rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Apr 27, 2008 13:42:09 GMT
Interesting read on the technology behind the compact disc and various ways manufacturers have tried to make the sound more "analog" like which if the CD were perfect as originally claimed it would already be.Most interesting is the "Guiston Converter" which I faintly remember as being the type offered by Aragon way back in the dark ages and that at the time i thought was a "gimmick" to allow a person to connect the DAC to the RIAA Phono input thus eliminating the turnatable entirely from the system (input being used for digital,sorry dude,no room for YOU) making head to head comparisons impossible for many. Wrong ! Seems there really was a method though how well it worked I don't know www.soundfountain.com/amb/cd25years.htmlalso.Look at the analog vs. digital signal path.A damn lot of clutter in the digital path which is in many ways funny when you consider the simul-track of as digital was becoming more and more popular (mostly due to the record company conspiracy to TOTALLY eliminate choice) more and more "useful" controls began to disapear from the front panels of audio equipment because hell,we have perfect music so why have all these non-essential controls ? So the "purist" audio camp said WE did not need such niceities as balance controls,low cut filters,high cut filters,tonal adjustment or loudness compensation and in many cases not even a simple Mono/Stereo toggle (ESSENTIAL fdor setting system balance BTW) because all that clutter was a sonic butcher yet at the recording end the exact opposite was true if you look at the pic below :  Damn good thing we are a mostly gullable bunch,easily convinced that something SOUNDS better just because the ad department tells us so  |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on Apr 27, 2008 15:25:25 GMT
point being "less stuff" in the signal path that can be easily defeated with a simple switch is considered audiophile death yet "more stuff" in the signal path from microphone to loudspeaker is considered just fine for digital. Why are personal choices considered a bad thing if it does not intrude on the SQ when not being used ? Why is even the ability to balance the left and right signal to make up for either hearing deficiencies or the much more common "acumulative system imbalance" considered BAD ? (all those "within +/- 0.25dB from 20Hz to 20kHz can add up to a SERIOUS imbalance if more to one side than the other ) Why is it that we as listeners should have no choice but to accept the "comprimised" tonal balance of a commercial recording fully meant to sound good NOT on a super system but EQ'ed to sound good on a shit all-in-one shelf system ? (common practice to mix with both super-monitors AND crap speakers to get the tone right with either) Why should we not have the CHOICE to use loudness compenmsation when listening at very low levels where any LIFE will usually be sucked out of most uncompensated music where we do not have the option with the result being we have no choice but to turn up the volume until tonal balance is restored What harm does a simple mono/stereo switch do or even a full tilt stereo mode control ? Why CAN'T we have a blend control for widely spaced stereo speaker pairs (because of the system being in a multi-use room such as the living room thus not an optimal SOUND SYSTEM room) or an easily defeatable headphone crossfeed device for those who want that feature without resorting to the far more signal destructive interconnect/RCA input jack-box-RCA output jack/interconnect method ? Why is a "take it or leave it" attitude considered a GOOD thing when that means others have pre-decided what not only a thing should sound like but have some precognitive powers telling them what our taste/hearing/room layout and system is ? That taking out things once considered the norm then charging more not less it being a real production cost savings is accpted just because of some "perfect system,perfect hearing,perfect path" theory no one can live up to is fine while all manner of crap in the signal path BEFOR you is just fine and dandy ? Big ass brain wash is why and no matter how many times I read how even a simple balance control is an SQ killer can I justify its absence if a lowly DPDT switch can take it TOTALLY out of the signal path unless you also buy into the idea that even having the switch is destructive and if so how then to justify all the crap that goes before ? |
|
rowuk
Been here a while! 
Pain in the ass, ex-patriot yank living in the land of sauerkraut
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by rowuk on Apr 30, 2008 21:53:03 GMT
Rick,
calm down. The "audiophiles" that claim that switches and EQ KILL the sound, do not have any idea what sound REPRODUCTION is. They need to go to a concert in a concert hall of their choice and see how the SQ changes depending on your seat location. One row forward or backward is millions of times greater than any switch or EQ (tastefully applied of course). If your joy is not musical, rather technical, I guess hardware wanking is also a hobby designed to generate smiles!
