PDA

View Full Version : Digital Vs Analogue-Evolution in Music and Photography



Varun
22-08-2009, 06:15
Hello Forum,

I have followed the evolution of both of these developments in Sound Reproduction and in Photography. Both it can be said have followed a similar path but with some major differences.

In Sound Reproduction- the death of Vinyl was sounded with confidence at very beginning-not so in Photography as famous names whose products were used by Professional did not budge. Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad saw no need for it and were slow to change.

The same thing did not apply to Sound as the choice was dictated by record companies and not the recording engineer-the professional. This is where the big difference in the two systems opens up.

The Launch of CD- many professional recording engineers have said was "premature" as it as not ready-and was dictated by the big recording companies. Philips and Sony persuaded great conductors like Solti and Karajan to go public about the benefits. The fact of the matter is that those who perform live and go to concerts often- do not use high end Hi-Fi.

We have had recording engineers write that 44khz was not good enough-but that is all a thing of the past.

In Photography on the other hand both designers-manufacturers and Professionals have been wary and open. For instance you need 23 mega pixels on a 35mm camera to match the resolution of a film. Very few cameras do that even today and are horrendously expensive- and then they run into problems with lens design and it is still causing problems.

SO keep the debate on techies going- it is excellent for Vinyl. But would an ordinary consumer bother-I wonder? After all, the switch to thinner LPs was made by the recording companies for the sake of "Profit" and not sound quality". Sadly the caliber of sound from the 70s onwards was seen as a "standard" and that is where the CD sound comes in-in MY HUMBLE OPINION.

StanleyB
22-08-2009, 07:20
In Photography on the other hand both designers-manufacturers and Professionals have been wary and open. For instance you need 23 mega pixels on a 35mm camera to match the resolution of a film.
I don't believe for one moment that one would need 23 mega pixels to match ISO1600 film. The statement is so wide ranging as to be meaningless. Which equivalent 35mm film would be comparable to 23 mega pixels?


Very few cameras do that even today and are horrendously expensive- and then they run into problems with lens design and it is still causing problems.

Lens design has nothing to do with how well a camera can resolve an image for film compared to digital. The resolving power of the lens would be the same in both cases.

The resolution of a printed image is below the resolution of film or the digital image. So if you had a 8 by 10 inch printed picture you won't get a better image from film compared to a digital image, assuming you used the same lens and image size film or CCD.

The thing is that there are a mere handful of digital cameras that have a 35mm equivalent CCD. Most digital cameras are 2/3 or less.

Stan

Dave Cawley
22-08-2009, 07:29
The D3x will achieve the pixels, but the extraordinarily low noise floor of the D3 and D700 is way better than film!! All 3 are full frame and can take any lens.

It all depends on how you look at things.

CD, well actually most are appalling mastered and that not the sampling rate is the biggest problem. Modern LP's any comments? are they cut in the digital domain?

Dave

Varun
22-08-2009, 08:33
Hello Stan

Don't believe anything- but be well informed. I do not "I REPEAT" do not say things- EMPTILY. I am talking of what Cannon were advwertising a few years ago. The lenses- are causing no end of problems. Why do you think the Zeiss people are re-producing the old- manual focus lenses?? It has to do with the image circle and the resolutuon of the lens-please note what Hamish was saying.

Hi Dave (Cawley).

In digital sense we are getting there- but my point was it has been very slow evolution- and the sensor/lens mismatch is still a major problem.

From a Digital angle- the pixels translate into the size of the print. So for small size-prints- 12 MP is good enough- but the big deal was the full size sensor. Now that people like Leica are coming to it.. S2 with one lens at $30,000. Ask Hamish if he would love an M6- so would I and use both-I bet.

Varun
22-08-2009, 08:47
Dave,

The issue of 44khz is not my opinion- it is what recording people were talking about- lack of ambience of analogue until you move to 96khz.

How many dots on a sinewave=resolution. In that respect both Hasselblad and Leica have already exceeded the film resolution. Leica S2 has 37MP. Also I am told that the new Digital Hasselbland's are using lenses made by Fuji- crafted for the purpose and they are better.

As for the latest LP pressing- I would not know. I have one LP by Patricia Barber. Close miked- so I suppose it does not really matter what you do. May be her LPs were produced using analogue- The Pink Floyd Live 4 LP set was.

StanleyB
22-08-2009, 09:04
Hi Varum, I read what Hamish is saying. But don't assume I am a photographic greenhorn;). I am a Leica man myself, with a Canon or two fitted in at times. But from a professional angle: I once worked for BASF in their R&D department, developing new film material and Raster Image Processors.

I read the Canon claims about lens problems with digital. Total fabrication on their part as far as I am concerned. It's just a con to get people to dump their old lenses and buy new ones.
The 35mm lenses have been used in 2/3rds format on the majority of digital SLR cameras. These lenses were designed for 35mm, so using them in 2/3 mode is bound to produce errors in the area of chromatic aberrations, RGB shift, and resolution. If you use a 35mm lens on a 35mm digital camera, those errors are of the same percentage as on film.
But when you use a 35mm lens on a 2/3 CCD area, you are bound to get a magnification of lens errors.

Dave Cawley
22-08-2009, 09:09
Hi Varun

I simply do not agree! You are living in the digital photo past.

Higher sampling won't make bad recordings good.

Dave

Varun
22-08-2009, 09:44
Hi Stan,

The purpose of the thread was how the two have evolved- that the photo side-has been dictated by professionals (I am impressed by your background)- and the manufacturers have followed suit. That is why things will keep on getting better.

To talk of my own background in photography, I have had a number of Nikons but never the Pro range Nikormats and a number of lenses. I was told by the head of photography at one of the local universities that the older lenses go very well with the full frames- he meant from the 50s. There have been issues- I keep on hearing from my friend a leading Indian photographer about zoom lenses and chromatic aberrations and so on.

Nikon are to be admired for having all their cameras retrofittable. I reget to say I traded in my Nikon 50 1.4, Nikkor 28-70 3.5-4.5 and marvellous 200 f.4 AIS lens for a pittance. I am not rushing into Digital purchase now. I have D60 for mundane shooting but I have not done any serious minded picture taking for a long time. Only two decent pictures I have taken are still in my B&W negative file- 6x7 rangefinder HP5. I suspect that is how it will remain for the time being.

Great to hear you are so accomplished

Clive
22-08-2009, 09:49
The 35mm lenses have been used in 2/3rds format on the majority of digital SLR cameras. These lenses were designed for 35mm, so using them in 2/3 mode is bound to produce errors in the area of chromatic aberrations, RGB shift, and resolution. If you use a 35mm lens on a 35mm digital camera, those errors are of the same percentage as on film.
But when you use a 35mm lens on a 2/3 CCD area, you are bound to get a magnification of lens errors.
Naive question here....are some of these errors reduced as you're presumably using the central part of the lens where the optical quality should be at it's best? On a 4/3rds sensor the CCD is 50% of the area of 35mm, is this even better?

Varun
22-08-2009, 09:57
Hi Dave,

You are absolutely right. I meant recording at 96Khz and not remastering at that level. I agree it will achieve nothing.

From what DSJR has said, it seems to me that your views are at variance at his- which is what one expects from experts- good healthy discussion.

I from own point of view have had plenty of opportunity to listen to CDs- at home from CD players on loan as well as in dealer's show rooms and once or twice in Hi-Fi shows.

Where I disagree with the comments made by Dave (SJR) is that the big record companies never went back to old recording to put them on CD. So a comparison of old Decca recording with CD can not be made. They do release an odd work for historical interest-but then they are Analogue to Digital. I on the other hand was talking of Bona-Fide digital recordings.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 10:40
... I've got an m6 :)
I'm sure Shaun will have a few comments to make on this subject ... He has a fairly strong view on digital photography!
I like and use both - my d3 can take, relativly speaking, quite a clean photo at 1600 iso! Very usefull for me as all the live band stuff I do I shoot to capture ambient light with my flash turned right down! I'm not even that wary of putting it up to 3200! If I use film that fast I'm using it for it's grain - for effect! I personally an not good enough at developing to get high quality images out of film anyway, but I have scanned pro lab developed 125iso film and have been stunned at how good it is... Not as sharp as digital... but more real looking, more depth!
As for this film being x amount of pixels... I don't buy it! There are to many variables! The problem with older lens designs can be to do with the fact that they didn't take into account how a sensor works! Digital is more prone to vigneting because the micro lenses towards the edge of the sensor can't defract the light properly down to the photosites because of the angle that the light hits them. The surface of film doesn't have that problem in the same way! There are also design isues relating to chromatic aberations due to the different wavelenghs of light, and how that was taken into account differently with film... Something to do with how colour film is layered.... but I'm not clever enough to explain! It is false to say that the erros are the same from a lens on either film or digital for the above reasons! this is why there is as of yet no full frame m leica! The flange back distance is too short - the light hits the edge of the frame at to much of an angle! There are even isues with this on the epson rd1 and that's a 2/3 sensor!
Canon might tout bull crap to get you to buy new kit... But in reality if you want the beat out your modern high end camera ... Like me and mr Cawley you have to buy the best modern lenses! That said... It not always about the best ... Sometimes it's about what gives a result that is pleasing to the eye! As shaun will tell you, I'm sure, digital can apear to sharp...

