|
|
|
Well, since we are calling a tally I have to say that I can remember moving from vinyl to CD in the mid 80s with a great sense of excitement and could not imagine going back...
|
|
|
Post by mandel December 10, 2004 (12 of 140)
|
|
Until I discovered SACD I generally listened to CDs for convenience and then had vinyl copies of my favorite listens. Now I just get SACD whenever possible as I feel it's superior to both.
|
|
|
Post by tream December 10, 2004 (13 of 140)
|
|
raffells said:
I am not aware that the "suggested" idea of mixing down to mono by several? studios is a" fact" or even relevant. If your stylus jumps out of the groove ,then its purely a matter of incorrect set up or worn stylus or just imadequate equipment.,,,,,I have been working in this area for 40 years and Ive seen it all before...You dont need SOTA turntables like Townshend Rock to get perfect bass..and CD does not give you this due to its inadequate sampling rate...Most good musicians like analogue as That is what sound is..Analogue...Not broken into bits....and not having any of the digital artefacts added or detracted from the sound...Thats why some people like original sound rather that synthesised sound...each has its own interests and some people do prefer the latter...both are acceptable but when synthesized is used to copy the original we then come to straight opinions on which is nearest the original..Not which is correct?....I would also suggest the subject of error correction and D to A converters has a major effect on the CD sound, probably as much as the power supply and op amps,components cabling etc which all contribute or detract from / to the "perfect CD sound" reffered to..
I agree that sacd can sound a bit better that CD...in fact many bits better..pun intended. I still prefer vinyl and have not yet had any serious listner (many ) prefer Digital in any form to analogue....Dave
Vinyl is great, when it is good, but as a guy who once had over 1000 LP's I can guarantee you that the quality problems in the average release were enormous, degradation inevitable, short playing times hugely inconvient, set up extremely difficult for the average person to get right, inner groove distortion common, etc. On top of that, a lot of the recordings (in fact most) were poor. Ironically, vinyl is way better today than it ever was during the heyday, but still has the
I still have a few hundred LP's that I do play occasionally but for normal, everyday play I prefer to slip an SACD into the player and not worry. SACD is a real advance over RBCD and when given the choice between vinyl and SACD, I'll pick SACD every time. The best are very "analog-like".
|
|
|
Post by seth December 10, 2004 (14 of 140)
|
|
raffells said:
If your stylus jumps out of the groove ,then its purely a matter of incorrect set up or worn stylus or just imadequate equipment
Welcome to the world of Joe Six Pack. Inadequate hardly describes most people's playback equipment. Labels have long "tweaked" recordings so that they would sound good on crappy systems, which is what most consumers had. Columbia, for instance, in the 60s would boost the midrange so that LPs would sound better on junk systems.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp December 10, 2004 (15 of 140)
|
|
Our friend Dave forgot about the "mastering" step. The reason his needle has never jumped out of the groove is because a mastering engineer tweaked the low end (read: rolled off most everything below 50 Hz) so that it wouldn't. Dave's experience proves only that the mastering guy did his job; not that his job isn't needed.
I'm not sure why some of us feel we have to get into these "analog rules and digital drools" (or vice versa) mindsets. If you understand that no system is perfect, and you accept the trade-offs offered by your system of choice, then live long and prosper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mandel said:
Until I discovered SACD I generally listened to CDs for convenience and then had vinyl copies of my favorite listens. Now I just get SACD whenever possible as I feel it's superior to both.
I completely agree. I've only been listening to SACD for six weeks, and feel it combines the best features of CD and LP. I know I've had a real conversion, because when I came across a shopping cart filled with three boxes of old vinyl yesterday that someone had left behind when they moved, I only went through the first couple of inches.
I wish Sony had marketed this better, and everything were available on SACD.
|
|
|
Post by mdt December 10, 2004 (17 of 140)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Our friend Dave forgot about the "mastering" step. The reason his needle has never jumped out of the groove is because a mastering engineer tweaked the low end (read: rolled off most everything below 50 Hz) so that it wouldn't. Dave's experience proves only that the mastering guy did his job; not that his job isn't needed.