Your point is well taken on the EQ used regardless of storage media. The studio specifications for RIAA curve were +- 1dB. So much for flat frequency response from an LP - even if your cartridge was properly loaded and cleanly amplified. The balance control in the concert hall is the ability to turn your head moving the ears into a different standing wave and frequency response pattern.
I used to sell Klipschorns to the NATO forces in Germany. Funny enough, they did not need a loudness compensation at low levels. The bass sounded very "present" even at background levels. Other very large speakers gave a similar effect (including the Linkwitz dipole subwoofer that I mentioned)!
|
|
|
|
Post by derekrumble on May 10, 2008 14:19:19 GMT
Hmmmm... time marches on. I quickly noticed two things about the flowcharts; my reply here is not intended to be a rigorous analysis of the issue but:
The Analogue LP flowcgart shoul be:
Mic > Mixing console > Multitrack tape > Mixing console > 2 track tape > cutting lathe > lp matrix plating > record pressing > stylus / arm turntable > RIAA EQ / phono pre-amp > hifi set.
11 key stages? It depends, of course, on how precisely one breaks it down.
The CD flowchart is now:
Mic > hi-res ADC > DAW > CD matrix > CD pressing > Cd mech / DAC > Hi Fi set
7 or 8 stages?
Or even:
Mic > hi-res ADC > DAW > memory device / download to memory device > hi-res DAC >Hi Fi set
6 or 7 stages?
Derek
|
|
|
|
Post by derekrumble on May 10, 2008 14:34:59 GMT
Interesting read on the technology behind the compact disc and various ways manufacturers have tried to make the sound more "analog" like which if the CD were perfect as originally claimed it would already be.Most interesting is the "Guiston Converter" which I faintly remember as being the type offered by Aragon way back in the dark ages and that at the time i thought was a "gimmick" to allow a person to connect the DAC to the RIAA Phono input.... I am a member of the Yahoo LS3/5a group. Back in 2004 I posted the following 'April Fool' piece which looked at how we might 'play' CDs on our turntables. I thought it a very good idea actually. It's a long read but take a look. Here's the text.... Hi to all, In this group I know there is interest in the whole 'analogue versus digital' thing so you may be interested in what follows. While idly surfing the net, as one does, I stumbled across an interesting website with news of an unusal development. Want to play CDs on your record turntable? Impossible? Then read on....... Apollo Transducers (AT), through their website, are telling us how they have been working towards resolving the whole vinyl v CD thing. How are they proposing to do this? Well imagine being able to play your entire collection of CDs, DVD-As, SACDs or whatever through your regular analogue turntable. AT say that playback of digital discs using your own turntable, arm and cartridge means that you can enjoy the precision and bass control of digital, coupled with those subtle and pleasing, euphonic distortions that arise from arm/cartridge resonances and the speaker/turntable feedback loop. How do AT manage this? They have successfully patented, and will now put into production, a simple device – and I am surprised no-one has done this before. Imagine a record player stylus being driven by an upside down and specially modified recording lathe cutting head; which in turn is driven by the analogue outputs of any digital disc spinner. All you have to do is substitute the cutting tip with a grooved plate; the groove, of course, accepts your stylus tip and the grooved plate, driven by a miniaturised cutting head transducer, provides the means of getting your CD-sourced sound into your pickup / arm system. The whole transducer / grooved plate mechanism is housed in a matchbox sized casing. Incorporated into, and flush with the top of the case is a one cm square slab of high density vinyl with a clearly marked groove expertly machined for your stylus to sit snuggly into. There is a captive lead for power supply from a plug- top mains transformer. And at one end of the case is a pair of gold- plated (of course) phono sockets to accept output from your digital disc machine (or any other line source in fact – you can play your old cassette tapes through your turntable too). There is one limitation, you have to have an arm with adjustable height so that you can sit the AT's box on your turntable and be able to arrange for your arm, to still be parallel with the top of the casing. You also need to hold your turntable still as well and AT will provide some firm foam wedges to enable this. For more information go to www.apollo/rifRegards, Derek |
|
insomniac
Been here a while!