Spur07
22-08-2009, 10:46
"In Photography on the other hand both designers-manufacturers and Professionals have been wary and open. For instance you need 23 mega pixels on a 35mm camera to match the resolution of a film. Very few cameras do that even today and are horrendously expensive- and then they run into problems with lens design and it is still causing problems."

Apologies as I've only had time to skip through this thread, but the above comment is complete nonsense. Digital reproduction far exceeds film, even at DSLR level, and it has done for many years. I've worked for many professional photographers in London over the years and they couldn't wait to get off the film treadmill. Even in Architectural photography, probably the last genre to cross over because of problems with wide angle lenses, many were so desperate to cross over they dumped their view cameras and invested in the inferior Canon shift lens system. I'd be stunned if there were any pros in London still using film - if there are I'd seriously question there sanity.

The amateur market enthusiastically embraced digital, and the pros quickly saw the convenience and cost benefits, not to mention the power of software like Photoshop. Vinyl has lived on but film will almost certainly disappear, with maybe the exception off the specialist B/W market.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 10:49
I agree with all of that!

Clive
22-08-2009, 10:57
I've worked for many professional photographers in London over the years and they couldn't wait to get off the film treadmill.
Isn't a big part of this that there's no film processing involved and printing is simple with the HUGE plus that with Photoshop you can do so much after you've taken the picture.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 11:00
I would think so, most importantly it is much easier and quicker to get a super high quality image out of digital

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 11:05
Digital reproduction far exceeds filmI beg to differ:

• The dynamic range of digital photographs – the ”space“ between the brightest and the darkest area of an image – is much more limited than the dynamic range available in analogue photography. With digital photography, one gets either good detailed bright areas with completely black shadow parts, or vice versa. Can you image landscape photographs from Ansel Adams in digital?

http://www.berghofer.com/photos/vienna/02bbig.jpg

• The culture technique and art of black and white photography has nearly completely vanished. Although it is possible to convert a digital photograph to greyscale (and there are very advanced techniques available for this step), the results are in no ways comparable to true black and white photographs taken by a person aware of how to use the various contrast filters and how to process black and white negative film for the best results possible.

http://www.berghofer.com/photos/silvana/05big.jpg

A true pity.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 11:13
That's shauns agument too
I think it's probably right too, at least to a point? Does anyone know what , in stops, is the measured dinamic range of fine grain film.. I'd be interested to know!
It not really the point though! If you are a fine art photographer and only use film for is dr, then you aren't really part if the mass of pro photographers who need there cameras to do everything accros the board well.

Spur07
22-08-2009, 11:19
Isn't a big part of this that there's no film processing involved and printing is simple with the HUGE plus that with Photoshop you can do so much after you've the picture.

That's partly true Clive, but a lot of the 'manual' labour in terms of processing and printing that was passed on to the Lab technician back in the days of film has now been passed back again to the photographer in the form of post production, especially as they shoot RAW.

A lot of the 'busier' photographers I used to work for are now employing there assistants to deal with all the post production computer work.

Spur07
22-08-2009, 11:27
I beg to differ:

• The dynamic range of digital photographs – the ”space“ between the brightest and the darkest area of an image – is much more limited than the dynamic range available in analogue photography. With digital photography, one gets either good detailed bright areas with completely black shadow parts, or vice versa. Can you image landscape photographs from Ansel Adams in digital?

I'm sorry but this is also nonsense - the tonal range of digital is far wider than film, especially when you consider the fact that all pro work was shot on transparency film which was extremely contrasty. Even in E6 many pros used to have to resort to exposing for the shadows and pulling the film during processing to contain the highlights.

Varun
22-08-2009, 11:28
Absolutely fabulous range of comments.

Hamish is right- so far Fine Art photographers have not converted. I mean they may do their journalistic work using digital-but not serious work. B&W is only part of it.

Also I only heard last year that film sales were on the up last year in USA. Remember-Vinyl is supposed to have died in the early 1990s.

I am simply watching. Great stuff Spur07-can we have more.

There is still a thriving market for large format backs like Leif and Phase-I and that is where the advances are coming from-not Canon I am afraid. As for London Professionals-well I never....-except that UK has not been knowm to produce great masters (My interest). Not intended to wind people up-but fact.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 11:29
Ansel Adams had all sorts of tricks for expanding the dynamic range of his images

Varun
22-08-2009, 11:33
Just to show how things have evolved. I was at Glyndebourne with my daughter in 2006 summer. After dining in the long interval we returned and I noted the Pro ensconsed in the corner with an F5 on a Tripod-ready to shoot images. I asked him if he will be using Digital and he pointed to his bag saying he has the whole lot but will not use Digital.

Reason:: the lead Soprano was wearing gleaming white dress and he said that would be impossible to fix on the digital image.

It ain't as black and white as some people are making out- Never has been and never will be.

Varun
22-08-2009, 11:36
And Friedlander and Eggleston and so on.

Spur07
22-08-2009, 11:38
Absolutely fabulous range of comments.

Hamish is right- so far Fine Art photographers have not converted. I mean they may do their journalistic work using digital-but not serious work. B&W is only part of it.

Also I only heard last year that film sales were on the up last year in USA. Remember-Vinyl is supposed to have died in the early 1990s.

I am simply watching. Great stuff Spur07-can we have more.

There is still a thriving market for large format backs like Leif and Phase-I and that is where the advances are coming from-not Canon I am afraid. As for London Professionals-well I never....-except that UK has not been knowm to produce great masters (My interest). Not intended to wind people up-but fact.

depends what you mean by 'fine art' - if mean 'artists' that use the medium of photography then I'd imagine most of them haven't crossed over because they can't afford to.

I would love to own a Leif or a Phase 1 digital back - it's amazing to think the latest models have exceeded the quality of 10x8 sheet film, all in the convenience of a small roll film type back that can be attached to a 645 MF camera or a 6x9 geared view camera like the Arca Swiss.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 11:41
Just to show how things have evolved. I was at Glyndebourne with my daughter in 2006 summer. After dining in the long interval we returned and I noted the Pro ensconsed in the corner with an F5 on a Tripod-ready to shoot images. I asked him if he will be using Digital and he pointed to his bag saying he has the whole lot but will not use Digital.

Reason:: the lead Soprano was wearing gleaming white dress and he said that would be impossible to fix on the digital image.

It ain't as black and white as some people are making out- Never has been and never will be.


he didnt know how to use his a digital camera properly then..
its dificlt for me to comment on this subect acuratly as i dont know enough about film.. but what i can say is .. with my d3 if i shoot in raw i can expose correctly to see the details in a brides white dress and the grooms black suit
i would imagine with the right type of film and an acurate liht meter that too is possible with film .. but its a shit lot easier with digital

Spur07
22-08-2009, 11:43
And Friedlander and Eggleston and so on.

Frielander is one of my favourite photographers. I love his self-portraits.

Spur07
22-08-2009, 11:45
he didnt know how to use his a digital camera properly then..
its dificlt for me to comment on this subect acuratly as i dont know enough about film.. but what i can say is .. with my d3 if i shoot in raw i can expose correctly to see the details in a brides white dress and the grooms black suit
i would imagine with the right type of film and an acurate liht meter that too is possible with film .. but its a shit lot easier with digital

I'm also at a loss to explain this - I wouldn't want to suggest the photographer didn't know what he's doing, but it should be much easier to reproduce the dress on digital than on film.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 11:47
see:

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC3372.jpg


that was taken with a fuji s5.. about 12 stops of dr is atainable with that camera!

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 11:47
the tonal range of digital is far wider than filmI don’t believe this, but I don’t call your argument nonsense …

Tetenal, a manufacturer of photographic chemicals, once produced a black and white negative developer called ”Emofin“. This was a two-step developer, where each step worked on the highlight and the shadow parts. The results were negatives with a tremendous tonal range.

And don’t forget that in high-end portrait photography it was common to use two paper developers, acting on either the bright or the dark parts of the image.

The tonal range of black and white photography began to decrease dramatically when RC paper replaced true baryt paper. The next giant step in the decline of black and white photography was digital photography.

Let’s face it: digital photography is fast and cheap. These are the main reasons it is being used in the amateur, the professional, the publishing and the printing industry. Somehow similar to the big success of the Compact Cassette in the audio scene of the Seventies.

The mass of the consumers and the industry have never cared about quality, be it in sound or in photography.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 11:52
Let’s face it: digital photography is fast and cheap.

thats why i use it :)

Spur07
22-08-2009, 11:52
I don’t believe this, but I don’t call your argument nonsense …

Apologies Werner, That's a fair comment. Each to their own.

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 11:52
all sorts of tricks for expanding the dynamic range of his imagesI would not call this ”tricks“, but advanced and experienced craftmanship instead.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 12:04
as a photographer who does weddings etc where i shoot hundreds of photos there are so many more arguaments for digital over film its silly.. digital has made my job so easy its laughable and im the first to admit it! i can accept that maybe in the right circumstance with the right paper and film and chemicals and a lot of time on my hands i might be able to produce an image that 1 person in 5,000,000 might notice as being fractionaly better than a digital image... do i care... nope! call me a sell out ... i dont give a toss! i make a living out of digital photography and its easy! ... there you go i said it, i said what all the film advocates want pro digital users to say... i dont care! :)

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 12:07
p.s. i prefer using film recreationaly... :)

StanleyB
22-08-2009, 12:11
are some of these errors reduced as you're presumably using the central part of the lens where the optical quality should be at it's best? On a 4/3rds sensor the CCD is 50% of the area of 35mm, is this even better?
The center part of a lens assembly is more accurate and consist of less errors. However, the whole part of the lens is used in a digital camera as well. It's just the image capturing area of the CCD that is smaller.

