@cakyol said: After about late 1990's to 2000's, most vinyl music is first recorded digitally in the studio and then pressed onto the vinyl. There is HARDLY any direct analog recordings any more.
So, everyone who THINKS that they are listening to analog on vinyl, wake up and come to the 21st century..... For the most part, there haven’t been many great albums since the 70’s. Did you consider that before you ignorantly accused people who like vinyl of being ignorant of the recording / mixing / mastering processes used in different eras? If you feel so threatened by this discussion, why not leave? Otherwise, get a grip on your outbursts. Nobody has time for them. |
Der @teo_udio900: : "
it is not the norm when making records "
In what century do you think we are living? Did you took in count that we are living at the started 2 0 1 9 ?
You and the OP make a good match/mate.
R.
|
cakyol
After about late 1990’s to 2000’s, most vinyl music is first recorded digitally in the studio and then pressed onto the vinyl. There is HARDLY any direct analog recordings any more.
So, everyone who THINKS that they are listening to analog on vinyl, wake up and come to the 21st century.....
Why would you think your second paragraph follows from your first? You do realize that the majority of vinyl people are listening to are older recordings coming from the analog age, don’t you? Not the 90's to 2000s when vinyl was being produced ever more rarely. Not only is the second hand "crate digging" market for old vinyl by far the lions share of the vinyl bought, but even the chart topping vinyl in Billboard tends to be titles from the golden analog age. The vast majority of the vinyl I own is analog source. And even with new vinyl releases, while many come from digital masters, depending on the title efforts are made to go back to the analog masters.I have plenty of such newly pressed vinyl. And even in the case of digital masters used for vinyl, they also can sound fabulous (it always comes down to the master sound quality, whether the original is analog or digital). |
@sleepwalker65,
I asked you a simple question on why you created this thread, and you got it removed by the moderator.
I know, for some questions, there are no answers or the answers could embarrass oneself. But getting it removed actually proved my point that this thread was created because of the "Turntable got crushed by the CD". I hope you get a chance to listen to some nice digital with well recorded music.
|
The comments about new vinyl not being on par with originals from decades ago is a fallacy. I have new vinyl by Vanessa Hernandez and Lyn Stanley that is of outstanding quality....the Lyn Stanley record is one in which she is using Frank Sinatra's 40's vintage tube microphone. I don't think you can even get it in a digital format. |
Dear @milpai : "
get a chance to listen to some nice digital with well recorded music. "
Did you know when that could happens?, never.
As I said, to learn we have to be willing to learn. Here no way my friernd. |
Dear @rauliruegas "As I said, to learn we have to be willing to learn. Here no way my friernd
"While my previous post was for OP, I do not understand why you felt the need to reply to me. The only reason I feel that could be is because you felt that the OP needs some support from a like minded person, or another analog supporter.
BTW, I was not saying that analog is bad. So please don't feel offended. I have listened to excellent analog setups, and some not-so-good ones. The only issue is it takes $$$$ for an LP setup to surpass the $$ digital one.When I get beyond 65+ and have enough time at hand, I will consider LPs. Current situation does not allow the time needed to invest in LPs and the care that setup needs. But hey, at least I have an attitude to learn. You continue to learn, at whatever age you are. The day you stop learning, you grow old my friend.
|
I would rather carry a hard drive full
of hi res digital files than 800 lbs of
vinyl. DJ’ing all vinyl and moving it all around when you move gets old. Throw tubes into the fold if you seek that warmth vinyl gives. |
@cal18, do you do real DeeJaying or rap-“dj”ing? I strongly doubt any real deejays use vinyl anymore, they have not for 30 years. rap “dj”s only use one record on each turntable, which is just for time code to drive serato to play out digital rap files. Those clowns don’t care about or need sound quality anyways. |
All day I have been comparing Analog to HD Drawdown; now that's where you have more of a level playing field.
The first record up was Santana "Abraxas" on HD Drawdown. It was fantastic in every way; 3D and all.
Next came my 5K analog rig. That included at least 1K of tweaks; plus as a result of my experience and knowledge, it hits above the 5K expenditure. Before I began this contest, I thought it would be a draw, but the analog had "slightly" more air and black background.
