Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 2526272829 38> |
| Author | ||||||
Catcher10 
Forum Senior Member 
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 18060 |
 Posted: October 19 2012 at 11:21 |
|||||
|
Last night I spun side one of Tarkus, side 2 never gets any plays IMO its not listenable stuff
 .
And it was just wonderful.....I got up and put the needle back to the start, and it was wonderful again. The sound to me is so much better on vinyl, and I don't have the remaster version. I have a German issue Tarkus album, this is the only copy I have owned....maybe the US version sounds better but I doubt it.
The keyboards are simply wonderful, I can hear all the subtle sounds and changes very nicely. The vocals are what I would expect if Greg Lake was talking to me in person, that is the detail I hear.
Everytime I A/B this LP with my CD copy, its no comparison....Sure from a convenience and lazy factor I can set the song to endless loop on my CDP, it does sound very good......but I don't get the full experience of the music. As moshkito says since it is about experiencing the music, which I agree, this to me in full force can only happen to my ears and mind with my vinyl.....and I love my digital setup, its excellent to me......but my analog setup is much better.
Happy listening!
|
||||||
  
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 19 2012 at 04:37 |
|||||
|
I'm going to do something I really should not do and post some frequency characteristics of some Pro recording gear - it's unfair because I cannot make any subjective assessment of how these sound because I've never heard them and I cannot predict how people will interpret these graphs. These graphs do not say that digital is better than analogue and they do not say analogue is better than digital. People do get upset and techy when faced with numerical technical data that appears to contradict their beliefs and preconceptions, but hopefully people will see that all these graphs show is they are not all the same and there are differences.
However what you cannot do is be dismissive of them because if they predict or explain why some recording engineers prefer one analogue recorder over another analogue recorder, or one tape speed over another tape speed then they must have some validity.
All I can show is that from a technical stand-point there are differences between them and they are what characterises how they might sound. The bumps and dips in the curves could be what makes one sound subjectively better than another. In these curves the blue line is recorded at 15ips and the red line at 30ips - many recording engineers prefer 15ips because the bass notes sound better to them and the graphs would agree with that, so we can assume that the bumps and dips do mean something and they do affect the sound being recorded. The ideal situation from a fidelity point of view would be a flat response level with the 0dB line on the plot, but according to some that is not natural or representative. I don't know - I'm not making any judgements here only observations.
What we can observe from these graphs is that if people prefer the output from an Otari and a Tascam analogue recorder over the Starmax ADC then what happens at 20KHz has little influence on that preference because the Starmax falls between the two comparatively. We can also observe that what happens as we approach 20Hz is that both analogue recorders drastically reduces when compared to digital - so we can expect that those frequences at 20H and below do not affect perceived preference in quite the way that analogue fans say it does. Another observation we can make is that both the analogue recorders add or subtract colouration in the low end response below 400Hz (just below A4 on a concert pitch piano) whereas the digital recorder adds nothing - again this does not mean the analogue is "better" or "worse", it just means they are "different". We can also observe what happens to the frequencies where musical notes reside (between say 40Hz and 4KHz) and notice that is where this colouration occurs the most in analogue recorders - this could explain why the word "musical" is used so often by analogue andiophilists.
Otari MX80:
 Tascam MS-16:
 Starmax onboard ADC:
 |
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 19 2012 at 03:08 |
|||||
Listener fatigue does not make you fall asleep, it makes you unreceptive and irritable. According to audiophilists listener fatigue affects your ability to differentiate different formats and sources. I said I don't know why that is, I merely postulated a possible cause based upon the known characteristics of digital and analogue media and the complaints of listener fatigue by people who don't like digital media. I've never experienced listener fatigue so I don't know how it affects me or whether it is a real phenomenon, I can only go by what audiophilists say.
Yes a live performance will have more detail, and it will have more detail than any recording not just a digital recording - the question is not of live verses digital or live verses analogue but of digital verses analogue. Listener fatigue appears to be more to do with top-end detail yet the defining characteristic of live performances to me seems to be more about the low-end performance and detail, I've been to concerts where the top-end is too shrill and too loud - it is not a pleasant experience but I didn't get fatigued by it, I just wanted to be somewhere else at that moment.