Team Zopiclone
Posts: 938
|
Post by insomniac on May 10, 2008 15:04:49 GMT
Derek, did the April fool joke fool many people? Just reading your post reminded me of a machine that does the opposite... Play your vinyl on a CD player:  ELP Laser Turntable The performance of the Laser Turntable means "No Needle, No Wear ™." The LT features an absolutely contact-free optical pickup system. Play a record thousands of times with no damage to the record. Get the same sparkling sound on the thousandth play as on the first play. The Laser Turntable allows you to... # Play your Vinyl Records without damaging them. # Discover great new analog sound in your Vinyl Records. # Play damaged Records with better results than a needle. # Have the convenience, control, and safety of playing Vinyl Records just like a modern CD player (the record is contained inside the machine, and with a remote control you can click to play any track while the LT tells you the elapsed & remaining times). www.elpj.com/about/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by derekrumble on May 10, 2008 15:28:36 GMT
Derek, did the April fool joke fool many people? Nope - they're a bright bunch in LS3/5a. But it DID start, ALL over again the same old analogue v digital debate. To sum up my position - I think that good analogue sound is fantastic. But I do not accept that vinyl record, with all its complicated mechanics and myriad subtle distortions inherent in that system, is a good way of storing and replaying music. But fast-moving mag tape on the other hand......? Now we're talking. Analogue good - vinyl bad. You really do have to spend lots of bucks on vinyl if you want it to perform really well. If 'vinyl' didn't exist, would you invent it? Vinyl exists because it was a valuable improvement over the brittle 78s. And when map tape technology emerged, it was too too expensive for the consumer market. Mag tape came of age with the compact cassette - but it was the MP3 of that era. Cheap, convenient , but flawed. And not capable of further development in a backwards-compatible way. Let's not forget that real world audio reproduction will be flawed in many ways. And each of us has an individually different set of tolerances and intolerances which means that some of us can live with vinyl's shortcomings, and some of us can live with CD's shortcomings. I love the way CD / digital is still improving as 'they' understand more and more about how to make it work well. Hi-res formats for example. And I have only ever had to return one digital disc (a DVD) because it wouldn't play properly. On the other hand, when I was buying LPs it was a stressful experience. Taking it home on the bus, playing it, finding it off-centre or full of clicks and pops, taking it back to the shop and looking like a sad 'anorak' because no-one else complained. I bought more music on CD, not just because I was getting more affluent, but because the anxst had gone. Buy it, play it, enjoy the music. I am not saying that all CDs sound great but you get my drift? Derek D. |
|
insomniac
Been here a while!
Team Zopiclone
Posts: 938
|
Post by insomniac on May 10, 2008 16:04:52 GMT
I'm of a similar opinion with regards to vinyl. It always seemed strange to me why people would invest so much money in a format that gradually sounds worse with wear on the records and needle. I agree, it's good to see them squeeze all they can from the technology...and with the continual improvements in DAC's, the only way is up  |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 11, 2008 10:56:43 GMT
Why ? Where is it etched in stone that an analog recording MUST start out as a multitrack recording first ? As for the plating/pressing part these are mechanical and not electronic circuit path steps with the master being pretty much the "raw data" part using a digital analogy unless the DIGITAL recording is only two channels or you use a separate ADC for EACH microphone and signal coming off the main board in alive recording that stream is wrong unless the recording of a small scale performance or are we ralking about mics>console>2 channel mix to the stereo ADC>DAW>CD Matrix>etc ? by that reasoning I can also "play the game" and make you a TOTALLY analog recording that will whip the ass of most using two mics,a 15 IPS ANALOG tape deck and zero anything else the recorder being the player also breaking it down to TWO steps unless you count the mic preamps/deck eq but then we would have to count them in the above also making the tape solution the ultimate in simplicity anyway. LP version ? Direct To Disc with the main problem there being a lack of viable software (as in very limited in selections of ) Point is digital is still trying to capture much of what analog already had/has and the evidence of that clearly stated in just about all product ad copy that tries to get you to purchase THEIR player.even the new formats tout their technology as being more analog sounding. digital offered easier use,cheaper to reproduce even though the retail price of the product more and a potentially superior sound that was never realised unless spending $10K on a digital player to match a $1K turntable is a step forward and with the new match maybe spending more to get less is now considered a good thing. all good points and most i agree with in theory but the test for me personally