Where the analog clearly exceeded the digital was in "gestalt". Sometime ago, when an audiophile fanatic would call me over to listen with him, he would use this word "Gestalt" a lot, that was before I even knew what it meant.
"Gestalt"
an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. This is a very important word to an audiophile; it's one that you learn the definition of by "Osmosis"; that's when you listen to music with such intensity that you hear into the depths of the musician; that's the difference between sound and music.
While the HD Drawdown sounded as good as I thought it could get, the rig put me in a trance. Here again, we are talking about a subjective emotional response. The bottom line is; the analog was only better after you reached another level of listening and hearing into the music.
If a person didn't already own a ton of vinyl, I wouldn't recommend analog over digital, when you can get so much without plunking down 5K. No, I don't have time to listen to anyone who is going to tell me you can get it cheaper than that, and that's 5K plus experience and knowledge, which is every bit as important as the 5K, because just plunking down 5K will not get you what analog has to offer; that's why some guy will say I plunked down 10K and still didn't get what was promised.
|
So Orpheus, you’re saying that CD is good for lazy people who don’t want to learn how to do new things? You’re probably right. Most people are simpletons who don’t know much of anything and have even worse judgement. Thanks for the compliment! |
I know what Orpheus means about the "Gestalt" of vinyl.
It really gets me as well. There’s just an "it" factor that draws me in and gives me this big "aaah..." when listening.
That doesn’t make digital sound bad to me though. Sometimes I really enjoy going back to digital for it’s own virtues.
My previous vinyl rig was more modest - a Micro Seiki turntable and cheap old Rotel phono stage. At that point vinyl still had an "it" factor that made it different than digital - a classic "warmer, crisper" sound.But it also sounded a bit on the nostalgic, slightly lower-fi side vs digital. I’d still tend to listen to a lot more digital.
But when I upgraded my vinyl rig to a much better turntable, cartridge and phono stage, that’s when vinyl seemed to leap ahead of digital in terms of what I wanted to play. Now it doesn’t have that slightly creaky nostalgia sound, but rather the noise floor is so low, the detail so clear and smooth, the sound so big, rich yet punchy and focused, that it just tends to sound "better" or more satisfying to my ears than digital (generally speaking). It’s not better technically, but it has a texture, heft and sense that it is that much more detached from the speakers making the sound while simultaneously having a "right there in the air in front of me" texture that blows me away.
I just received 3 albums I bought on discogs, from 1977, 1980 and 1984.All three are mint condition and dead silent wax, with absolutely gorgeous sound quality and the musical content just makes me giddy.Flicking through pixels looking at selections to play via my phone app (streaming to system) just isn’t nearly as fun and satisfying a way to interact with my music collection. And...choke...CDs. Yuck! I don’t mean yuck for sound quality - CDs are great and I ripped all mine lossless. But CDs themselves as physical objects just absolutely suck IMO. I was just down rifling through some of my many hundreds of CDs stored in my basement, and they aren’t pretty lookin’, don’t feel nice in the hand, always feel on the verge of snapping (which they often do), and just have no appeal to me these days.
I get that others, of course, have different experiences and really enjoy everything about CDs.
And also I would not ever try to push anyone toward vinyl. If you aren't in to it, it's a hassle of sorts. And can be expensive. But if someone asks why I like it so much, I'll tell them.
|
Prof, I'm comparing vinyl to digital that's as good as digital gets, and vinyl is better; more subjectively than objective, but when you get into what I call the "deep listening zone"; it's no contest, vinyl is where the music resides.
|
Off the shelf CDs and stock off the shelf electronics really don’t have a chance. But they will have a chance, a very good chance when you roll up your sleeves and start treating the CDs and implementing tweaks, you know, like isolation, aftermarket fuses. Otherwise, forget about it. You’ll be living in Muzak land all your life. Your CDs will sound shrill, grainy, thin, threadbare, whimpy, bass shy, two dimensional, boring, discombobulated, metallic, honky, bloated, and like paper mache.
|
|
This is the same old argument and old. My collection of CD's does not sound shrill, grainy, overly bright unless that was the recording in the 1st place.