Varun
22-08-2009, 12:18
Gentlemen Hamish and all,

I am shocked by you saying "that man did not know what he was talking about"- Hamish dear fellow- the highlight detail capture has been a blooming sore thumb for digital- that is what dynamic range means from the darkest to the lightest- and that is where Nikon has introduced their D-Lighting Fiddle- a software. Mind you I pursued Ansel Adams tricks myself but realized that the great masters are great masters.

Varun
22-08-2009, 12:23
Hello tape experts- of master tapes and Nagra and all = do have a say about that side of analogue and Digital?

And Werner- may I please ask about the great modern German Photographer Goertz or similar name - I am annoyed I can not recall but he uses a 5x4 and film and then scans the images- Has he gone digital?? His prints sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 12:27
Gentlemen Hamish and all,

I am shocked by you saying "that man did not know what he was talking about"- Hamish dear fellow- the highlight detail capture has been a blooming sore thumb for digital- that is what dynamic range means from the darkest to the lightest- and that is where Nikon has introduced their D-Lighting Fiddle- a software. Mind you I pursued Ansel Adams tricks myself but realized that the great masters are great masters.

The problem is not with digital, it's with crap digital cameras. Most compact have about 6 stops of dr, even the entry level dslr's have only about 8. Crap digital cameras give digital the bad rep it has for dynamic range! And serious digital camera from at least the last 4 years has been more than capable of dealing with highlights!

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 13:10
may I please ask about the great modern German Photographer Goertz or similar nameLooks as if you talk about Andreas_Gursky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky).

His work is really impressive.

Dave Cawley
22-08-2009, 13:22
Nothing wrong with fast and cheap!

The dynamic range of digital is often highlighted by cheap digital cameras and "casual" photographers. It's too easy to take a poor Canon advert and draw false conclusions from it.

Just like film, digital in a professionals hands does the job, and digital often much better! Funny how people cling to old values...............

Regards

Dave

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 13:59
My sentements exactly!

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 14:04
Funny how people cling to old valuesFunny how people cling to better photographs?

Well, then.

Alan Sircom
22-08-2009, 14:20
Having worked in both hi-fi and photographic circles, it's clear that there are no parallels between hi-fi and photographic circles. Except where there are parallels, of course (male jewelry, anyone?)

In digital vs. analogue (in audio) there is still an interest in analogue audio at all levels. It's a small sector of the market, but still a sustaining one.

In digital imaging vs. film, that interest is waning and shows no signs of return. Those who claim there's still an interest in film photography haven't had to try to sell a mint condition Leitz Focomat. eBay: no reserve, no sale. Local camera club... we just took half a dozen 5x4 Devere enlargers from the nearby art college that we got free. Even running a photographic website and offering to give it away returned no interest.

I reluctantly skipped the thing. I am not the first or the last.

Even the art world is moving on. Photographic departments of colleges and art colleges are being put upon to hang up their darkrooms. Gursky and Jeff Wall (among others) use digital imaging techniques, but paste onto internegs because of limitations on extra-large digital printing. And there are landscape photographers who still rely on large format film because a Betterlight scanning back doesn't work with 'golden hour' photography. A lot of this "no digital" is as much down to the same prideful mindset that meant Queen stuck "no synthesisers" on their earlier albums.

In terms of commercial photography, the number of film users have approached a tipping point. There are almost none left, undermined by the changes in demand and payment schemes of the clients. If an event photographer (for example) can print images of people at that event on the same day and does not need to on-cost film, who's going to hire an event photographer who can't, and does? That simple equation has put paid to film in most professional circles. There are a few who hold out, making their decision a 'quality' one, irrespective of whether it is or is not. Unfortunately, they are in the minority.

That also has a serious problem with supplies of hardware and film. The last major new film camera was the Nikon F6. This is a 'current production' camera - but the production was really just a final batch. Same applies with most of the larger camera makers (small, medium and large format), although some of the custom-built large format makers still do well, even if it's becoming hard to find new lenses for the likes of 10x8 cameras.

Film sales are in steep decline. The talking up of Eastern European B&W film manufacturers by supporters of film is akin to people talking up the sales of Camping Gaz lights in support of gas lighting. The reality is most of these film makers are rolling out modified versions of 1940s and 1950s film stocks and ending up with golfball grain. This also highlights a change in the perception of viewers; someone viewing a B&W image 50 years ago was accepting of grain as a part of photography; the same person today is very 'noise conscious' (this is one of those parallel moments - those not used to listening to LP are more critical of surface noise than those who are).

Back in 2006, I was asked by a tech journalist about the life expectancy of film. Predicted we'd lose one format every four years or so - Kodachrome in 2010, E6 in 2014, C41 in 2018 and B&W print by the early 2020s. I see no reason to change this roadmap at all.

Dave Cawley
22-08-2009, 14:40
Funny how people cling to better photographs?

Mmmmmm, and they are all being taken with professional digital cameras!

Like my two Canon manual focus film cameras, I dispensed with them and with the man and a red flag with my current Mercedes!

Regards

Dave

Varun
22-08-2009, 15:25
Hi Werner-

yes I was talking about Andreas Gursky- he is one of the world leaders at the moment.

We have overlapping cross-currents here- from people (NO INSULTS INTENDED) who only go as far as the images published in Amateur Photographer = and there must be tons of people who do that- just like the CD taste of some- NO INSULT intended.

As for Film- I dumped my Devere enlarger in the Recycling centre but then digital images also have a sameness which the "Dry Darkroom Boys" have difficulty coping with.

Hamish- I am afraid you are totally on the wrong footing about the chap who was using an F5 at Glyndebourne. Firstly I do not rubbish anyone- including some of the opinions surfacing here. Visualize the lightening conditions and then "Think"- they were extreme. Nor am I talking of Crap cameras.. one ploy used by Canon Full Frame users has been to under-expose. Works to a point but it was acknowledged widely.

There are also other issues:

Why on earth would I want to boast about using 1600ASA.. well then there we are.. all sorts of opinions.. and all wellcome in the end.

Alan Sircom
22-08-2009, 15:36
Hi Werner-

yes I was talking about Andreas Gursky- he is one of the world leaders at the moment.

We have overlapping cross-currents here- from people (NO INSULTS INTENDED) who only go as far as the images published in Amateur Photographer = and there must be tons of people who do that- just like the CD taste of some- NO INSULT intended.

As for Film- I dumped my Devere enlarger in the Recycling centre but then digital images also have a sameness which the "Dry Darkroom Boys" have difficulty coping with.

Hamish- I am afraid you are totally on the wrong footing about the chap who was using an F5 at Glyndebourne. Firstly I do not rubbish anyone- including some of the opinions surfacing here. Visualize the lightening conditions and then "Think"- they were extreme. Nor am I talking of Crap cameras.. one ploy used by Canon Full Frame users has been to under-expose. Works to a point but it was acknowledged widely.

There are also other issues:

Why on earth would I want to boast about using 1600ASA.. well then there we are.. all sorts of opinions.. and all wellcome in the end.

I think the main problem film faces is that despite the dewy-eyed feelings those who used it have toward the format, the only ones who still use it in reality are a tiny sub-set of a tiny sub-set of photography... and that is not sustaining in the long-term.

It get's a bit difficult to take "film's not dead" arguments when those who say them frequently have watched their own film use drop away. Often drop away to zero.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 15:38
im not rubbishing him as such im just sugesting that he was perhaps unaware of how good a digital slr such as the d3 can be.. i dont find i have to underexpose to capture highlight detail.. and if highlights are blown out when shooting in raw there is a lot that can be brough back from what would apear to be blown out

as for using 1600 iso.. it suits my stlye.. setting a camera to such a high iso and shooting with the flash set to a very low power is a great way to capture what ambient light there is in very low light conditions.. gimmi a min and il post an example

Varun
22-08-2009, 16:06
Great to hear from a well known figure.

The death of film I agree is inevitable but that has more to do with consumer demand as neither people like Friedlander or Gursky nor a handful of enthusiasts can influence the sales- that is determined by an average consumer most of whom would not even have heard of Amateur Photographer and do not care. Just like those people buying cheap Konica films from Tesco and so on.

The demise of film, thus has nothing to do with the merit of the medium and that is where choice comes in. All the great masters have used many different formats through out photographies history- and they would use digital as well.

That is how it stands., I for myself distintguish between snap shots and serious photography- the latter I have not done any- I have to walk miles to get one shot may be - six in a year I am lucky.

Varun
22-08-2009, 16:14
Firsly I do not know if you use 1600 ASA as a primary choice as I am sure you would agree - for serious work 50 or 100 stretching to 400 but then I read that digital cameras start having a slow downward slide in performance.

Now I do not believe that a D3 was around in 2006-so what you are saying is a new development- and that was PRECISELY THE MAIN THEME OF THE THREAD. THAT- THE PHOTOGRAPHY SIDE WILL GET BETTER AS PROFESSIONALs LIKE YOU ARE DETERMINING ITS COURSE- but can one say the same for CD-I ask?

Also I agree with you Creative Art should know NO LIMITS so why not 3200 ASA- but that is where the rub comes in. D3 or NO D3 if the person behind the camera has not got the eye- then no point talking about it.

You yourself said that you use Films for creativity- SO NOW NOW Hamish- don't change the tune.