what seals the deal is I have a CD version of most of my favorite music and if i also have an LP copy the head-to-head listening tells me a different story than ALL the techno babble or on theoretical reasons why my vinyl playback system sucks and my CD playback system is superior because that is not the way I HEAR it and in a format that is all about listening this being an aural stimuli, reading text about suprerior sonics can't convince my ears that what I am hearing is just not the case because it is a rare day the CD version beats the LP version on ANY level other than sometimes/maybe bass extension and at times background noise between selections-a thing i can live with if the actual music sounds great I come at it the other way.I already had the player and the LPs so am still wondering why I have spent so much over the years to try and get my CDs to sound as good as what I already had and to be honest would not even bother if I were offered a choice between formats having been happy to listen to my system as it was. Once sony purchased Columbia/CBS and the announcement made the LP would no longer be offered as an option and that if you wanted new music it was the CD or nothing MY choices were eliminated by force so like others of my era i plunked down the $1K or so for a player (there being zero CHEAP players then and if adjusted the $1K more like $2K or more in modern dollars) and the close to $20 for the CDs when i was used to paying at MOST $8 for an LP and no matter what i did i was not happy until i totally revamped my system to sound AS GOOD with the digital formats as it did with analog and that was a spiral downwards into true audio hell because to get the digitl right i had to lose what made my analog rig sound so good the two being 100% incompatible in sonics (I would have been better off with TWO rigs but who knew ?). what i ended up with for far too long was a system that sounded like crap with either because to make the one sound "right" made the other sound lacking which BTW blows the balls off of the then "straight wire with gain" crap or the two would have at some point had a crossing where both sounded good. The proof that it was not my hearing at fault was the decades long "improvements" made to the then PERFECT medium,a thing it seems we are still chasing while analog is pretty much static other than in price which is a joke when you think about it (paying more than we should to get something BACK we already had with most of the 'improvements" being cosmetic as in "pretty" turntables that need a fkn isolation table to work right there being no suspensions  ) So bottom line my "inferior" analog system even today when playing the same exact recording sounds better than my "superior" digital playback system and that is good enough for me no matter how the paperwork reads. My days of being TOLD how a thing sounds rather than LISTENING to how it sounds passed some time in my mid-twenties when I for the first time stop listening (reading magazine articles/ad copy/white papers) to others and went with my own instincts. A thing BTW that has saved me miles of grief and piles of loot proved my point.If so perfect then how can it be"improved" ? You can improve on perfection only on something imperfect and if they this late in the day are still trying to pay catch up and most don't have a problem with that I think they could at some near future date sell us another bill of goods on another "on paper" superior format that will be another step away from the music while being MORE expensive and take another three decades to "improve" enough to sound even as good as the CD which is still trying to capture what the totally inferior vinyl disc already had-Music in the grooves bubba  |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 11, 2008 19:47:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by derekrumble on May 12, 2008 7:42:01 GMT
Why ? Where is it etched in stone that an analog recording MUST start out as a multitrack recording first ? Hi mate - I didn't say it HAD to start out as a multi-track. I was pointing out that the diagram "as quoted" should be adjusted in the way I suggested.... because that it is a typical way that recordings are made. I also said "my reply here is not intended to be a rigorous analysis of the issue but:....." So calm down man. IMHO the diagrams given were arranged in that particular way to show how much simpler (and therefore 'better') analogue could be. The fact, of course, is that either can be a straightforward or as complicated as you like. Having said all that - potentially, and given sound recording techniques and a good acoustic environment, it's no doubt that the shorter the path the better. A fiend has a small studio - he now records in 94/24 - but back in the early 44.1/16 only days he made some recordings of a solo sax that would blow your socks off. A tube AKG mic recording direct to PC HD, a touch of EQ, and then written out to CDR. Stunning. Regards from a 'phew, what a scorcher' Shropshire Derek |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 12, 2008 12:39:39 GMT
