fabulous performance of the M2.Thanks for the correction, Mark. Regardless of ownership, Warner Classics is re-issuing many great recordings on LP.
Releases page | Warner Classics
The home of classical music: Warner Classics and Erato present artists from Maria Callas to Joyce DiDonato, Mstislav Rostropovich to Gautier Capuçonwww.warnerclassics.com
Here is a great example. A case can be made that this is the greatest (or one of the very great) Mahler 2nds.
This is an essential recording for any collection: the greatest interpretation of Mahler's Second ever placed before the public, made under ideal studio conditions and now in the best sound possible.
- Tony Duggan Review
View attachment 131676
The original record is hard to find and expensive in M/NM. I am happy for the reissue from Warner.
I don't know if this is true but I read it on the internet :
"As of 2013, EMI UK's catalogue is owned by Warner Music Group after the acquisition of the Parlophone Label Group's assets." Parlophone had been owned by EMI.
My issue here is that this view pre-judges a critically important predicate step. That predicate step is "What is my high-end audio objective?"
Possible objectives:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
If one selects, in advance, the objective of "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," then "which is more accurate?" is a logical question to ask.
But if one selects, in advance, the objective of "create a sound that seems live" then assessing which is more "accurate" becomes spurious.
* Whom I adore, by the way.
I figure if we had a better understanding of perception and a model of the varied perceptual modes that people employ we’d also have a greater understanding of how experience and expectation work to shape preferences… but then we’d have a shipload less to argue about.This is a really interesting subject for me , even more so than OP subject (what was it, “Grammer in Audio”?).
I tend to seek a listening state where music and sound awareness merge. Sound is the very stuff music is made of— how can the two really be separated? I tend to notice the physiological effects when I can reach into that state, like eyelids going half mast or involuntarily closing.
The audio industry has had over 40 years to get digital right, perhaps instead they should be developing new ways to store and playback analog.
If you say so, lol.Listen, digital sounds great. Perhaps you need to listen to digital through better equipment. Last time we discussed this you were listing through your laptop. Has this changed?
What are you listening to your analog versus digital compares on?If you say so, lol.
I've been demoing digital up to the $15K price point and had no inclination to buy.What are you listening to tour analog versus digital compares on?
Can you install HQPLAYER and listen through HQPLAYER Client to the digital recordings and report on your findings?
I’m not surprised, you can get great sound quality for less than that nowadays. If you stream, a Node X into a custom SET amplifier to full range open baffle speakers will get you great sound for about half that amount.I've been demoing digital up to the $15K price point and had no inclination to buy.
I hope that you do and HQPLAYER is the way to go.I do plan to try DSD at some point, will keep you posted.
No I have not heard of anything being developed on that front. The biggest advantage to DDD is that it not lossy at every step like AAA and it does not degrade with time, thus it is why digital is used for archiving. Analog such as magnetic tape, the old studio standard, does not hold well with time.Pehaps in the meantime someone will come up with a new AAA system. Do you know of any developments on that front? Was reading about analog-valued memory just now, no idea whether it could be relevant to AAA audio.
All the crackling and cracking of the dust particles just annoys me. I get more out of digital music played on high-quality systems. Ultimately everything is a matter of taste. If you like listening to vinyl, please do. But anyone who tries to sell me digital stuff with vinyl sound simulation should stay away. I just like what I like.
Hi,The human ear/brain interface is several orders of magnitude more sensitive to digital jitter than it is to roughly its equivalent, analog wow and flutter. A major problem is that while in wow and flutter all frequencies are affected equally, in jitter the timing error affects different frequencies differently -- and in an inconsistent manner, depending on the music signal from moment to moment.
Hi,
Do you have or reference support the claim that human ears are more sensitive to digital jitter then to analog wow and flutter?
Thank you.
Thank you so much, appreciate.For example, here:
The Unique Evils of Digital Audio and How to Defeat Them
Introduction We are all too familiar with the criticisms of digital audio. We have heard digital audio described as harsh, brittle, lifeless, tense, cold, and non‐musical. Perhaps each of us can add our own adjectives to this list. We are surrounded by poor‐quality digital systems. Our...benchmarkmedia.com
Quote:
Jitter is not a fundamental limitation of digital systems, it is simply a defect. The distortion caused by Jitter can be reduced to inaudible levels if the timing of A/D and D/A sampling is accurate enough. The timing accuracy required to guarantee inaudibility is rather surprising. Jitter must be reduced to about +/‐ 20 psec (+/‐ 20 trillionths of a second) to absolutely guarantee that it will never exceed the threshold of hearing at reasonably loud listening levels. Fortunately, a significant portion of the jitter-induced distortion is often masked by the music. Because of this masking, higher levels of jitter may be acceptable. There is still considerable debate about the thresholds for jitter audibility.
(End quote.)
***
Obviously, these numbers are magnitudes more critical than the sensitivity of the human ear for analog wow and flutter. For a range of audibilty, see for example here:
Minimum wow and flutter percentage that is audible?
Anyone know the generally accepted wow and flutter percentage threshold specification at which wow and flutter becomes noticeable?www.tapeheads.net
Thank you so much, appreciate.
My issue here is that this view pre-judges a critically important predicate step. That predicate step is "What is my high-end audio objective?"
Possible objectives:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
If one selects, in advance, the objective of "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," then "which is more accurate?" is a logical question to ask.
But if one selects, in advance, the objective of "create a sound that seems live" then assessing which is more "accurate" becomes spurious.
* Whom I adore, by the way.
No offense intended but that's a 20th Century criticism. Today there are multiple means for cleaning vinyl records that allow them to remain near-new or pristine. It's a viable medium.
Record Cleaning and Related Topics
www.whatsbestforum.com
That is ok if Wackerd is a digital guy with low exposure to analog. It is a commonly misunderstood NLF thing. However it is weird when an analog guy says the same thing