Edited by Dean - October 19 2012 at 03:40 |
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 19 2012 at 02:34 |
|||||
I have never said that digital wins so the "still" is an error here.
iPlods don't record, if they did I would still have no idea because I don't know the specifications of a 2inch otari reel-to-reel. BUT what is the relevance of this example anyway? Do people have Otari reel-to-reel machines in their homes? Can people play 2inch tape in their homes? Conversely do recording engineers record onto an iPlod or do they use professional digital recording equipment? I'm all for comparative testing but for crying out loud "mate" let's compare items made for the same purpose and let's do it so anyone can repeat the results for themselves.
Apart from a few classical, jazz and blues ¼inch pre-recorded albums off eBay people cannot buy reel-to-reel recordings of anything anywhere - they cannot buy ½inch and 2inch pre-recorded tapes and you certainly cannot buy 2inch pre-recorded tapes from Amazon - even back in the 60s hardly anyone bought ¼inch pre-recorded tapes - I've probably seen two dozen in my entire life and they were all recorded at 3¾ips not at the 15ips of a professional studio Otari tape.
if you want buy analogue recording the only media you can buy is vinyl - if you must do these comparative tests then compare things that everyone can compare in their own homes otherwise it's pointless and irelevant. And do it under controlled conditions - no cheating, no confirmation bias, no complaints of "listener fatigue" - proper ABX double-blind tests with a 95% confidence level.
Good. I'm pleased for you. Now sell me and everyone else here a copy of that ½inch tape and tell us where we can buy ½inch tape players from because there is NO WAY ON EARTH the rest of us can either confirm what you have said or enjoy that pleasure for ourselves. Edited by Dean - October 19 2012 at 03:13 |
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 19 2012 at 01:34 |
|||||
Yes. Got any?
Yes.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Posted: October 19 2012 at 00:07 |
|||||
|
We could look at this another way.
Would using statistical probability calculations be acceptable in your view of a proper scientific analysis? Can we agree that based upon your recent post that there may be other scientific disciplines that might offer explanations as to the different perceptions that various individuals might have in regard to the varying descriptive experiences of listening to music in both digital and analog formats? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 22:30 |
|||||
|
The argument that digital has greater range... well, wouldn't that depend upon the instrument used to record sound?
If I use the same mic and plug one into an ipod and the other into a 2 inch Otari reel to reel.. does digital still win here? We recorded some stuff on black face Alesis Adats back when they first came out in the early 90's which use SVHS tape as digital transport and I'm sorry but there is NO WAY IN HELL that those things recorded sound better than a Tascam Reel to Reel using 1/2 inch magnetic tape. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 22:24 |
|||||
|
If our brain shuts off or shuts out detail because there is too much... wouldn't live music be making us fall asleep? Wouldn't live music have more detail than a digital recording of the same live performance?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 20:21 |
|||||
Hmm.... let's see what's on Wikipedia- Psychoacoustics, The cognitive neuroscience of music, Music psychology, Music cognition and Cognitive musicology. All of those cover the perception and appreciation of sound, since I'm not conversant with any of them I don't know whether all or some or none of them would cover exactly what you are asking but when you are talking about subjective preference then psychology of some form or other will be the scientific way of explaining it.