CD sound excellent as good as vinyl and in cases better, I own both. Having said that CD sound very bad and the vinyl better. It always gets back to mastering on both formats and includes the king of them all now days streaming. Highly compressed anything sounds bad, CD releases have this, vinyl not as much so because of tracking issues of the needle. I sold many bright and muddy sounding LP's in the golden era where they had Record selling shows a few times a year in the early '80s and late 60's and '70s.
I have CD’s that sound better than my 1st pressing of the vinyl issue. In fact, depending on the pressing the same recording could really go from great to transistor radio sounding with lack of bass etc. I never brought LP's with the RE stamped on the cover corner, that meant reiisue and you never knew, and as years marched on in general they sounded nothing like the 1st pressings.
So I own both, I grew up with vinyl though and that is always a 1st love, the LP covers, and the size, but sound wise is a case by case better, just like the vinyl days when vinyl sold more in a month than what is sold in a year now, a lot of vinyl sucked, in the 70’s it really got bad with compression used on rock recordings, the overdubbing and so forth, so sound was muddy to overly bright, and CD cannot change any of that unless that release was totally remixed much like the Beatles and the Elvis releases over the past several years with currently Sgt. Pepper and the White LP the Beatles.
Nothing wrong the current CD format and players, like vinyl, improved from the 20’s to the 50’s vinyl sound improved as well as recording quality. Clean your LP’s before play, clean your CD with a quality car wax both sides and you will have long term enjoyment on the format of your choice. Streaming is the future sales are in the billions and with Tidal and others for 99% of consumers why would they want to buy. $11.99-19.99 a month for unlimited streaming music. People don’t just sit and listen to music anymore that era was for the boomers like hot rods were that was the thing, last 30 years digital, gaming, and 100% portable music and today iPhones and earbuds, XM/Sirus radio for the road. |
It’s very hard to prove the case for either CD or LP. Obviously some CDs of the same recording sound different on different releases, e.g., compression, remastering. Some CDs of the same recording apparently sound different from different countries, or even different cities of manufacture. Treated CDs sound better than untreated CDs. The same CD can sound quite different on different systems. LPs can sound very different on different systems. You can even prove it when one person reports his digital system sounds better than his vinyl system, or vice versa. Thank your lucky stars this debate is not going away any time soon.
|
For those of us that have made our minds up, there is no debate. You say digital - I say analog. I have more CD's than records but prefer listening to records. I don’t have any "treated" CD’s nor any marinated records. However, most of them are what you might say well seasoned. |
The only thing keeping CDs from moving out and taking charge is the pernicious and tenacious background scattered laser light problem. Something wonderful is going to happen. 😳
|
Dear @milpai : """
BTW, I was not saying that analog is bad. So please don't feel offended. """
Certainly not, maybe a not good explanation from my part or a misunderstood on my post to you.
The main issue when we have digital vs analog discussions or tube vs SS electronics or MM vs LOMC cartridges is that the proponent on each side normally are " married " with their proposals and never are WILLING TO really analize the " facts " of the other side and never are willing to try the other side experiences, many times like in this thread the proponent and its followers give no single true fact why they have reasons for their way of thinking and NEVER give the facts why the other side ( in this case: digital. ) is wrong.
The adjectives they use are like: gestalt, warm, richness and the like. I already explain in wide way about and reasons&facts why are wrong adjectives.
Who tolds all those gentlemans that home audio system is mainly something " subjective "? and I ask because that's what I usually had in my mind till I experienced " experiences " that told me that is " objective " not " subjective only "
Why things normally work in that way: because, like in this thread, NO one of " that side " is willing to learn. Maybe because they could think they already learned all what they must do. Yes, they live in an " audio life error " and you can't do nothing about and that's the why in my first post to you.
I love MUSIC, love analog and love digital too.
Btw, in the Universe of home audio systems the 70% of audiophiles own " average " systems ( average=mediocrity. Look in a dictionary. ), 15% own very bad systems ( lower than average/mediocrity. ) and 15% at the top.