I never said you boast of anything.

Spur07
22-08-2009, 16:37
Varun,

you keep mentioning these people associated with 'fine art photography' like Friedlander and Gursky but tbh I can't see how they support your argument for film. Their work is primarily driven by narrative. They might use film or they might use digital to achieve this, but in reality its just a means to an end - a way of expressing their ideas. Whichever equipment you use isn't really the point.





Great to hear from a well known figure.

The death of film I agree is inevitable but that has more to do with consumer demand as neither people like Friedlander or Gursky nor a handful of enthusiasts can influence the sales- that is determined by an average consumer most of whom would not even have heard of Amateur Photographer and do not care. Just like those people buying cheap Konica films from Tesco and so on.

The demise of film, thus has nothing to do with the merit of the medium and that is where choice comes in. All the great masters have used many different formats through out photographies history- and they would use digital as well.

That is how it stands., I for myself distintguish between snap shots and serious photography- the latter I have not done any- I have to walk miles to get one shot may be - six in a year I am lucky.

Dave Cawley
22-08-2009, 16:42
Hi Varun

Actually, talking about Amateur Photographer IS an insult, and one I do not deserve. You will find my photography in some of the "Glossies" at WH Smiths and in top class restaurants.

And why be so negative and "dismiss" everything digital does better than film? Your D60 even with very good glass, is perhaps what you are judging things on.

I never criticise film, I grew up with it. I wonder sometimes about those that criticise digital though, they never seem to have a professional digital camera......................

Curious

Dave

Spur07
22-08-2009, 16:49
Having worked in both hi-fi and photographic circles, it's clear that there are no parallels between hi-fi and photographic circles. Except where there are parallels, of course (male jewelry, anyone?)

In digital vs. analogue (in audio) there is still an interest in analogue audio at all levels. It's a small sector of the market, but still a sustaining one.

In digital imaging vs. film, that interest is waning and shows no signs of return. Those who claim there's still an interest in film photography haven't had to try to sell a mint condition Leitz Focomat. eBay: no reserve, no sale. Local camera club... we just took half a dozen 5x4 Devere enlargers from the nearby art college that we got free. Even running a photographic website and offering to give it away returned no interest.

I reluctantly skipped the thing. I am not the first or the last.

Even the art world is moving on. Photographic departments of colleges and art colleges are being put upon to hang up their darkrooms. Gursky and Jeff Wall (among others) use digital imaging techniques, but paste onto internegs because of limitations on extra-large digital printing. And there are landscape photographers who still rely on large format film because a Betterlight scanning back doesn't work with 'golden hour' photography. A lot of this "no digital" is as much down to the same prideful mindset that meant Queen stuck "no synthesisers" on their earlier albums.

In terms of commercial photography, the number of film users have approached a tipping point. There are almost none left, undermined by the changes in demand and payment schemes of the clients. If an event photographer (for example) can print images of people at that event on the same day and does not need to on-cost film, who's going to hire an event photographer who can't, and does? That simple equation has put paid to film in most professional circles. There are a few who hold out, making their decision a 'quality' one, irrespective of whether it is or is not. Unfortunately, they are in the minority.

That also has a serious problem with supplies of hardware and film. The last major new film camera was the Nikon F6. This is a 'current production' camera - but the production was really just a final batch. Same applies with most of the larger camera makers (small, medium and large format), although some of the custom-built large format makers still do well, even if it's becoming hard to find new lenses for the likes of 10x8 cameras.

Film sales are in steep decline. The talking up of Eastern European B&W film manufacturers by supporters of film is akin to people talking up the sales of Camping Gaz lights in support of gas lighting. The reality is most of these film makers are rolling out modified versions of 1940s and 1950s film stocks and ending up with golfball grain. This also highlights a change in the perception of viewers; someone viewing a B&W image 50 years ago was accepting of grain as a part of photography; the same person today is very 'noise conscious' (this is one of those parallel moments - those not used to listening to LP are more critical of surface noise than those who are).

Back in 2006, I was asked by a tech journalist about the life expectancy of film. Predicted we'd lose one format every four years or so - Kodachrome in 2010, E6 in 2014, C41 in 2018 and B&W print by the early 2020s. I see no reason to change this roadmap at all.

Yeah, I think this just about sums it up, although I'd argue E6 is already effectively as dead as a dodo.

Another important thing to mention is the cost of producing film and just how unsustainable that is. Film production is an extremely complex process and stock is produced in huge batches on massive machines. They'll come a time when they have to switch the machines off - I'm not sure even raising prices will even save it. I knew the death knell on sheet film was imminent when Polaroid decided to call it a day - how long Fuji continue to produce instant film is anyones guess.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 17:06
Firsly I do not know if you use 1600 ASA as a primary choice as I am sure you would agree - for serious work 50 or 100 stretching to 400 but then I read that digital cameras start having a slow downward slide in performance.

Now I do not believe that a D3 was around in 2006-so what you are saying is a new development- and that was PRECISELY THE MAIN THEME OF THE THREAD. THAT- THE PHOTOGRAPHY SIDE WILL GET BETTER AS PROFESSIONALs LIKE YOU ARE DETERMINING ITS COURSE- but can one say the same for CD-I ask?

Also I agree with you Creative Art should know NO LIMITS so why not 3200 ASA- but that is where the rub comes in. D3 or NO D3 if the person behind the camera has not got the eye- then no point talking about it.

You yourself said that you use Films for creativity- SO NOW NOW Hamish- don't change the tune.

I never said you boast of anything.

I use film recreationally as i like the simplicity of the cameras and proccess plus for me to much reliance on digital means that once in a while I need to take a photo old school so to remind me I can... If that makes sence! I personnaly will ne gutted if the day comes I can no longer buy film!

Spectral Morn
22-08-2009, 17:27
What an interesting discussion.I can't contribute much, as photography is an occasional interest.

When I went to Art College I did some photography which included developing black and white film and I very much enjoyed the process (I love black and white imagery). But to be honest I preferred preparing a metal plate and actually printing with ink. The finished plates are beautiful and in their own right a work of art (I guess you can't get much more analogue than metal plate printing)

The speed of digital in photography has given everyone the ability to take, process and publish so quickly as to make film almost irrelevant (not in artistic terms though). I can have good images on AOS in about 10 min. I sadly would not go back to film as I can control the process now fully. No more disappointment with your pictures because the developer has botched them. Obviously if you can process your own that last comment does not count.

Regards D S D L

Marco
22-08-2009, 17:36
Guys,

This is a good discussion, but I'm struggling to see the hi-fi content which proves that it should be left in Blank Canvas. I don't wish to stifle the discussion, but can we have more on the hi-fi angle of the thread topic and less on the camera side...

Or - I move the thread to Abstract Chat and everyone can chat about cameras/photography until the cows come home.

Which is it to be? I'll leave it up to you, particularly Varun, who started the thread :)

Marco.

aquapiranha
22-08-2009, 17:39
I must qualify the following statement by saying that I know NOTHING about photography. I have a cheap casio digicam and that is it.

I think that digital photography allows one to make changes to the shot after it has been taken such that it becomes a totally different thing, ie. all the realism and drama is taken away. If you see a good image taken on film, it is a safe bet that it has not been tampered with, and so the true quality and talent of the photographer shines through. Not so with a digital image that can be changed and manipulated by someone even with little talent to become something it is not. Indicitave of modern society perhaps, where often image comes before substance.

OK, rant over, as you were....







move along, nothing to see here.

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 17:46
as a photographer who does weddings etc where i shoot hundreds of photos there are so many more arguaments for digital over film its sillyWay back in the film aera one had to use the mind before pressing the shutter release to make a decision if the image is worth being taken.

I emphatically do not consider this a drawback.

During my education as a photographer I did a lot of weddings. With some experience an important scene never was missed, and the 36 exposures available on a 35 mm film were more than sufficient.

Marco
22-08-2009, 17:49
AHEM!!


This is a good discussion, but I'm struggling to see the hi-fi content which proves that it should be left in Blank Canvas. I don't wish to stifle the discussion, but can we have more on the hi-fi angle of the thread topic and less on the camera side...

Or - I move the thread to Abstract Chat and everyone can chat about cameras/photography until the cows come home.

Which is it to be? I'll leave it up to you, particularly Varun, who started the thread.


Can we decide please??

Marco.

Varun
22-08-2009, 17:50
I never thought it would end up like this. And my efforts to get the Reel to Reel users have come to nothing.

And above all my response to Dave (Cawley) apologising as I seemed to have offended him has vamooshed. Disappeared.

Dave- I am delighted to learn you are so successful and had I known you publish in AP- I would have been careful but it was a general comment.

Marco- in the end it is good for the Techies- I am surprised by the interest shown by people on this forum- just shows that that the two disciplines -Music and Photography are closely linked.

Varun
22-08-2009, 17:56
I think- best to move it to abstract chat- you know the forum- I do not- I sincerely wish there was more talk on music.

Photography is a different subject- but the discussion is deeply engrossed- YOU ARE THE BOSS though.

Spur07
22-08-2009, 18:05
if you want to bring the debate back round to music , personally I'd draw an analogy between CD and film: whereas analogue will survive in the form of vinyl, CD as a physical format will be obliterated by hard drive streaming. When will it happen? who knows, but sooner rather than later. The market for 'used' CDs will continue as a cheap way to rip lossless music to a hard drive, but new purchases will come downloaded as mp3 or FLAC

Marco
22-08-2009, 18:09
Hi Varun,


just shows that that the two disciplines -Music and Photography are closely linked.