I HATE COMPUTERS ! Had a very extensive response that I at least thought made a lot of good points but that unlike if i simple WROTE FKN DOWN ON PAPER WITH A GD PENCIL went bye bye when the power here "blipped" for less than a second wiping out 45 minutes of thought and maybe others can recover what they were thinking word for word but me ? i don't have that skill so it is ALL GONE and I have zero desire to even think about trying to re-write what went before from the "sticky notes" left in my brain. so screw it.CD rules,vinyl sucks,have fun,rick out....... |
|
|
|
Post by fanboi on May 12, 2008 12:45:42 GMT
Oh well, looks like the party's over, typical, I get there and everybody goes home  Thanks for the linkies anyway Rickster, I had a nice read. |
|
|
|
Post by derekrumble on May 12, 2008 13:02:55 GMT
I HATE COMPUTERS ! Had a very extensive response that I at least thought made a lot of good points but that unlike if i simple WROTE FKN DOWN ON PAPER WITH A GD PENCIL went bye bye when the power here "blipped" for less than a second wiping out 45 minutes of thought and maybe others can recover what they were thinking word for word but me ? i don't have that skill so it is ALL GONE and I have zero desire to even think about trying to re-write what went before from the "sticky notes" left in my brain. so screw it.CD rules,vinyl sucks,have fun,rick out....... Me too Rick - it has happened to me too - you get down all the points you want to make and POW ! It's gone. But don't get so screwed up about it. "CD rules , vinyl sucks" was not the point I was making - there are too many points covered in this thread to allow easy and logical debate now. Why does the vinyl CD question get so many people steamed up? We do this for fun man. And I am glad vinyl sounds so good for you. It sounds pretty good on my system too. Don't take your ball home, please. Derek |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 12, 2008 14:30:59 GMT
just frustration talking Derek Seems the more we lean on our electronic toys the less we are prepared for them failing (cell phones,computers,CATV/SATV,skipping/locking up digital music,drop outs,etc..) and if there is one thing I SHOULD know by now it is back up everything that takes up more than a minute of work. With CD music/DVD movies I never could understand why digital players don't just play from a buffer rather than directly leaving the "session' also open to "DAMMIT ! WHAT WAS THAT !". My very first REAL computer,an expensive IBM running LOTUS did auto back-ups every three minutes of every damn thing so even if my house got hit with a lightening bolt if my surge protectors held i would usually just turn on and continue as if nothing happened. Unfortuneately as the processing power and features have increaed reliability seems to have decreased and it is worse if you happen to be online at the time where unless you are using firefox you pretty much lose even your "history" after a crash.seems there should be some kind of "post recovery" software out there for events such as the above and if there IS one someone needs to clue me in beforew i gun the computer right out the damn window which just happens to be directly behind it  |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 12, 2008 20:50:05 GMT
|
|
insomniac
Been here a while!
Team Zopiclone
Posts: 938
|
Post by insomniac on May 12, 2008 21:58:53 GMT
Rick I find the article in your link to be severely flawed for several reasons: 1. The article relates to hard to find classical music 2. Despite listing 6 Living Stereo records that were reissued on CD, which the author claims to own on CD, he only had 1 of the original vinyl for comparison: Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition. The rest he compared the overall sound....of different albums ;D quote from article:"Since I had the original Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibtion, I was able to make direct A/B comparisons of the CD versus the vinyl record. I simply staggered the start time by 10 seconds, and switched back and forth using the preamplifier control switch. I also compared the CD and LP by listening to whole sections at a time. I also had a few other Living Stereo records (although not the same as the CDs purchased), so I was able to compare the overall sound of the CDs versus the LPs." 3. The article is 10 years old.....maybe he should revisit with a modern CD Player/DAC and maybe this time he could throw the SACD Living Stereo reissues into the mix. just my $0.02 |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 12, 2008 23:46:51 GMT
Rick I find the article in your link to be severely flawed for several reasons: 1. The article relates to hard to find classical music 2. Despite listing 6 Living Stereo records that were reissued on CD, which the author claims to own on CD, he only had 1 of the original vinyl for comparison: Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition. The rest We compared the overall sound....of different albums ;D quote from article:"Since I had the original Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibtion, I was able to make direct A/B comparisons of the CD versus the vinyl record. I simply staggered the start time by 10 seconds, and switched back and forth using the preamplifier control switch. I also compared the CD and LP by listening to whole sections at a time. I also had a few other Living Stereo records (although not the same as the CDs purchased), so I was able to compare the overall sound of the CDs versus the LPs." I don't agree.The person is comparing apples to