Post by seth December 11, 2004 (21 of 140)
|
|
raffells said:
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.
This raises another good point.
Neither digital or analog recordings really capture the sound of a live performance. It seems like many people also prefer recorded sound to live. For instance, IMO, digital better represents how clean and transparent a live performance is which isn't always as pleasing as analog's warmer (in a slightly mushy sense) sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
It seems like many people also prefer recorded sound to live. For instance, IMO, digital better represents how clean and transparent a live performance is which isn't always as pleasing as analog's warmer (in a slightly mushy sense) sound.
I'm one of those people. I'd *much* rather listen to music at home than put up with the other members of an audience, their perfume, their extraneous noise, etc. Also, the audiophile ideal that the only music worth listening to either is or approximates unamplified instruments in a concert hall is the absolute height of bogosity.
|
|
|
Post by seth December 11, 2004 (23 of 140)
|
|
recordhunter said:
I'm one of those people. I'd *much* rather listen to music at home than put up with the other members of an audience, their perfume, their extraneous noise, etc. Also, the audiophile ideal that the only music worth listening to either is or approximates unamplified instruments in a concert hall is the absolute height of bogosity.
I don't know where you are attending concerts, but nationwide I've found that audiences are typically extremely well behaved, even on nights where something like Beethoven's 5th or Dvorak's 9th will bring out people who typically don't attend concerts. Cell phone ringing is definitely sharply down thanks to vibrating rings become a standard feature and most orchestras having someone come on the PA before a concert reminding patrons to turn them off.
One reason worth attending a concert is that recordings do not accurately capture the subtle textures and dynamics of some instruments, specifically the timpani.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn December 11, 2004 (24 of 140)
|
|
seth said:
This raises another good point.
Neither digital or analog recordings really capture the sound of a live performance. It seems like many people also prefer recorded sound to live.
A friend of mine, in both the audio equipment design and recording business, once observed that he believed it would take at least 16 channels to begin to capture the sound and feel of a live performance of a symphony orchestra. There is an air about the sound of a large orchestra and hall that does not translate through a recording. When one is in front of an orchestra, you receive both direct and reflected sounds from a wide angle of sources. I think the ear/brain combination does a real-time analysis of those myriads of individual sounds, and paints a sonic picture in the mind of "space". Directing those original sounds and angles through a finite number of microphones, and 2, 3, or 5 channels into a room just does not achieve the same affect. So what we're left with is every listener’s individual assessment of what is closest to the original performance, or most satisfying to him or her. IMO, it's all personal opinion, and each of us votes with our wallets as to what brings us closest to what we think is the actual event. Vinyl, and digital (in all it's flavors) are just the current delivery technologies, and I believe keep improving all the time.
I'm just happy that enough companies and individuals keep improving this art and science. It must be a lousy fiscal return on their investment. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp December 11, 2004 (25 of 140)
|
|
raffells said:
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...
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...
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.
Dave,
It's been my experience of many years that those who have grown up listening to analog anomalies and tube artifacts sometimes come to hear those as their baseline for realism, and miss those imperfections when absent. To those of us who might prefer solid state or digital gear, the analogophile's blessed warmth and glow sound like mud and crud and not music. As you wrote, the initial experience has much to do with forming the impression that shapes the ongoing judgement.
My comment about frequency balancing was in response to one of your defenses of vinyl as being able to (I paraphrase) walk on water while simultaneously turning the water into wine. If there is frequency "balancing" (that is, cutting certain parts of the spectrum in order not overload the system) going on with CDs, please inform us of what that might be.
Obviously the marketing claim for CD "perfect sound forever" was misbegotten and has been a source of misery ever since. Yet vinyl, as you admit, is not perfect - so we are only talking about different degrees and types of imperfections. Let's put the marketing BS where it belongs - in the garden fertilizing the flowers.
I wonder whether you are comparing your expensive turntable-based system with an SACD transport of similar quality? There are plenty of people with $10,000 turntables who compare the sound with that of a $250 SACD player and declare vinyl the undisputed champion... you know: perfect sound forever.
|
|
|
Post by mdt December 11, 2004 (26 of 140)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Dave,
It's been my experience of many years that those who have grown up listening to analog anomalies and tube artifacts sometimes come to hear those as their baseline for realism, and miss those imperfections when absent. To those of us who might prefer solid state or digital gear, the analogophile's blessed warmth and glow sound like mud and crud and not music. As you wrote, the initial experience has much to do with forming the impression that shapes the ongoing judgement.
My comment about frequency balancing was in response to one of your defenses of vinyl as being able to (I paraphrase) walk on water while simultaneously turning the water into wine. If there is frequency "balancing" (that is, cutting certain parts of the spectrum in order not overload the system) going on with CDs, please inform us of what that might be.
Obviously the marketing claim for CD "perfect sound forever" was misbegotten and has been a source of misery ever since. Yet vinyl, as you admit, is not perfect - so we are only talking about different degrees and types of imperfections. Let's put the marketing BS where it belongs - in the garden fertilizing the flowers.
I wonder whether you are comparing your expensive turntable-based system with an SACD transport of similar quality? There are plenty of people with $10,000 turntables who compare the sound with that of a $250 SACD player and declare vinyl the undisputed champion... you know: perfect sound forever.