I'm happy to leave it here if I see a bit more evidence of the above in the discussion and some reference to the hi-fi side of things, too.

We'll see how it goes. If your thread is suddenly in Abstract Chat then you'll know what's happened! ;)

Perhaps you could try and get the discussion back on track to the way you had originally envisaged? Everyone else can then try to help you out :)

Marco.

Dave Cawley
22-08-2009, 18:09
Marco, wait a minute please! (see below)

Verun, PLEASE I have never ever published in Amateur Photographer, this is way beyond any insult mate! Please read what I said.

Getting back to the subject. Is there a well produced and recorded CD that has also been released on vinyl without any digital stuff in it? And if so what does it sound like on both media?

Regards

Dave

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 18:10
Way back in the film aera one had to use the mind before pressing the shutter release to make a decision if the image is worth being taken.

I emphatically do not consider this a drawback.

During my education as a photographer I did a lot of weddings. With some experience an important scene never was missed, and the 36 exposures available on a 35 mm film were more than sufficient.

i hope that doesnt mean that you asume that i dont use my mind during my job. every shot is thought out, just might fire of 5 of each so as to avoid blinks etc..

Dave Cawley
22-08-2009, 18:24
Hamish

I think what it means is, that when the chips are down, film people who don't have professional digital, resort to rudeness. Thereby blowing any case they might have had right out of the water.

Now what about those special and bloody expensive 45rpm Jazz records I bought in Munich that have 60hz hum, what's that all about?

Regards

Dave

REM
22-08-2009, 18:38
Getting back to the subject. Is there a well produced and recorded CD that has also been released on vinyl without any digital stuff in it? And if so what does it sound like on both media?

Regards

Dave

The only recording that I know of that fits the bill would be the already mentioned Pink Floyd live set Pulse, they did side by side digital/analogue recordings for the vinyl and CD respectively. The vinyl is excellent, can't comment on the CD though, never heard it. The also previously mentioned Patrica Barber, Modern Cool & Companion albums were both digital I believe, but I wouldn't have thought either were 'close miked' in fact I'd say they are excellent examples of just how good CD can be, if done properly.

Regards

Varun
22-08-2009, 18:41
If I get it right this time-then you were saying that even to mention AP is an insult- Oh I am so relieved. I am also delighted to note that you exhibit your work- great stuff.

My own views are different- and never fixed on art of photography- and before I return to the music side of things- may also say to Spur7:

High Spur7- I am impressed by your knowledge. If I use names like Friedlander or what ever- they are used as examples- narrative of course and an abstract one too-but they have been using films. They have all the money to buy anything they want- I have no problems with Films Vs anything.

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 18:46
i hope that doesnt mean that you asume that i dont use my mind during my job.That has never been my intention. Just wanted to point out that in analogue times the selection was done before taking the picture, while today the selection – if any – happens while viewing the pictures on the computer.

Let me add that I in fact I do own professional digital photographic equipment; I even work as trainer for Adobe Photoshop. None of my photographs has been published yet by any glossy magazine, but some of them can be found in collections.

Varun
22-08-2009, 18:49
An artform- of course I am a great admirer of Stanley Kubrick. He chose his own music. I like the pieces he chose for "Eyes Wide Shut" especially Ligeti's piano. I can not find his music on Vinyl although I have the CD of the film track.

Dave (C): I do not believe I have ever come across a digitally recorded piece put on Vinyl. My collection is in Devon, I only have about 50 odd LPs here and keep on buying more. I would certainly see if I can find any.

I bought Shostokovic 15 symphonies ( Boxed set 13 LPs) for £10. Half of them conducted by the composer himself- good sound on Melodiya-EMI.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 18:59
That has never been my intention. Just wanted to point out that in analogue times the selection was done before taking the picture, while today the selection – if any – happens while viewing the pictures on the computer.

Let me add that I in fact I do own professional digital photographic equipment; I even work as trainer for Adobe Photoshop. None of my photographs has been published yet by any glossy magazine, but some of them can be found in collections.

hmm i'm not sure i agree, i think the only real difference is quantity of the same image to choose from ie with film i would prob take 2 of each shot with digital i take more...i cant see why i would take different photos with a film camera.. its me doing the shooting after all!! previously the post selection was done with contact print and lupe (or in my case my 50mm lens flat on the page .. now its done with lightroom (or whatever)

Varun
22-08-2009, 19:06
Both of you are in the old fashioned mode and I agree with what you say - in fact you are saying the same thing more or less.

One of the basic aspects of discipline I follow- and most people I admire do- that you decide on the photo when you shoot and reject later. The frame is never cropped- I used to print my B&W prints with a thin light edge in the enlarger so the print had a dark border and the whole negative was printed.

I also like to have full control on everything-first up- not later.

I guess that is what Werner is also saying.

Play some music please.

Werner Berghofer
22-08-2009, 19:18
I used to print my B&W prints with a thin light edge in the enlarger so the print had a dark border and the whole negative was printed.That’s exactly the way I did it back in the ”good old days“.


I guess that is what Werner is also saying.Amen, brother!

Now back to the Patricia Barber sound files on my computer, my Caiman DAC and my AKG K701 headphones ;-)

The Vinyl Adventure
22-08-2009, 19:19
i actually do crop quite a bit as i actually prefer 10 x 8 and 1 x 1 as formats but i do usually have the end result in mind .. although if i am completely honest it doesnt always work out how i expected its quite difficult working to imaginary frame lines.. if that makes sence ... but i guess that will come more with time! iam after all at the begining of my career!
i have even looked into getting an etched focus screen to compliment the d3's ability to to 10x8 but the company who makes the focus screens i like the most doesnt make them for the d3
(i have a custom made 1x1 etched screen with split screen focus for my d300)

Varun
22-08-2009, 19:30
Ralph is quite right. Patricia Barber is recorded digitally. I bought it because the audiophiles were raving about it. I liked the sound too but then -shelved it - and have never returned to it.

One of the many reasons- was that her GOB occupied a major part of the soundstage. Talk of "ambience" and that is what made me think that all instruments were recorded close miked-listen to the double bass and you will see what I mean.

Varun
23-08-2009, 08:36
Goodness the thread gave a last few gasps the moment Music was mentioned.

The point about the Barber sound is that it is an embelished sound. I have to use something for a reference- so I will go back to one of the old Jazz recording-needlless to say Analogue.

This is where tape fans would have been of enormous help.

But they are dead quiet as well. Who knows they have been recroding on Reel to Reel from digital CDs!!! Mr Beechwood- where are you.

REM
23-08-2009, 08:37
Hi Varun

When it comes to Ms Barber I'm only referring to the two albums on Premonition, Modern Cool & its' live counterpart Companion and yes while the bass is big 'n phat that's because string bass is supposed to be like that. Spinning Companion as I type the bass sound seems as much dependent on Arnopols' playing as on anything else, check out track 3 'Like JT' for instance.
What has just come come as a huge shock to me on checking the sleeve notes, is to discover that this is a flipping analogue recording all along "....mastered by Alan Tucker, Foothill Digital, NY, at 24-bit resolution from analog sources."
Stone me, I'd always thought it was a full on digital jobbie, no wonder it sounds so bloody good.:smoking:

BTW Varun, if you have any PB lps gathering dust I will gladly take them off your hands and give them a very good home, just give me a shout:lol:

Cheers

Spectral Morn
23-08-2009, 08:53
Goodness the thread gave a last few gasps the moment Music was mentioned.

The point about the Barber sound is that it is an embelished sound. I have to use something for a reference- so I will go back to one of the old Jazz recording-needlless to say Analogue.

This is where tape fans would have been of enormous help.

But they are dead quiet as well. Who knows they have been recroding on Reel to Reel from digital CDs!!! Mr Beechwood- where are you.

Hi Varun

There will be, and I concede its not much use for this thread, a full appraisal of reel to reel, cassette and I suppose digital recording (though I wasn't going to include that one) from me in SOG in the not to distant future. I have been gathering all the items required to do this over the last few months(not an easy thing or cheap-much of it will probably go for sale at some point when I am finished-unless I can sell my Chord phono stage.)

I am not going to second guess the overall conclusions.

Be patient all will be revealed. Nick Beechwoods is in a better position now to offer some comments in this current thread.

The Batricia Barber CDs or SACDs, are IMHO good examples of modern digital recording, and the nature of the recording session mic position etc is really I think down to taste. I mostly don't mind the choices made on her albums. However I could see a lesser system (not suggesting that about your set up Varun) struggling to control the music and this could led to a slightly overblown sound. In my system it is reproduced as first three rows type perspective, but I quite like that sometimes...and as I like Patricia Barber (and I know many hate her music), it a bit irrelevant in the long run. Her albums sound excellent to my ears.


Regards D S D L

Macca
23-08-2009, 08:55
As someone who resisted going digital (musically) until 1996 I would like to throw my two cents in - for what it's worth.

Whatever the pros and cons (and this applies to the recording of images and music) digital has certainly opened up theses processes to a vast mass of people who would otherwise not be able to participate at any serious level.

Years ago the owner of a local venue (it was quite famous in its day but don't look for it - it's not there any more:lol::lol:) asked a friend and I if we would trawl through some of the demos he had been sent on spec to see if there was any wheat amongst the chaffe, so to speak. We agreed and he promptly handed us a bin bag of C90 cassette tapes.