Well, no, because that will not be found within the technical aspects of the two technologies and that is all I have been concerned with. If an audiophilist says vinyl sounds better because it has more detail and I say that cannot be the reason because vinyl has less dynamic range than digital so cannot have more detail then there must be another reason. Maybe it is in the listener's perception and not in the technology so that will more likely have a psychological explanation than a technical one. Perhaps it is because we cannot process that much detail, subconsciously we find it distracting to have too much information all at once - how many audiophilists say they get listener fatigue from listening to digital music? Could that be an explanation? I'm guessing, it's not something I've looked into or given any thought to, but it makes a lot more sense to me than some of the non-technical and unscientific ideas put forward, many of which are contradictory. We know that the human brain is capable of blocking-out some distractions to lessen the computing load on the brain - with vision we process the whole scene then ignore any static information being sent from the retina to reduce bandwidth and in hearing we mask repetitive information and focus only on the changes (necessary for our fight or flight instincts) - perhaps all the technical differences between the two systems mess up that audio processing our brains do, perhaps some people can hear more detail in vinyl because our brains shut-off the ability to process it when there is too much detail to cope with. (I'm still guessing, I actually don't know)
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 17:45 |
|||||
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 17:43 |
|||||
Because they prefer how it sounds to them. I'm sorry that's not very scientific but that's how it is - some people don't like the sound of the oboe or bagpipes, some prefer the sound of cornets to trumpets. Some people don't like Mike Oldfield's guitar tones and others have a problem with Steve Howe's, some people like one or the other or even both while some like neither - the science of that is not in the guitar tones but in peoples appreciation of them.
You prefer the sound of vinyl and analogue so it is far superior to digital to you - I don't know why you want science to validate that. I can tell you (and have told you) the differences between them from a technical viewpoint and unfortunately that contradicts your preconceptions of what those differences were. The onus is not on me to change the science to fit your preconceptions, nor is on me to develop some new technical explanation to validate your subjective opinion.
I disagree with "know" and "true" but the science behind it (psychology) is not my field of expertise [we've people here who don't even regard psychology as a true science]
I have already explained what harmonic distortion is from a scientific perspective and I can show that on a graph and in an equation; I can then play those tones to a human and ask for their impressions and feelings. An A# note played on a piano sounds different to the same A# played on a guitar or a violin or a trumpet or a flute yet they are all the same fundamental note - they all have the same fundamental frequency (A# above middle C would be 233.082Hz) - what makes them sound different is the harmonic content of the note - that is all the higher frequencies that are harmonic to the fundamental - the ratios of all those harmonics distinguish a flute from a piano from a trumpet (for example) - lots of even harmonics sound like a trumpet, lots of odd harmonics sound like a flute. Harmonic distortion in an amplifier has a similar but far more subtle effect so it doesn't make a trumpet sound like a flute, but it can make the trumpet appear less harsh and more sonorous to our ears, however rather than do that on just one note like in a piano or flute, or on one instrument, distortion in an amp does it to all of the music simultaneously.
This isn't "clipping", which is an extreme form of harmonic distortion, caused by overdriving an amplifier - there solid-state devices show what can happen when you have too much bandwidth because the clipping is hard with masses of high-frequencies and it sounds very harsh, in a valve clipping or saturation is softer and sounds mellower, but that is an extreme example of how one version of gross harmonic distortion can be more pleasing to the human
Proper THD (ie not clipping or saturation) introduces more subtle effects - some are nice and some are not - 1% THD in a valve amp can sound nicer that 1% THD in a solid-state amp because of the different harmonic content and how that is produced in each device, this is why a valve amp of 0.8% THD can sound nicer than a solid state amp with a THD of 0.002%.
I don't know whether science can determine what human emotion is on a neurological level,it's not my field of expertise - I think we can observe various aspects of the brain under various conditions - how those are interpreted and understood I suspect is still largely guesswork and conjecture since we are unable to see thoughts or read neurons.
Perhaps it's because Stratovarius is a symphonic metal band and a student violin is a violin.
 Stradivarius violins on the other hand are a matter of heated debate with expert violinists, luthiers, scientists and classical music lovers and there have been many double-blind tests with violinists and listeners that have been surprisingly inconclusive. The truth is no one knows whether they do sound better or why those that think they do sound better think they do. Both expert luthiers and scientists have analysed and evaluated them and haven't found anything conclusive either. Getting it right some of the time isn't good enough to be conclusive and "... most would agree it sounded better the second night" is pure speculation on your part because that "test" has not been performed and subjectively comparing two performances 24 hours apart is prone to too many variables, let alone deciding whether the lead violin in one of those performances sounded better than in the other performance - under those conditions if the same Stradivarius was played on each night some people would still chose one over the other. Based upon those experiments that have been done, (and some of these are documented on the wiki entry for Stradivarius violins if you need confirmation of that ) this particular example would not produce the conclusion you have predicted.