Maybe one should not discuss about better or worse sound when talking about analog versus digital at all. We are talking about storage media here which means ideally they should have no "sound" at all.Which one is better can not be determined by comparing them to each other, but only by comparing them to the input being recorded, which should come out as unaltered as possible.
|
|
|
Post by raffells December 11, 2004 (27 of 140)
|
|
Hi again Dan,
As I am nearer sixty you can guess than I grew up with non amplified sounds,church organs and school based instruments plus learning music from 78s and radio which of course was valve.(tubes) My formative music years was listening to bands like the Beatles and many Liverpool pop groups where I lived and had connections with some of these groups.I think I returned to classical music from about 20 years of age.... Having an electrical background I was involved in building /repairing tubes in my late teens and I was very much in at the start of transisters. I have always had a the opportunity to listen to Live music at a much greater rate that average person.(location and spell in my youth as a roadie)A job Im recently re promoted? to again for my sons New Punk Band...
I also realized(at 16) that changing cable (wires) (rubber coating to plastic coating) made a difference in the sound and seemed to spend my whole life persuing this subject and associated component sound.....I was considered quite mad by many of the major companies......I also abandonded tubes (microphonic coloured systems) for transister based systems many many years ago.as nice enough as they are they failed to accuratly reproduce my memorized version of the original sound..
..However my disc stage is a transister mimic copy of a valve design.....except its much lower noise floor and ultrafast power supplies...and yes comparing my two different priced systems is unfair..
One thing I realized after many years of modifying peoples systems was that every persons perception of an ideal sound was different..most people are both frequency and distortion sensitive in certain areas,whilst being tolerant in other vast areas.This is totally seperate from listeners ability to cope with volumes. This I believe is down to peoples nervous systems being different as well as other more obvious reasons.Mostly people have opinions based on magazine reviews and their personal budgets and egos.
I should clarify that I really prefer sacd or DVDA to CD ( which I only purchase if I cannot get the particular work on vinyl) I should also point out that I have virtually NO digital remastered vinyl Lps and usually prefer modern CD to them.Maybe when I aquire a Denon 5900 and modify it I will change my opinion. Then Dan I will be the first to let you know...Dave
|
|
|
Post by DBB December 13, 2004 (28 of 140)
|
|
In terms of 2 channel sound quality, my experience is that a good SACD is slightly more realistic than vinyl, certainly more dynamic and noise free, but for now, I prefer vinyl for 2 reasons. First, on a good system, vinyl has a natural smoothness and a warm palpability that is more pleasing than anything digital. I have read that recording engineers sometimes prefer the sound of a vinyl pressing to the master tape. Obviously the tape is a more accurate rendition of the sound.
Secondly, as a classical music fan, there is simply not yet a library of distinguished classical recordings in SACD. I am usually disapointed in the performance quality of the SACD'S I have bought. It will take years to either transfer the old catelogue or create a new one of superior performances.
I resurected my vinyl collection only two years ago, hoping to archive it to a hard drive at 24/96 resolutiion. The more I played the vinyl, the more I became addicted to its superior sound, to the point that I gave up archiving and decided to get a better turntable. Yes, I am even willing to get up every 25 minutes to turn the LP over.
|
|
|
Post by mdt December 13, 2004 (29 of 140)
|
|
Secondly, as a classical music fan, there is simply not yet a library of distinguished classical recordings in SACD. I am usually disapointed in the performance quality of the SACD'S I have bought. It will take years to either transfer the old catelogue or create a new one of superior performances.
The reissuing of older recordings in original studio quality is one of the bigest advantages of SA-CD. DSD remasters of high quality analog recordings have shown that even vintage analog can be superior to 16/44.1 (but not to DSD IMO). Several high class performances have found their way on to SA-CD like that, recordings with Carlos Kleiber, Charles Munch, Fritz Reiner, Van Cliburn, Leontine Price, Placido Domingo, Jascha Heifetz, Arthur Rubinstein, Herbert von Karajan together with world class orchestras like the Berlin Philharmonic, Chicago Symphony, Boston Symphony... No distinguished performances ?
They are many more such treasures in the vaults, record companys need only to be encouraged by consumers to dig them out; show them that one appreciates the considerable advantages of SA-CD as medium for top quality re-releases also in stereo and mono and that multi channel is not the sole "raison d'aitre" of SA-CD
|
|
|
Post by seth December 13, 2004 (30 of 140)
|
|
mdt said:
The reissuing of older recordings in original studio quality is one of the bigest advantages of SA-CD. DSD remasters of high quality analog recordings have shown that even vintage analog can be superior to 16/44.1 (but not to DSD IMO). Several high class performances have found their way on to SA-CD like that, recordings with Carlos Kleiber, Charles Munch, Fritz Reiner, Van Cliburn, Leontine Price, Placido Domingo, Jascha Heifetz, Arthur Rubinstein, Herbert von Karajan together with world class orchestras like the Berlin Philharmonic, Chicago Symphony, Boston Symphony... No distinguished performances ?
They are many more such treasures in the vaults, record companys need only to be encouraged by consumers to dig them out; show them that one appreciates the considerable advantages of SA-CD as medium for top quality re-releases also in stereo and mono and that multi channel is not the sole "raison d'aitre" of SA-CD
While I agree that SACD does wonder for recordings from the 60s and 70s, many of us already own multiple versions of these classic releases (LP, CD, CD remaster), and are not looking to buy them a third or fourth time. Furthermore, the repertoire remains extremely narrow -- I don't care who is conducting, we don't need another Dvorak 9. There are a number of great recordings from this period that have either never been released on CD, or have been OOP for a while; how about releasing those recordings instead of ones that have never been out of print? Finally, opera remains almost non-existent on SACD.
|
|