On each case the main differences to stay on one or the other side of the 3 categories are the MUSIC/AUDIO TRUE AND REAL KNOWLEDGE LEVELS AND SKILLS of each one of us and if we always are WILLING TO LEARN.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
And so if digital sound is so bad why do so many audiophiles continue to enjoy and purchase digital equipment? According to the vinyl only tribe, they must have tin ears. But what if that same person who enjoys digital sound also enjoys vinyl sound? Does that person still have tin ears?People love their tribal allegiances. Try being bi-tribal, really is a nice place to be.
|
Digital is more prevalent, it's cheaper. You have it, don't you? Does that answer your question? Once again, analog is a REAL TIME REPRESENTATION OF A MUSICAL PERFORMANCE. Digital is an approximation of the same. Get it? |
Digital is cheaper? Really? Since when?
Pop quiz - If the recording is made digitally on digital tape isn’t that a REAL TIME REPRESENTATION OF A MUSICAL PERFORMANCE? |
Yeah,a decent disc costs less than twenty bucks (the last disc I bought was JJ Cale and Eric Clapton; Road to Escondito). Maybe your're getting ripped off; it wouldn't surprise me. The last record I bought costs considerably more, but it was worth it. Cheers! Pay as much as you can for that digital stuff. It will reward you in your own mind eventually. |
Once again, analog is a REAL TIME REPRESENTATION OF A MUSICAL PERFORMANCE. Digital is an approximation of the same. Get it? What in the world does that mean? Both digital and analog can be representations of a musical performance and both are an approximation! (And if that is a refrain of the tired old "analog captures the sound continuously, digital chops it up and misses parts" then that’s just a myth and a misunderstanding). |
I think the real question here is who’s the one getting ripped off? 😬 But if you’re happy that’s what counts.
|
Oh, pardon me, but I didn't address your question about a digital recording made on a digital tape being a real time representation of a musical performance. No, it is not. Being digital precludes that. You must not know what the difference between digital and analog is.....let me explain. Digital is a zero or one, on / off, either / or sort of thing. Analog captures the linear nuances that digital will never replicate. Keep on biting and byting if you wish. |
You apparently don’t know how digital works. Digital has the potential for much higher dynamic range and much higher signal to noise ratio than analog can ever have. If you like your music compressed and noisy more power to you.
|
Professor, please explain to me how chopping up the sound and missing parts of it is the same as not doing so. I must be confused. |
I know exactly how digital works. Dynamic range and signal to noise ratio are specifications that are enhanced in the digital format. You place too much significance on specs. Trust your ears; they're not digital. |
Yes, you’re confused. Digital is a near perfect facsimile of the original waveform. It is not chopping up the sound, as you say. The problem with digital is not (rpt not) the recording or mastering for CDs. The real problem is the *playback machine*. If that problem is removed, voila! Perfect sound! 🤗
|
Your ears are not analog or digital. But your brain is quantum mechanical.
|
You’re wrong ;ears are analog. Can you not hear the difference between a digitally generated voice and a recording of a human voice? And don't give me any of that recording or playback excuse; the difference is apparent in virtually any perception, |
|
Interesting articles, professor. I can follow the writer’s reasoning but none of it will convince me to forsake analog music reproduction. I am perhaps remiss in my simplistic comparisons between digital and analog; I admit to not being an expert in digital sound reproduction. I am in my mid 60’s and grew up with records. I remember when cd first came out; it made mediocre stereo systems sound "better" and it became a big hit just because of that....and the fact it was more convenient. But if you’ve been acclimated to the sound of vinyl and then have the chance to be exposed to digital, I think most of us old folks will stick with vinyl. I think my analogy of the digital generated voice versus the recorded human voice stands on its merits. I wish there was digital food and digital eyeglasses that we could compare with the analog versions but what’s the point? I can see pretty well and I’m not particularly hungry. |
bsmg, Keep in mind: I'm a huge fan of vinyl! I think my analogy of the digital generated voice versus the recorded human voice stands on its merits. I've been recording the human voice (and countless other sounds) on analog and then digital recorders for many decades. Digital does a superb job with voices or most other sounds.
But if you’ve been acclimated to the sound of vinyl and then have the
chance to be exposed to digital, I think most of us old folks will stick
with vinyl.