apples so the conclusions are valid and is inline with what i hear as well when comparing the very same recording in the two formats.to cherry pick only the best of one or the worst of the other would be a dishonest test though more common than many think First of all "modern" DACs are not better than DACs of ten years ago and in fact are worse and this is easily explained ; Bottom line cost and more "on the chip" less "outside the chip" is what drives the industry NOT the best possible performance except for on paper specs which if we listended to the data sheet then yeah,WAY better,and why many modern digital sections are no more than hooking a power supply up to the chip and maybe adding some DC blocking caps. The older PCM63,PCM1702 and AD1862 chips will,if done right MURDER most modern DAC chips but they being very expensive to make are obsolete (cost not performance !) Another thing.The very nature of an external DAC means comprimised sound since no matter what you do you have introduced jitter into the equation and while you can attenuate this added jitter you can not totally eliminate it unless you clock the music out of a buffer and NOT out of the DAC itself. Why ? Digital transmission is why.The available interfaces suck for transmission of digital music data and if you think about just how many more stages are added just to have the digital to analog stage outside of the player it is easily understood how many areas problems have the potential to creep in.The GOOD NEWS is most folks simply LIKE the sound of jitter and if it were absent would likely add a "jitter box" to fuzzy up the sound a bit SACD ? another topic entirely and one that i guess is even more perfect than the already perfect CD which from my school days seems perilously close to oxymoron "It doesn't get any better than this folks.....oh wait....this is even better than the best !" bottom line is in MY system playing the music i have at hand and that is on both an LP and a compact disc the compact disc rarely wins in sheer musicality even though the data says the LP should sound like shit.Maybe it has something to do with that "brick wall" chopping off all the upper frequencies so we don't run screaming from the room when we play a disc ? and also if there is another medium that ADDS noise just so we can listen to the low level notes i surely don't know of it ;D to each their own.I use my CD player daily but I am keeping my turntable in system until i am too feeble to cue it up and then I'll likely not be able to hear squat anyway |
|
insomniac
Been here a while!
Team Zopiclone
Posts: 938
|
Post by insomniac on May 13, 2008 0:44:45 GMT
But surely this move towards "on the chip" can have benefits too, ie. shorter signal paths, lower power requirements, less external soldered joints (lead free crap too the way things are heading). Or they could add a "click and pop box" to their CD player to emulate that authentic vinyl sound And that as we know is the most important bit.....enjoying the MUSIC, regardless of what format it's played from. For me it's simply got to be digital......can't do without my daily hit of jitter though I know a few Wow & Flutter junkies  |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 13, 2008 18:33:21 GMT
again no.Everything on chip and "more efficient" means
1-Crap sounding CMOS Op-Amps in the analog section and if they were not crap why then does no one use them in a high end audio product /
2-stuck with whatever anti-aliasing filtert they "deem" is correct
3-Less choices period.What makes the external DAc a viable option flaws and all (added jitter) it the ability to "tweak" each section for ultimate performance rather than ultimate cost savings and when those choices are eliminated no amount of circuitry AFTER the DAC (analog tricks such as tube buffers to "soften" the starkness of sound) can change what has gone before
4-The very real and well known (in engineering circles anyway) problem of on chip layout and heat dispersion.Analog and digital,the "mixed signal" layout is bitch enough when you have space but when you have everything on the die ? Shit happens.RFI,stray currents circulating where they should not...........add in the smaller,make it smaller and more,get more IN and you have a situation where critical mass is either on the verge or even in some cases surpassed which goes directly to long term reliability not that it matters in a disposable society but to some of us it does..
anyone that has "clicks and pops" has not taken care of their records properly and by that i mean simple basic "keep it clean retard !" type habits.CDs ? Nope.No pops and clicks but I'll tell you straight out i will take them over a CD skipping or locking up ! (also BTW easily avoidable by simply taking proper care but since we are comparing here....)
again.anyone that has "audible" wow and flutter just does not care enough about their gear to have a proper setup and if they do will likely have just as shitty a digital setup,to say someone with a very good CD player plus a vinyl rig would be stupid enough to even USe a damaged or lacking player for analog is just not plausible
On this at least we agree
MUSIC FIRST !
SCREW THE MEANS THAT GETS IT THERE AS LONG AS IT SOUNDS GOOD !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2008 21:17:45 GMT
|
|
rowuk
Been here a while!
Pain in the ass, ex-patriot yank living in the land of sauerkraut
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by rowuk on May 18, 2008 19:09:33 GMT
The argument for digital was that after it left the ADC, you could do what ever you wanted because it was just numbers and therefore copiable without loss (I sold Philips and Sharp audio when this technology was introduced to the market in the late 70's/early 80's). The digital recordings back then were to Umatic video recorders (in the studio setting anyway), as well as a couple of non-compatable fixed head systems.
I think the problem here is that no one has come up with the real reason why digital sounds "worse" than analogue, so pseudo arguments like lost detail try to explain something very technical to the ordinary Joe. I believe that this reason is HOGWASH. Fact is that digital has a more linear frequency response, greater signal to noise and less distortion than its analogue counterpart. Digital is also resistant to tape saturation at high recording levels. It is impervious to "bleed through", it also has essentially perfect channel separation. It does not require a RIAA transfer curve (EQ) to fit it cleanly on its storage media. The bullshit about jitter is more than compensated for by the record deck (or tape machines) audible levels of flutter. Digital storage techniques allow for copying to new media, thus keeping playback possibilities current!
So what is wrong? Are we just so used to "analogue distortions" that eliminating them shows us how ugly a megabuck Schoeps or Neumann microphone really sounds with its resonance somewhere between 18000 and 40000Hz (has anyone checked with Neumann, Sennheiser and co. about what THEY have done to make the newest generation of mics "sound" less "digital"?)? Or is it the lack of modulation of the recorded signal with the high frequency erase signal applied to the tape before recording? What about rumble from the record deck, the "scraping" noise of the stylus in the groove, the resonant behaviour of the cartridge? Go back to the documented comparisons between record decks before digital was an issue, all of the garbage ceased to be published after the "new" enemy arrived. I think this is an important point!
I have decent gear for vinyl and it sounds awesome, I have decent digital gear and have learned how to record with it and get consistent high quality results. Bottom line: Your vinyl will dry up and die, your tapes will only provide long lasting quality if you store them with the same care as fine wines - a dedicated environment, dry, cool and the chore of frequent fast forward/rewinding to fight bleedthrough. Or you get an Apogee high end ADC, digitalize and use common IT backup procedures to preserve them.
Enjoy your analogue as long as you can (it is tough to get parts for my Revox, how much longer will we have affordable decent cartridges?). If you are smart, you will embrace digital and at least try to get a decent backup of your analogue software. One day it will be all that you have left.
So Mr. Rickster, don't give me some schpiel about buying vinyl and the same thing on CD - it ain't the same and you know it. It was either a vinyl pressing of a digital master or a digital release of an analogue production, with the respective tons of additional equipment and "engineers preference" to get the other side! I do not know of ANY fair comparisons (even Mobile Fidelity and Scheffield Labs did not use digital and analogue recorders at the same time. That may have been a fairer test!
|
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 18, 2008 19:42:37 GMT
The argument for digital was that after it left the ADC, you could do what ever you wanted because it was just numbers and therefore copiable without loss (I sold Philips and Sharp audio when this technology was introduced to the market in the late 70's/early 80's). The digital recordings back then were to Umatic video recorders (in the studio setting anyway), as well as a couple of non-compatable fixed head systems. |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 18, 2008 19:52:06 GMT
lost a good 80% of my post for no reason I can think of  So rather than get into the early digital recorders from memory (those with the PCM front end and video tape as the recording medium) and why the actual "bits" were more like 10 at best due to the requirement to have enough top end headroom that you NEVER hit "digital 0dB" (and they being pre-dither recorders more like 4 at the bottom end where low level detail lives)Ii will instead post a link to a well written technical article on why we need 24 bits MINIMUM. So even though the stated dynamic range whipped analogs ass the reality was way different with the noise floor controlling the bottom end and tape saturation the upper limits and if it topped the upper level or fell below the noise floor was STILL MUSIC unlike digital which is not once outside the brackets of comfort zone |
|
rickcr42
Fully Modded
Rest in peace my good friend.
Posts: 4,514
|
Post by rickcr42 on May 18, 2008 21:10:27 GMT
|
|
)
) so am losing parts of my posts for no reason i can determine.anyway,the link :