Good you mention this, it's allways forgotten in dicussions and sheds another light on the CD vs. LP debate.
Also one should'nt forget that when musicians or producers favour analog versus digital for sound quality they are talking about a studio quality analog master tape compared to whatever digital format. It is well possible that in this comparision some digital formats may be inferior.This is however not the same thing at all as comparing the final consumer formats LP and CD. The points mentioned by Dan are only some of several that limit the sound quality of an LP versus the original recording.Here i think the CD is sonically superior if reproduced with adequate playback equipment.I think the reason for early CDs being sonically dissapointing was that masters made for LP and therefore accordingly equalized etc. (to compensate for the characteristics of the LP)were transfered one to one to the much more neutral CD where of course the adjustments made were absolutely inapropriate.
So imo CD is inferior to analog when compared to a studio master but superior to analog when compared to LP.
DSD however has ended the analog vs. digital debate as far as i'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp December 11, 2004 (18 of 140)
|
|
mdt said:
I think the reason for early CDs being sonically dissapointing was that masters made for LP and therefore accordingly equalized etc. (to compensate for the characteristics of the LP)were transfered one to one to the much more neutral CD where of course the adjustments made were absolutely inapropriate.
m,
This is true. With the CD revolution, recording engineers had to "unlearn" what they had intuited about what the media and the transfers did to their sonics. We were all unconsciously compensating for various behaviors of tape and vinyl to get the sound to come out as desired. Thus, for example, early all-digital recordings were too bright and thin (listen to Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms" versus their earlier and later recordings).
We are in that same passageway now of discovering that the way we have been recording things for CD release is wrong for SACD. This will quickly work itself out and you will have, overall, better-sounding SACDs than the first generation of discs.
|
|
|
Post by raffells December 11, 2004 (19 of 140)
|
|
Its really pleasing to see such pleasant and constructive responses to what subjects can be a slanging match on other forums....I agree with many of the comments re disadvantages of vinyl having just set up my Rock turntable again..I also should point out that I cleaned every one of the 3500-4000 lps with both anti MRA fluids and general IPA cleaning fluids as I also consider that the general quality of Lp pressings was never good enough..,,,
I also accept that the technical differences in channel seperation,dynamic range and signal to noise,wow and flutter are superior via the digital formats.These however are only partly relevant to the finished sound product.
After so many years of discussing and thinking about these subjects I beleive those who grow up having amplified or electronic music as their initial source of sound seem to accept digital as there preference to those who are musically brought up with pure acoustic sounds..ie violins,cellos,brass and piano etc ,also a distinct split on percussive instruments.ie piano drums etc.
I was amused by the comment about frequency balancing by the recording engineers as though it only applied to vinyl?...surely not...Yes I also remember how records were "balanced" to suit suspended chassis type turntable and when the early CD came out the balance changed to suit the solid Pink Triangle/Rock/ Rega solid types. One point I would disagree with from the interesting responses is that of early CD being acceptable.It never was. It was introduced by its originators as super midfi and not hifi...I was there and remember it well....They accepted it didnt satisfy the golden ears testers but introduced it due to commercial pressures...Certain problems historically are well known about.Revisions to equipment design as well as things mentioned in the responses have made CD listening a different experience to what was presented as perfect ? when it was introduced..Though compared to a badly set up vinyl system with added distortions from worn stylus,poor pressings general dust fingerprints etc etc it had its advantages...not least was the pressure from the retail trade to have smaller storage units and a chance to resell all the stuff that they had originally sold on vinyl all over again.......