Rgeretably most were of the 'death metal' pursuasion; there were very few of any interest. The one thing that they all had in common was that the recording standards were very poor indeed - not a surprise as back then studio time was very expensive, even to get 4 songs down on a tape was a king's ransom - most demos then were 4 songs at most.

Nowadays these bands can go into a digitally-equipped studio and record an entire album (say eight or nine tunes) for (comparatively) pennies and the result is a clean, professional sounding recording that is hard to distingush from any modern major-label release. They can then offer tracks for download on t'internet and actually get their music out there without a label deal or A&R 'suit' in sight.

They still won't make any money of course but that's not the point.

My point is that digital has opened up this whole area of recording and distributing music so that anyone can do it - which is a good thing IMHO - is that not also true of photography? Every cloud has a silver lining etc...

Martin

Varun
23-08-2009, 08:59
Many thanks Ralph,

I have only one in Devon and it is 180gm I think. I will certainly let you know. I do not know which one.

If you listen to Jazz, and I am not an expert- Stanley Clark album is another good bass player to listen to.

It is the reproduction of acoustic bass which is always so difficult- I particularly like "This one for Blanton" produced by Ellington in his memory-also on 180gm and it is terrific.

Varun
23-08-2009, 09:09
Well when I was writing to Ralph-2 more missives were being posted.

As far as Digital as a medium is concerned-of course the users are more numerous than vinyl and they are not going to give it up and also the enjoyment.

That was not the point- the reason we have SACD and other formats- is very much the point -these are the way people have been trying to a fix a deficiency which should have never been left in place. That is where digital photography has evolved so very differently. That was the purpose of the thread- that the professionals were not happy with 6 mega pixels. Think of photography being stuck at 6 megapixels- and then people producing new cameras, new lenses to make the photos better when in fact it was the problem in the sensor in the first place.

DOTs on a SINE WAVE then.

Thanks for your views- Neil and Macca.

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 09:47
That was not the point- the reason we have SACD and other formats- is very much the point -these are the way people have been trying to a fix a deficiency which should have never been left in place.
The reason we have many of these other formats is primarily down to the collection of royalties on patents, and the search by manufacturers for new ideas that can create another wave of 'must have' products.

Let's not kid ourselves. There has always been people who dream up a problem, and then 'invent' a cure for it. The electronics market is bursting with those ailments and cures.

Stan

Macca
23-08-2009, 09:49
Well when I was writing to Ralph-2 more missives were being posted.

That was not the point- the reason we have SACD and other formats- is very much the point -these are the way people have been trying to a fix a deficiency which should have never been left in place. That is where digital photography has evolved so very differently.

Varun - Are you saying that we will not get continuing inprovement in digital sound reproduction/recording in the same way as we are seeing continuing inprovement in digital photography beacause the pro photography industry cares about quality whereas the pro music biz does not?

Maybe that is true to an extent. I am not a photographer (as anyone can see from my 'Gallery' snaps) so cannot comment on that side but if we take music there are some recent digital recordings that sound truly superb on RB CD ( 'Reptile' by Eric Clapton springs to mind). I don't think SACD and DVD-A failed due to a lack of people caring but because the implementation was poor and there was a bizarre concentration on 'surround sound' which while it might intially have impressed the odd casual 'punter' is, IMHO a gimmick, pure and simple, same as it was back in the 70s the last time they tried it.

I have heard (stereo) SACD and DVD-A done properly (DSD/hi res PCM streamed directly from transport and decoded in the amp) and it is superb - it doesn't 'sound' like vinyl but it does sound like music - bass resolution and timbre in particular is outstanding compared to any other format (okay I might agree properly sorted reel to reel does this too but it is a long time since I heard one so memory is hazy.

No doubt some will disagree, and don't get me wrong I play a lot of vinyl and use a competent if unremarkable TT. But if Hi res digital had taken off I would have eventually converted and so would (I suspect) 80 to 90% of 'audiophles', even if it was just for all new purchases rather than replacing my entire 'back catalog'. The market for quality digital repro exists - it has just not been targeted in a competent fashion.

Martin

Varun
23-08-2009, 09:52
Well said Stan,

Money and competetion-mergers and so on.

If Marco is watching- he might as well as move this thread to Abstract Chat- as I am going to return to a few bits of Photography which I needed to discuss.

Hi Marco- the decision is on you now- I am surprised by the interest shown by so many people including Alan Sircom- just for the sake of debate. Afterall we depend on images to communicate this forum. Mike (H) always the details of his camera under his images.

Varun
23-08-2009, 10:00
Hi Martin,

You have put your so well that I need not add anything. I was not trying to turn people away from their CDs far from it- and have no problem with people enjoying music. I am not sure if the digital format as it exists can do justice to all sorts of things-but yes I have CDs but listen to them in my car.

For instance the recordings made by Alfred Brendel of 6 or 8 of Mozart Piano concertos are the greatest pieces that exist- so here performance- outstrips all else- but then I do not need to go to the most expensive CD player to listen to it.

Often the brain fills in any gaps or lows in sound-but then I realize that I would not be listening to the music from a critical point.

Now that you mention-can I ask you about which CD player you would go for?

Varun
23-08-2009, 10:08
I have looked up the hands on preview of both D3x and D700 and both of them have active D-Lighting which my D60 also has as well as sensor cleaning. I looked at the images and the settings do compromise the low level detail and the dynamic range. That photographer at Glyndebourne knew what he was doing using an F6. I can only think he had a Canon full frame.

I am still perturbed why Dave (C) was offended- I take good care not to offend people.

Anyway- here is my treasure. My late father's camera from the mid 50s and on which my photography started.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/1732/rollei.jpg

I love it -just sits on my palm and takes very good picts even though the lens is Schneider Xenar. I do not even know if there is film inside!

Macca
23-08-2009, 10:21
Hi Martin,

For instance the recordings made by Alfred Brendel of 6 or 8 of Mozart Piano concertos are the greatest pieces that exist- so here performance- outstrips all else- but then I do not need to go to the most expensive CD player to listen to it.

Often the brain fills in any gaps or lows in sound-but then I realize that I would not be listening to the music from a critical point.

Now that you mention-can I ask you about which CD player you would go for?

Varun

I'm flattered that you should ask my opinion - I am sure others will be able to give a much more educated view on that one - also our tastes must differ - I rarely listen to any Classical, phillistine that I am :)

Broadly speaking I would go for one of the upsampling players (or transport into upsampling DAC) as these seem to do a far better job of re-creating believeable 'timbre' and at a sensible price (i.e less than £1000). Given a good recording to begin with it means a Les Paul guitar sounds like a Les Paul and not just like 'a guitar' or 'guitar-like' so I suspect you would get the same benefit with the reproduction of a bassoon or violin or whatever.

For what its worth I use a Cambridge 840 Azur - makes my previous player (Sony CDP 761E) sound like a toy.

Regards

Martin

DSJR
23-08-2009, 10:28
The brain can and Does "fill in the gaps" but what I've been unsuccessfully trying to tell you lot is that given a standard analogue or digital master source, a CD made from this master will sound closer if not identical to that source than an LP, which usually suffers huge losses in the manufacturing process. I'm not saying that we're guilding a turd with all this turntable tweaking etc, but once you've heard how original masters tend to sound, then most of the "analogue" tweakery that goes on in top end audio looks to me as the "almost blind leading the blind."

Obvioulsy it's not as cut and dried as this. Many early LP cutters took these losses into account when the master cuts were done and the vinyl results are superb. Other cuts (all the sought after Decca LP's from the late 50's to late 60's) were bodged to take the inadequacies of their cutting lathes into account and all the audiophools hated the more "correct and truthful to the master source" sound of the post 1970 (Neumann cut) re-cuts they did, let alone the CD's made later on..

I had an interesting chat once with my mastering-engineer friend's boss, who was working at Decca all through the sixties (he's passed away now sadly). This man digitally mastered all the Decca label Camel CD's. he told me he added a tad of warmth at 40Hz to the masters when digitising them and I felt it worked. When Paschal (Audio Archiving Company, based at decca's old facilities I understand in Belsize Road) did the "remasters," it appears he transferred "flat." Fortunately, he didn't compress or do anything nasty, what you hear is what's there, but to get weight and punch from these CD's you need a big speaker as was popular back in the seventies...

Apologies for thread crapping. Photography has never really interested me as a hobby, but visuals are far more important to our brains than sound and we're far less easily fooled by pictures, hence my belief that objective testing is still important in judging audio quality - the best audio designers use both to good advantage IMO..

I haven't heard this myself, but apparently, taking an SA-CD source, converting it down to "red book" CD, level matching and then comparing the two together shows no difference if the listener isn't aware of which is playing. All those wonderful Radio 3 live concerts are basically 13 bit digital brick-walled at 15KHz too.

It's how the technology is used I reckon (remembering David Bailey with the little Olympus snap-shot camera some years ago.....).

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 10:54
I have listened and read an awful lot of stuff about analogue, its conversion to digital, and what most can't hear between them to notice any difference.

Just keep in mind that air movement cannot start and stop between each missing break in a digital audio stream.

As for the suggestion that upsampling would cure some ailments by recreating the missing bits. :goodluck:. I was under the impression that a true audiophile is after the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But Virtual Reality has slowly been creeping up on us. I blame it on the like of JMJ. Once he started recreating natural and unnatural sounds from his synths, he opened the floodgate for fake impressions.