I've followed the vinyl revival very closely and have monitored a great many articles, comments sections and on-line discussions, and I see quite a lot of evidence for the opposite: I've seen so many older people who grew up listening to vinyl express bafflement at the resurgence. Comments like "I don't get why ANYONE would want to go back to vinyl. I grew up with it; it was a pain in the butt and didn't sound as good as CD!" My father-in-law is pretty typical. He was an audiophile and lover of classical music. Had a great turntable, cartridge, speakers. When CD came along he couldn't dump his records fast enough. For him to finally hear all the subtleties in orchestras without having to listen through background hiss, or any pops or ticks at all, and to hear perfectly even pitch, was a godsend. Tons of people felt the same. I also remember at first thinking digital sounded incredible in one sense, a bit too sterile in another. But as more and more CDs became available in the 80's in to the 90's, I couldn't wait to re-buy tons of music on the new format for the SOUND because it was so pure, clean, detailed and dynamic. I'm 55, grew up with vinyl, so it's not like when CDs came along I wasn't completely familiar with the sound of vinyl. Most older audiophiles (and of course there are many outside this forum in the world) moved on to digital and remain happy there. I've become enthusiastic about vinyl again myself, loving the sound and physicality. But I still hear virtues good digital has over vinyl. Both are great. |
bsmg, no one wants you to forsake your analog music production. Can you grasp that concept? If yes, good.
Next concept. The world is not all about you. I'm guessing you'll have more trouble with that one.
|
Whoops. I meant to say analog music REproduction. |
tomcy, you are absolutely right; how could I be so blind.....thinking it "....is not all about you" when, in fact, tomcy, it's all about YOU. And thanks for your psychoanalysis. I'll have four digital chickens and an analog Coke. |
bsmg said "it will reward you in your own mind eventually". At my house that is the mind that counts. |
bsmg, No, it's not all about me. I learned long ago that the world couldn't care less about me. Well it could, but we're talking about micro particles of caring, for all practical purposes it couldn't care less.
pigdog, Yes. In your home what matters is what you like. Same for bsmg. If you enjoy analog and dislike digital, then enjoy analog as much as you can and keep digital out. Don't even let it be mentioned.
However, when we get out into the wider world, you will come across people who have decided that digital sounds better or works better for them
for whatever reason. These people are not idiots or enemies, they are just people who listen to a different audio format.
There's just something about human nature that makes us want to choose up sides and fight, though. Maybe it's our tribal origins.
There are analog systems that sound better than a lot of digital systems and digital systems that sound better than a lot of analog systems. Many people enjoy listening to both analog and digital.
There's no right or wrong, only personal preference or circumstance. |
Dear @bsmg: """ ears are analog. " Whom told you that. Things are that we all have in our brain/ears an ADC. In reality our ears are digital: """ The Inner ear: By now, the audio signal has reached the inner ear, and that means the cochlea. This snail‑shaped organ is filled with liquid. Logically enough, it must be waterproof, in order to prevent any fluid leaking. This explains the purpose of the round window, a small, elastic membrane on the surface of the cochlea. Its purpose is to allow movement of the fluid inside the cochlea. Liquids are incompressible, and without this membrane, the fluid enclosed inside the cochlea would completely block the ossicle movements. Indeed, stiffening of the oval window can lead to hearing losses of about 60dB. Inside the cochlean we find the tectorial membrane, which moves along with the pressure variations of the cochlear fluid. As shown in Figure 3, above, this membrane is in contact with the cilia on the top of the hair cells. There are two kinds of hair cells. The outer hair cells are the actual receptors. When the tectorial membrane moves, so does the hair on the the outer cells. This movement is then encoded into electrical digital signals and goes to the brain through the cochlear nerve. The inner cells have a different role: when the audio signal gets louder, they stick themselves to the tectorial membrane in order to limit its movements, playing the role of another dynamic compressor.Figure 3: Inside the cochlea. """
This is not about analog vs digital but about each one knowledge levels.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
|
Such a BS statement! Keep telling yourself that…. |