What we do know is they are extremely valuable and again, no one really knows why - we do know that some are more valuable than others, and that isn't a reflection or measure of how they sound. I'm not an expert on violins or Stradivarius and will openly admit my luthier skills are worse than rudimentary (I have made a guitar, it was not good by any standard), so I cannot possibly comment on this subject objectively or subjectively - all I can do is relay to you what I have read elsewhere.
Okay - you go first.
Edited by Dean - October 18 2012 at 18:45 |
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 18060 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 17:25 |
|||||
|
^ Yea....similar to when people describe their equipment disappearing in the room or you cannot exactly pin point where a sound might be coming from, everything gets opened up sorta....
I was being funny but I really like the saying.......
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 17:22 |
|||||
I initially assumed (nasty things assumptions) that he meant it makes solid brick or concrete shake and vibrate, but that would be unbearably loud and sound unpleasant so that couldn't have been it, which is why I didn't make a joke of it but kept asking for clarification
He said that a good system sounds like the walls of your room do not exist - it pushes them away - and I really like that as a concept and as an image, even though I'm not sure whether that would be what I'd want in a system - when I listen to music I want to be immersed in it, I want to be enclosed and enveloped by it... unless it's something pastoral (like Hergest Ridge) of course, then I want to feel like I'm in the middle of a wide open space.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 17:11 |
|||||
|
Forget about me...
What is the science that supports the thousands of audiophiles that prefer vinyl or reel to reel tape over digital sound reproduction? There must be some kind of science to back up this preference? I understand you may have already stated that in this thread.. but would you mind summarizing the points that would be MOST LIKELY responsible for this group of audiophiles having such an favorable experience while listening to analog music sources? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 15:53 |
|||||
|
^I never did find out what he meant.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 15:27 |
|||||
Once we established what he meant by that it all made perfect sense and I actually agree with it in principle (though not necessarily in practice) - it's a great phrase but it had me scratching my head trying to work out what it meant for a long time.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 18060 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 14:55 |
|||||
|
^ I have held on to the term......."pushing walls".....that one will live with me forever. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 14:17 |
|||||
I was thinking about that earlier today and wondered who (from my previous play-list) was the best guitarist - Dave Gilmour, Alex Lifeson, John Petrucci, Matt Belamy, Lu Edmonds, or Steve Hackett (or Sonja Kristina) ... and I'd have to say they all have plus points and things about their playing that I admire or like. Then I remembered this clip of Lu Edmonds of PiL:
It's a fair comment, but my answer would still be no. What's the point? We cannot hear the same gear in the same setup in the same environment and at the level we're talking about all those factors are important so even when we're being subjective it's not to the same reference point. It's subjective to our own personal reference points and down to personal preference - if I say that a Binford PQ12 phono preamp is the sweetest I've ever heard so you buy one and find that in your system it sounds awful what has that gained us? Do you then go and buy the same speakers and turntable as me, or call a builder to redesign your house to be the same as my rather nondescript and typically English semi-detached house, (now that's pushing walls), or do you bin it and never trust anything I say ever again?
We both own NAD amps but not in the same setup, and they're not the same models or even the same vintage so we can't even compare them objectively, but even if they were the same we have different turntables, CD decks and speakers and we'd be listening in different rooms in different places with different climates (hell, we even use a different mains supply voltage and frequency and if we're to believe Oliver that (subjectively) could make a difference too) so we cannot compare them subjectively, so all we can say is both amps were designed by Bjørn-Erik Edvardsen (not all NAD amps were) and they were made by NAD, somewhere in the world but not necessarily in the same factory and probably not by the same person. Yet someone who's never heard my amp says it's not very good (apparently) and I need to spend $1000 so I can tell the difference between CD and vinyl, or more importantly, so I can discover that vinyl is so much "better" than CD, but if I do that and do not proclaim that vinyl is far superior to CD then either I've failed to set-up my system properly (because, allegedly, without seeing or hearing my systems, my inability to do that is glaringly obvious) or my ears just aren't good enough. This subjective lark seems to be a little one-sided if you ask me, my subjective opinion is only valid if I agree with someone else's subjective opinion, and if I doesn't then it's my fault... but he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me.... I think not.