To me I believe MY vinyl system sounds better because I have invested many years and lots of money on compononts that dont detract from the sonics..£5 each for resisters etc and applying a minimalistic approach in my own designs...The sheer number of compononts in the chain of a digital system goes against this ideal....and normal commercial digital players certainly do not use the best components in their products...Dave PS Ive had SACD 4 years now
|
|
|
Post by Chris December 11, 2004 (20 of 140)
|
|
raffells said:
Its really pleasing to see such pleasant and constructive responses to what subjects can be a slanging match on other forums....I agree with many of the comments re disadvantages of vinyl having just set up my Rock turntable again..I also should point out that I cleaned every one of the 3500-4000 lps with both anti MRA fluids and general IPA cleaning fluids as I also consider that the general quality of Lp pressings was never good enough..,,,
I also accept that the technical differences in channel seperation,dynamic range and signal to noise,wow and flutter are superior via the digital formats.These however are only partly relevant to the finished sound product.
After so many years of discussing and thinking about these subjects I beleive those who grow up having amplified or electronic music as their initial source of sound seem to accept digital as there preference to those who are musically brought up with pure acoustic sounds..ie violins,cellos,brass and piano etc ,also a distinct split on percussive instruments.ie piano drums etc.
I was amused by the comment about frequency balancing by the recording engineers as though it only applied to vinyl?...surely not...Yes I also remember how records were "balanced" to suit suspended chassis type turntable and when the early CD came out the balance changed to suit the solid Pink Triangle/Rock/ Rega solid types. One point I would disagree with from the interesting responses is that of early CD being acceptable.It never was. It was introduced by its originators as super midfi and not hifi...I was there and remember it well....They accepted it didnt satisfy the golden ears testers but introduced it due to commercial pressures...Certain problems historically are well known about.Revisions to equipment design as well as things mentioned in the responses have made CD listening a different experience to what was presented as perfect ? when it was introduced..Though compared to a badly set up vinyl system with added distortions from worn stylus,poor pressings general dust fingerprints etc etc it had its advantages...not least was the pressure from the retail trade to have smaller storage units and a chance to resell all the stuff that they had originally sold on vinyl all over again.......
To me I believe MY vinyl system sounds better because I have invested many years and lots of money on compononts that dont detract from the sonics..£5 each for resisters etc and applying a minimalistic approach in my own designs...The sheer number of compononts in the chain of a digital system goes against this ideal....and normal commercial digital players certainly do not use the best components in their products...Dave PS Ive had SACD 4 years now
I think you are absolutely right. For me there is no doubt whatsover on my system at least, that LP still rules regarding ultimate resolution and realism.
Although SACD is clearly better than RBCD it still isn't as good as the very best LPs.
But I must confess that I absolutely LOVE the Mercury's and Living Stereo SACDs.
They come very close to the best of vinyl in many respects IMO.
What irritates me, is that it is so impossible to find any pure DSD recordings that really compare to these old Gems!!!
I just compared my LP versions of Mahler's third and ninth symphonies to the recent SACDs from DECCA.
Both DECCA's own 1969 Solti/LSO recording of the third and,surprisingly even DGG's Giulini/Chicago symphony LPs are,although both multimiked too, clearly better and more realistic than the strangely coloured, small and incoherent SACDs.Don't get me wrong the SACDs are not that bad, they're just not as good as the LPs I used for comparison.
But on the other hand recordings like the Firebird on Mercury and Munch's Ravel discs as transferred to SACD are still very much SOTA IMO.
No modern digital recordings that I've heard anyway, project such a huge coherent and realistic soundstage as do these old tube based, two or three michrophones only, analogue recordings.And sadly, ALL large scale commercial recordings made today are mulitmiked. The vintage recordings are superior regarding timbre ,air around the instruments truly three dimensional,even in simple stereo in a way that few digital recordings even approach.Every single instrument of the orchestra sounds more real and more lifelike.
I think there are several reasons why analogue still rules.The simple miking is definitely one very important factor.Valves or tubes in the recording chain, are equally important I think.
And it also seems that, not even pure DSD has the resolution needed, to capture a full symphony orchestra and choir as realisically as analogue both can, and could already in the mid fifties!!!
|
|
