2. misc-audio
  3. 135282-102678

AAA vs DDD...

As I was going through my paltry collection of music, I realized that I have two different versions of the same piece of music, from the same "players" recorded years apart. One, is Deutsche Grammophon recording of Beethoven's 9th that is part of the Beethoven Bicentennial Collection, Symphonies and Overtures Part Two with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and Herbert von Karajan, which was released in 1971. It is a pressing I purchased recently from a local store for $20.00 (CDN)... (One of six sets of 5 record collections from the same series I purchased - there were 17 sets in total). The records were played once so the original owner could record them to 1/4" reel to reel. The pressings are mint and still had the undisturbed shrink wrap and original booklet/sleeves included. They took a minute to clean as time is unkind to most things...

I also have a digital recording of the 9th. It was produced in 1984. Also with Deutsche Grammophon, Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. It is on a CD and was one of the first CD's I ever bought.

The first, was obviously a complete analogue process from beginning to end. AAA. The latter was a full DDD translation of the same piece of music.

Interesting thing is, as I was listening to the vinyl earlier tonight, I thought that I had the same piece of music on CD. The performances are quite similar. As they should be given the same conductor is working with the same orchestra.

Interesting part is, the Vinyl, recorded years before the CD, sounds soooo much better. It was only after doing an A/B switching back and forth and reading the liner notes that it was clear these were not from the same session.

All this to speak to the virtues of vinyl.

Granted, the CD was recorded during the beginning stages of Digital, and was processed through the early stages of what the digital process could handle, hence the differences are quite easily distinguishable. 

As a commercial photographer who was a very late adopter to shooting digital as opposed to film, this all made sense to me. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some major benefits to shooting digital on a job, too many to list... However, there is an inherent quality to film that is quite difficult to nail down. Especially now that digital is sooo much better that it was, and you can pretty much emulate any effect you want through post processing. Same holds true to the re-presentation of music.

There is something about the space between the "bits" of information that leaves a void. Something organic is lost in the process. I am by no means defending the "virtues" of the "mistake" in an analogue process - as some would possibly define the experience of vinyl? And, it could be argued (I think I may be a backer of this) that it is in fact more difficult to do really good work in the digital realm as you can not depend on the benefit of the "mistake" to provide you with the "natural" as you have the benefit of being connected to the real - the wonderful richness when working in analogue... It is, however, very interesting to me, albeit obvious, that AAA is so much richer and fuller of life than DDD as it was presented to me earlier tonight.

Thats my rant...

P
perkri
lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
3,018 posts
 
I would call "the mistake" in analogue production "colouration" or  "harmonic distortion." 
I'm not sure which is more difficult, analogue or digital production. With analogue, there is the constant concern to reduce noise and prevent distortion which doesn't occur in digital. However, the nature of analogue equipment provides us with the richness and organic sound you speak of.

There is a difference in sonics between the two domains even in modern recording. But digital production and playback has come a long way. Now the mastering process has become much more significant in how the final product sounds.

roberjerman
2,086 posts
 
All music recording starts as an analog process - sound waves into a microphone. It is best captured on analog tape and then transferred to a laquer disk via a cutting lathe. The final product being the lp. Very little is lost in the process. This is a mature technology. And is best listened to via turntable/cartridge/phono stage. Digital recording and playback is like Kraft cheese versus artisanal cheese!
drewan77
136 posts
 

I've been a 'vinyl head' all my life but many (most?) new LPs are ProTools digitally mastered anyway & often sound fabulous compared to some older 60s-70s albums which can be thin or dull sounding.

I prefer to focus on how the music SOUNDS rather than how it was PRODUCED.!
gpgr4blu
810 posts
 
I was listening to an album in sacd last night in my BelCanto PL1. I was very impressed with how closely it resembled the original recording and was enjoying the music until, about 40 minutes in, I started to get "aural fatigue". I thought it was my mood or my system. I felt like my ears were responding to an almost imperceptible scrim of noise over the proceedings, especially louder, complex passages. So I pulled out my original vinyl and played the same passages on my VPI HRX with Lyra Atlas cart. No fatigue. The sound was better and more natural.
 I think digital gets better every year and I listen to more digital than vinyl based on convenience. But all of the advancements in digital technology have yet to match the primitive process of  running a needle over vinyl grooves.   
More to discover