@prof (And if that is a refrain of the tired old "analog captures the sound continuously, digital chops it up and misses parts" then that’s just a myth and a misunderstanding). You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right? It’s called “sampling” for a reason, that it takes a representative sample of the original analog signal, and then on playback, it reconstructs a likeness of the original analog waveform, using the recorded samples, and synthesizing the information between the samples. The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?” For some people, the answer is “yes, and I don’t need to worry about the process” for other people the answer is “yes, and I believe the process is sufficiently capable of reproducing sound quality within the range of tolerances that my ears need”. For still other people, the answer is “no, because I dislike the concept of digitizing an analog signal, no matter how convincing the playback result is”. Finally, there are some who say “I just can’t accept that the sampling process is faithful enough to produce playback that is perfectly the same as the original analog source, and they are therefore predisposed to not want to be satisfied by digital. There are probably as many perspectives as there are hifi enthusiasts. All that matters is that each individual has the freedom to pursue the medium that suits their predisposition. For the record, my predisposition is that digital has a specific time and place, where I do non-critical listening. Those digital formats include CD, satellite radio, podcasts and streaming. One day, I hope to add 4xDSD to that format one day, for archiving my extensive vinyl collection. After I’ve experienced 4xDSD in my application, I’ll evaluate it and I hope, it will fit the bill for my expectations in critical listening. |
@sleepwalker65 You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right? Actually, in practice, it does capture the entire waveform. It simply does it differently than analog. It’s like saying "You know a FLAC file doesn’t capture the entire musical file, right?" Sure, it’s true a FLAC file is "physically different" from the original file, at about 1/2 the size. But in the sense that matters for the purpose - capturing and transmitting the *same information* - it DOES capture all the relevant information. Essentially the same premise holds for digital recording. Look at the links I already provided.
The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”
In the context of the issue you are responding to, that’s an awkward way to put it, and blurs the issues being discussed. We have to delineate between someone’s subjective perception of what he hears and likes, vs coming up with technical explanations. As we’ve seen, some audiophiles who prefer analog over digital, in trying to justify or explain this, adopt incorrect technical ideas, such as the claim that digital can not or does not recreate the original wave form and analog does. That’s just wrong. Talk of preferences will bring in all sorts of differing opinions, which is fine, but I was responding to the promulgation of incorrect technical claims. |
@prof Talk of preferences will bring in all sorts of differing opinions, which is fine, but I was responding to the promulgation of incorrect technical claims. You are wrong if you claim that digital reproduces the original analog with 100% accuracy in 100% completeness is every time. |
|
Dear @bac2vinyl : " BS statement..."
Why is that, can you explain which is your foundation for your statement?
Because what I posted is not my statement but what you and every single human been has in part of its whole " body ". That statement comes from scientific " medical " proved explanations, not a mere " theory " but rpoved facts.
Where are your facts for your statement? did you already knew what I posted or is the very first time you read about that real facts?
Yes, your first time.
R.
|
Dear @prof : First than all I need to share with the Agon moderators what's means the word: ignorance, to avoid removes posts where that word is used by any one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IgnoranceNow, you had this " battle " losted from the begining of the thread when the OP was and is not willing not to learn but even gives no single true fact where his thread statements are founded. Ignorance is the " mother " of all wars and here we have several gentlemans with extremely low knowledge levels on many audio/MUSIC citical subjects and no one of them posted ( till today ) any single fact that could proves what they posted. Only subjective bla, bla, bla,etc with out true and serious foundations. As I posted the issue here is not digital vs analog ( or any other discussions as: tube vs SS electronics or MM vs LOMC cartridges, etc, etc. ) but a really critical fact of so lower knowledge levels and it's really disappointed that in an analog forum we live that way. Yes, many gentlemans in that low end 15% and 70% average/mediocrity of the universe I pointed out before. This is for the Agon moderator gentlemans to avoid removes posts for any one uses the word mediocrity: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mediocrity here a confirmation: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mediocrityaverage=mediocrity. ( 3 ) Btw, we listen and perceive " sound " not only what pick up by the ears but what's pick up by the whole body: skin, hair, bones and everything through the all body that's full of individual ( trillions. ) of nervous terminations ( thousands of them by mm2. ) that works as zeros and ones, are not continuous. We are a digital very very old " technology " that did not started with digital audio but millions of years when appeared the human been on ou planet named earth. R. |
@tablejockey :........................... Hmmm, in all recording studios somewhere in the process ( as explain Boston. ) appears digital.
Hmmm....
R. |