Stan

Macca
23-08-2009, 10:57
The brain can and Does "fill in the gaps" but what I've been unsuccessfully trying to tell you lot is that given a standard analogue or digital master source, a CD made from this master will sound closer if not identical to that source than an LP, which usually suffers huge losses in the manufacturing process.

A muusician friend of mine tried to convine me on this point 15 years ago and I was having none of it then; but with the benefit of experience comes realisation and the neccessity (if one is open-minded) to change one's views. Back in 1990 I was able to do a vinyl/cd comparison (using quality but not expensive kit) with a number of recordings (I can recall two of them being Led Zep 4 and The The's 'infected') and analogue won hands down, no contest.

I then avoided getting a CD player until 1996 when it became impossible to buy new vinyl (in my neck of the woods). I still hate the tiny artwork reproduction on the 'sleeve' and the pathetic, tic tac box plastic 'jewel cases' ('jewel' my a**se - there's marketing bull**** if ever there was some) but the recordings and remastering (of the old stuff) is getting better year on year - so I live in hope.

Apologies for hijacking the photograhy thread:)

Martin

Spur07
23-08-2009, 10:58
I have looked up the hands on preview of both D3x and D700 and both of them have active D-Lighting which my D60 also has as well as sensor cleaning. I looked at the images and the settings do compromise the low level detail and the dynamic range. That photographer at Glyndebourne knew what he was doing using an F6. I can only think he had a Canon full frame.


obviously its difficult to comment without actually being there at the time, but if the problem was sunshine illuminating white dress then in all likelihood neither film or digital could fully reproduce the highlight. You can't reproduce what isn't there, or maybe I've just misinterpreted the situation - I can't really be bothered to go back and re-read :)

Macca
23-08-2009, 11:03
Just keep in mind that air movement cannot start and stop between each missing break in a digital audio stream.


Stan

This surely needs expanding on because I, for one, am mystified:scratch:

Martin

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 11:13
If you transmitted a sinusoidal audio waveform from a pair of speakers to a pair of ears, starting and stopping the waveform at a repetition rate of 44.1KHz or more would not be detected by the ears. You'll only start to pick up the difference once you lower the frequency.

The latter process is actually being done in many digital volume controls.

DSJR
23-08-2009, 11:16
A muusician friend of mine tried to convine me on this point 15 years ago and I was having none of it then; but with the benefit of experience comes realisation and the neccessity (if one is open-minded) to change one's views. Back in 1990 I was able to do a vinyl/cd comparison (using quality but not expensive kit) with a number of recordings (I can recall two of them being Led Zep 4 and The The's 'infected') and analogue won hands down, no contest.

I then avoided getting a CD player until 1996 when it became impossible to buy new vinyl (in my neck of the woods). I still hate the tiny artwork reproduction on the 'sleeve' and the pathetic, tic tac box plastic 'jewel cases' ('jewel' my a**se - there's marketing bull**** if ever there was some) but the recordings and remastering (of the old stuff) is getting better year on year - so I live in hope.

Apologies for hijacking the photograhy thread:)

Martin

Led Zep IV ain't got much bass on CD (and my original LP from 1971 hasn't either). I do like Jimmy pages re-issues though... The The's album with "Gravitate to Me" on it could strip paint off the wall, but on a decent system the 3-D effect is almost holographic...

Now back to Revox reminiscing.....

Alan Sircom
23-08-2009, 12:04
Getting back to the original topic (briefly) the reason why I think what applies in audio doesn't really apply to film is because for decades to come there will always be record players and LPs appearing in charity shops, car boot sales second-hand shops.

Let's paint an unrealistically grim picture of the recession - let's say it takes out both film and LP replay. Every single film and film camera manufacturer and every single record player and LP maker stops by the end of the year. What happens after that?

- for film, there will be three or four years worth of film stock available, a few years of slowly running out of date papers and chemistries, and a bunch of gradually crumbling away lab products. 20 years time, a film camera would be effectively an objet d'art, or a curio of a past time.

- for audio, there will still be thousands of records in circulation. And these do not have a shelf-life. Record decks might become increasingly rare, but 50 years from now the ability for someone to use these then-redundant LPs would be not much more complex than it is for someone to engage in 78rpm replay today.

REM
23-08-2009, 12:11
.... but visuals are far more important to our brains than sound and we're far less easily fooled by pictures....

Not at all sure about that, in developmental terms hearing is more important to our survival than eyesight. Ever wondered why you are woken from a deep sleep by only the tiniest creaky noise? That's the equivalent of a sabre toothed tiger treading on a twig as it creeps into the communal cave back in our caveman days, it's human hearing that responds to threats even when you are not conscious, not vision.
We can be far more easily deceived by visual effects than may be realised. The animal kingdom figured that out millennia ago, go ask a chameleon! The entire movie business is built on an optical illusion, it's called persistence of vision.
It has been said that one reason bad digital sound is so fatiguing is that our brains are having to work hard to fill in the gaps and yet we are reasonably happy to accept relatively low-res digital images as they are less of a challenge to our brains.

Regards

Varun
23-08-2009, 12:22
Quite Ralph- my experience too.

I do need help though. I read DSJR talking of CD players getting cheaper and better.

On Richer Sounds you can get ex-dem or repaired CD players especially Cambridge Audio- Azure 640 for instance is or was available for £69 in their Nottingham shop.

Macca
23-08-2009, 12:49
Well since Stan has shot down my 'oversampling is the way to go for an analogue lover to access CD without too much pain or expense' approach what about trying a decent budget CD player as transport with one of these Beresford DACs?

No experience of them myself but it does seem that a lot of people on this site have them and like them and they are not silly money. Just a thought.

Your vinyl system looks to be massively accomplished though, I suspect will be very difficult for any 16 bit CD replay kit to even come close to it.

Martin

Macca
23-08-2009, 13:10
Just to clarify my last statement there -

I agree with Stan that upsampling is an artifice and not truly accurate reproduction but it I think it does 'work' in terms of giving a more analogue sound with respect to instrumental textures.

Presumably it is possible to get this effect more honestly without upsampling - which I think was what Stan is getting at in his reply to me earlier.

Martin

Varun
23-08-2009, 14:14
Thanks for all the trouble Martin,

I am glad you can see my system but I can not in the gallery-something went wrong with Photobucket and I have not been able to fix it. Hence I have been using Image shack.

Any help will be gratefully appreciated.- DAC and all.

DSJR
23-08-2009, 16:39
Quite Ralph- my experience too.

I do need help though. I read DSJR talking of CD players getting cheaper and better.

On Richer Sounds you can get ex-dem or repaired CD players especially Cambridge Audio- Azure 640 for instance is or was available for £69 in their Nottingham shop.

B&O made the quote about picture and sound to me first (proved by their audio-video systems) and was confirmed to me in a simple form after subsequent discussion with my audio-anorak GP friend.

If you Google the Azure 640C (notably the people who did up Marco's CD player), you'll find that you can work wonders with the analogue output stage and I believe the clock too, as the basic machine is highly competent. For £69, well worth a punt IMO.

I was mainly referring to the 840C, a machine way more capable than its price would suggest.

I'd also take a gander at Avondale's AAA% and ACD3 machines. Re-jigs of established old favourites, but Les carries re-furbished mechs for them and owners speak highly of their sound quality for a total outlay of around £500 - £700.

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 17:32
Or you can of course save yourself a pot of money and buy a cheap CDP with digital output, then connect that to a high quality DAC like mine. PLus that leaves you with several other input sockets to connect many other digital items. And you don't get that falsified upsampling sound either;).

Stan

Varun
23-08-2009, 17:40
Thanks Dave,

That truly makes it worth my joining the forum. I have been watching these ex-dem prices on Richer Sounds so might wait and see.

I will also explore the other options you recommend but do not know who Les is?

Many thanks again as it gives me a direction.

Marco
23-08-2009, 17:42
Glad to see that there are others here who see up-sampling as an artifice :)

Personally, I hate it, as it adds a false 'sheen'/'patina' to the sound, robbing it of dynamic impact, and making music sound 'creamy' and 'nice', even when it's not meant to be...

I've never understood why some people rave about DCS players, for example, which of course up-sample. For me, they're vastly overpriced for what they do, and what they do I don't particularly like.

Nope, give me 'warts & all' plain old Red Book (done well) any day!

Marco.

Varun
23-08-2009, 17:42
Golly

Stan-your message came when I was typing mine- so please enlighten- can I have more details please.

Varun
23-08-2009, 17:43
Marco,

please tell us about your 640C if I am right?

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 17:46
Glad to see that there are others here who see up-sampling as an artifice :)

Personally, I hate it, as it adds a false 'sheen'/'patina' to the sound, robbing it of dynamic impact, and making music sound 'creamy' and 'nice', even when it's not meant to be...

The above somehow reminds me of a visit to the red light district in Amsterdam
many moons ago.

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 17:49
Golly

Stan-your message came when I was typing mine- so please enlighten- can I have more details please.
That would require an essay, and I am not good in writing them.
But in a nutshell: upsampling is like a padded bra, or breast implant. You know it ain't real, but they do look impressive...

Stan

Varun
23-08-2009, 17:51
Stan,

I meant your CD set up!

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 17:58
Stan,

I meant your CD set up!
Mine? I now use a media hard disk that has a remote control and a digital output to my DAC. It's a INOI drive I bought from Maplin. You need a LCD screen with video input as well, so that you can connect the drive to it.