If you want an opinion on gear then I can say that for the money, the 1980s British-owned NAD used cheap components in a good design and took care over the internal construction, they didn't waste money on external pretty and frippery. On the down-side they could have spent a few more bucks on a heavier-duty transformer and some bigger capacitors, but unless you crank the volume up past the 3/4 way mark you're never going to notice that - overall Mr Edvardsen did the job and he did it right. I cannot describe how it sounds because there isn't a universally defined vocabulary that we can all use and understand - it "lifts the carpets"... "snuggles your ears" ?!?! ... I said I like the clarity and I do - I said I like the reliability and I do (mine has been switched on for over 250,000 hours and is used daily - it's never failed, not once, how much more reliability can you ask for? ... another 30 years would be nice.) - what more is there to say? But I cannot say any of that about the modern Canadian-owned NAD because I have no experience of their products, it's very unlikely they are going to be the same, but that does not imply they will be better or worse.
Edited by Dean - October 18 2012 at 14:20 |
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 18060 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 11:02 |
|||||
Fair enough......although from a music perspective I am in the same boat as you, I don't review any albums because it means nothing to me or other people...Its a number and who cares.
I was more talking about your knowledge on electronics and their bearing on audio gear......For someone of your understanding of the workings it would be nice to hear your subjective thoughts on audio gear, especially since you have built your own before.
Have a good day
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 18 2012 at 04:22 |
|||||
|
There is a wealth of difference between "know" and "believe" or "think" or "feel". There is an objective and subjective difference between reel-to-reel tape and cassette, and there is an objective and subjective difference between vinyl and cassette, and there is an objective and subjective difference between CD and cassette. Most here would agree that in all cases cassette loses out both objectively and subjectively. I will, for one night only, stand up and state categorically and very subjectively that I did not like cassette tape - I did not like the sound or the noise, even using quality tape and Dolby noise reduction - and the objective science backs me up on that, so all is good. However in 1983 if you spent $6000 on a Nakamichi cassette deck and used metal tapes the performance objectively would be better than vinyl and some would even say that subjectively it out performed vinyl (because at the time they did) - it would not make pre-recorded cassettes sound "as good" as vinyl, since those had Dolby B noise reduction encoded into them at manufacture and could not use the improved Dolby C that those decks employed and pre-recorded used ferric tape not metal so that's not surprising, but with metal tape and Dolby C encoding many audiophilists raved over the Nakamichi. Of course that is a lot of money and effort to achieve something that you could do easily with a good quality reel-to-reel tape deck running at 7½ or 3¾ ips for a fraction of the cost. Yet by then pre-recorded cassettes where out-selling vinyl in the record stores (the buying public liked them better for whatever reason) - CDs did not replace vinyl, they replaced pre-recorded cassette - vinyl had already lost out to cassette by the end of the 70s. Hardly anyone ever bought pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes so they don't even figure into it - most reel-to-reel owners recorded off vinyl so what they got was only ever as good as that vinyl pressing it came from and it was never as good as the professional tape decks used in the studios, which as I have said before in this very thread - run at 15 or 30 ips. And those tape speeds are very important because they determine the frequency response and the noise-floor and that is scientific fact. And the studio engineers and home Hi-Fi enthusiasts can hear the effects of running at higher tape speeds so that is backed up by subjective opinion. Science does explain why vinyl and reel-to-reel tape sounds better to you. I have explained countless times why they sounds better to you. But you are not listening.
We haven't discarded Newtonian Physics, it's still used and it's still relevant and it is valid. The next time you drop something on your foot remember that the physics that still accurately describes the force with which it hit you is not archaic. Special Relativity is "special" (the clue is in the name) and applies to "special" cases where gravity does not apply or is not significant. Nice try but no prize this time.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 2526272829 38> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
the importance of analog sound in prog
Topic Options
Surrealist wrote: