digital vs vinyl thoughts

Hi Unsound - while what you say about some performers using the mike to hide things is certainly true in some situations, in many cases they defer to the "sound guys," usually with very unfortunate consequences. These guys can be VERY infuriating, often completely ignoring the comments of very widely respected artists (not to mention the comments of the people who work in the hall on a daily basis, what could we possibly know). They usually want it to sound how they want it to sound, and there is often nothing the musicians can do about it.

This is one reason why I also agree with Al's comment that the mike set up is a much bigger factor than many audiophiles realize, especially for classical music. The vast majority of "sound guys" have no formal training whatsoever - they learn from other guys they work with, who also had no formal training. There are a few schools that offer sound engineering degrees, but I have no idea what they are taught there, as there are no really good texts on the subject. Sadly, the vast majority of them are just winging it most of the time, yet are too arrogant to take suggestions from the people they are recording, who usually have a very good idea exactly what they want to sound like.

This was not really true back in the so-called "golden age" of analog recording, from the late 50's through the late 70's, say. There were great engineers at every major label. With the advent of digital recording and the myriad of possibilities it created for using many more mikes and set ups, every single engineer does things completely different, and unfortunately any idiot can becoming a recording engineer now. Many musicians, not realizing that the engineers are so little trained, just assume that the engineer knows better, and then are very disappointed in the results.

We have some great responses. I think I feel that it is still so recording dependent. Back in my earlier days, late 60's, if I got a good recording that is what made my system sound more accurate, right, better in those ways. Equipment couldn't do that to the same extent for me. Of course I couldn't own the prevailing best at the time and what I did have was just something a couple levels better than the average person. When I think about it in the light of this discussion I think I am still there in wishing the recording was better more so than the playback source, and not as concerned about analog or digital to the same degree as the recording itself when it come to better sound but not better music. I drifted the thread a bit, sorry.

No attack was intended, my apologies. I simply meant, basic engineering principals can't describe how music sounds, or what type of sound one will prefer.

The Phase Linear scandal of the early 80's was a good example. They designed and built an amp with text book measurements, but the sound was considered horrible by all that heard it.
Tim

"I think I feel that it is still so recording dependent."

IF both your digital and vinyl sound are good to start, no doubt how individual recordings are made is without doubt the biggest factor by far in comparing. ITs like a major league baseball season. One format may dominate depending on a lot of factors, but neither is likely to go 164-0.

Thanks Almarg for the response. But you nailed it in your response. "Digital is an approximation" of the analog signal. There will be losses. Up the sampling and scan playback rates significantly, and that minimizes the losses. I just know that when I listen to an analog recoding, (recorded analog to master tape) of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue and listen to the digital recording side by side, very audible differences. And It is always a shock to me when I find music that I really love and enjoy in digital format, get use to it and then find that same music in analog format and play it and most times I hear audible differences. Again, please don't attack me. I really enjoyed the digital music also. My problem is that I refuse to accept music that doesn't sound "real". This is true for both analog or digital. I know what a real violin, cello, bass, drums, cymbals, etc. sound like and so when I hear it reproduced incorrectly, it drives me out of the room. Music that has been mastered over and over, compressed and then uncompressed, etc. loses some of the detail. The more electronics the original signal passes through before the final recording the more losses and distortions it will suffer. I'm not a big fan of electronic music, but sometimes I hear something that blows me away. But electronic music really has a detailed clear loss of dimension to me. Music that is properly miked and recorded, well, wonderful. I've worked in some sound recording rooms and let me tell you I have seen the most expensive best recording and mastering equipment being used, including the best cables, and I have also seen really crappy recording, mikes, cables, mixing boards being used also. I believe that how the music was miked and recorded and mixed is the most important aspect to the music's quality. Digital vs vinyl takes a back seat to that. Because if it isn't recorded correctly in the first place, well, nothing you do on the back end will make up for it.

no really, enjoy