The following is an old pic of it on my workbench.
http://www.homehifi.co.uk/images/aos1.jpg

REM
23-08-2009, 18:24
Upsampling/oversampling? Same or different?:confused:

Would be greatfull for enlightenment.

StanleyB
23-08-2009, 18:37
Upsampling/oversampling? Same or different?:confused:
Different.
Oversampling samples the digital data at a higher frequency. So a single 44.1KHz Bit would be sampled at say 8x 44.1KHz instead of 44.1KHz (352.8KHz).
A 48KHz Bit would also be sampled at 8X, which means that the 48Kz signal would have a higher sampled frequency (384KHz)

Upsampling adds extra 0's and 1's after the original complete BYTE, in order to make a longer word. That word is a fixed entity. So a 44.l1KHz, 48KHz, or 9KHz would all be the same word length after upsampling.

So even in its basic form, a 8X oversampling DAC would have a greater precision than a 192KHz upsampling DAC for say a 44.1KHz incoming data bit.

Marco
23-08-2009, 19:13
Marco,

please tell us about your 640C if I am right?

LOL - sorry, Varun, you're not right (see my signature). I use a heavily modified Sony transport and DAC combo, modified by Audiocom, who also do mods for the Cambridge Azur 640C:

http://www.audiocom-uk.com/mod_inner.asp?id=26

Mine is, erm, 'slightly' better... ;)

Stan,

Next you'll be telling us of the fun to be had in Bangkok catching ping-pong balls, which have been 'fired' from rather unusual female orifices......... :eyebrows:

Marco.

Varun
23-08-2009, 19:39
Thanks Marco,

Well then please tell about your DAC and all this Beresford business!

Cheers

DSJR
23-08-2009, 20:03
Marco has an old "brick out house" player which has been further race tuned ;)

How's about a £69 Cambridge used as a transport and a Beresford Caiman, which should leap-frog the 640 tuning......

Better?




P.S. Referring back to "remasters," I had no idea that Genesis have been done yet AGAIN (why?????) and, by all accounts, not very well, as the volume appears to have been over-done with everything now on the same level, whereas the whole point of this band's music was light and shade, ebb and flow, loud and quiet... I liked what I heard from the late 1990's ones...

Varun
23-08-2009, 20:21
Thanks Dave,

I have just been looking around the web sites and wondered about that combination. I think I am rearing to go-except my 8meter pair cables are being delivered shortly-so may be I will wait.

About re-mastering Led Zep- did you mean some new stuff is out?

Talking of Sony CD players - I was reminded that in the late 80s one Sony model costing around £1000 was being treated as the best player around. Then some one published a review of an Akai cheapo which the reviewer claimed had outperformed the Sony because he had stuck some triangles and stars on the CD. An angree response from the U.K. manager of Sony resulted in the same Sony CD player completely disappearing from the U.K. Hi Fi magazine radar.

DSJR
23-08-2009, 21:07
The Sony 555es used to be a "whiter than white" sounding player with an amazing transport and was very popular. The 557 was, I think, a notch further up but I believe it was only available in Europe/Germany.......?.......

There was a 777es and a something-or-other 07 afterwards, which was judged excellent if I've got the right model. It was sold off for half price in the discounters (£560 approx) as noone wanted it in the UK. The next top UK sold Sony cost £500, although they still made expensive and beautiful players for other markets...

The "Peter Belt Phenomenon" helped sell loads of mags on the one hand, and put off a legion of enthusiasts on the other. This phenomenon still lives on in the expensive "Shun Mook" style of accessories I think, but none of these can compare with decent engineering IMO.

I think that's right - if not, please correct me someone.

The definitive Led Zep remastering was done from fresh digital transfers around twenty years ago by Jimmy Page and, I think, Bernie Grundman (God, my memory is bad tonight). The box sets sounded sharp toned, but the album versions sounded good to my ears, although listening on headphones shows the noise-gating that appears to have been done at track endings (you would need VERY loud and good monitors to hear it over speakers IMO). The Mothership compilation was apparently slightly tweaked from these transfers and some like 'em, others don't. These recordings are mostly so-so in quality and apart from LZ 1, I doubt there's much more that can be got from them, to be honest..

Marco
23-08-2009, 21:19
Thanks Marco,

Well then please tell about your DAC and all this Beresford business!


Hi Varun,

The Audiocom-modified Sony and the Beresford are two entirely different entities, with two equally entirely different price tags! ;)

Check 'em out on my system pics thead: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1754

Marco.

Clive
23-08-2009, 21:34
Hi Varun,

The Audiocom-modified Sony and the Beresford are two entirely different entities, with two equally entirely different price tags! ;)

Check 'em out on my system pics thead: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1754

Marco.
Hmmm...that's a bit unkind to Stan. IMO to get the best out of a 7520 you need to run it from a well setup computer - I'm really anti CD transports nowadays - binary data is best ready by computers. Do this and you get amazing results, not quite like great vinyl but very listenable even for an analoger such as myself.

Marco
23-08-2009, 21:41
How's it unkind, Clive? I'm only stating facts - they are two different price tags, with both products appealing to two different markets, end of :)

There's plenty of room for both!

Marco.

Clive
23-08-2009, 21:53
How's it unkind, Clive? I'm only stating facts - they are two different price tags, with both products appealing to two different markets, end of :)

There's plenty of room for both!

Marco.
ok as that's how you meant it then I understand, however my point is that PC + 7520 really can take on just about all comers and turn in a frankly laughably good result irrespective of cost. The sound may not be to an individual's taste but such a pairing can produce a sound of its type that is truly excellent.

Marco
23-08-2009, 21:56
I completely agree! We wouldn't give Stan such a big platform to promote his products if we didn't believe in them :)

Marco.

Macca
23-08-2009, 22:36
Glad to see that there are others here who see up-sampling as an artifice :)

Personally, I hate it, as it adds a false 'sheen'/'patina' to the sound, robbing it of dynamic impact, and making music sound 'creamy' and 'nice', even when it's not meant to be...

I've never understood why some people rave about DCS players, for example, which of course up-sample. For me, they're vastly overpriced for what they do, and what they do I don't particularly like.

Nope, give me 'warts & all' plain old Red Book (done well) any day!

Marco.

Marco - I'm old school - I see anything digital as 'artifice'.

Once you are put in a position where you have to go digital or stop buying new records - what do you do? - Stay Calm and Carry On - i.e say F**k it and buy a CD player and some CDs and move on with your life...

Re the CA 840 -well instead I would really like a state of the art turntable/arm /cartridge - I would really like a record cleaning machine to sort out my old records (including my Led Zep 4 which someone spilt beer on and didn't even have the balls to own up to it...) and I would really like to be able to pay £30 a pop for re-issued vinyl to replace my CDs. I find it hard to justify the expense, what can I say?

I broadly agree with your comments regarding the character of the upsampled sound. I would suggest it is possible to get the rest of the system in sympathy with those drawbacks (I'm not claiming that I actually have achieved this...yet:)).

The CA has given me an acceptably good sound from CD for the last twelve months and it continues to impress, admittedly in some areas more than others. I am certainly not the type who will defend his kit as perfect to the last. Far from it - I'll just speak as I find - more interesting that way!:cool:

Regards

Martin

Barry
24-08-2009, 00:09
This is proving to be a very interesting thread, however there are differences between photography or image capture and audio, or sound capture, that the overarching question as to whether ‘digital is better than analogue (or vice versa)’ may not necessarily apply to both media. Because of this and to make my response relatively short I’ll add my contribution to this discussion as two separate posts, one for each medium. I’ll start with photography.

I must confess that I’m particularly ignorant concerning digital photography. I have been using Kodachrome 64 film stock in my Leicas for so long (around 30 years) that I have great difficulty translating between the terminologies of the two technologies. To help there are some helpful websites, some quite technical, the following being one such:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

Concerning the ‘resolution’ of digital v. analogue, well it would seem that the resolution achieved by Kodachrome 64 (to my mind the best film ever created) is the equivalent of 6 – 10 Mega pixels. Virtually most modern digital cameras have this resolution now, but I don’t think that the number of megapixels is the ‘be all or end all’. I think that sensor size is more important. If noise is the digital equivalent of grain (and here I’m more than a little out of my depth, as there are several forms of noise: luminance noise, chrominance noise etc.), then since the noise is a function of the electronics and sensor physics, the best way to increase the signal-to-noise ratio is to have more signal, that is a larger sensor (or to be more accurate larger pixels) that can receive more light. So to that end I would want a camera with as near a full frame sensor as possible. I understand that the Nikon D series have full frame sensors.

As I said I don’t fully understand digital and a figure of 23Mpx for ISO 1600 has been suggested and ridiculed. How is the equivalent number of megapixels calculated? Let me give you a, no doubt meretricious, example and argument. Kodak state that the granularity of all (?) of the Kodachrome emulsions is 9. That is, the ‘size’ of the grains is (1/2^9) mm or 2μm. The frame size of a 35mm camera is 24mm x 36mm, so somewhere between 200 and 275 million grains would be contained in the 35mm frame. Why then, is the Mpx equivalent of Kodachrome not equal to say 250Mpx? Clearly there is a fault in my argument (just as I was wildly out in my estimation of the typical inductance of a moving coil cartridge, pace Varun). Round 1 to digital it would seem, yet –

On another photography web site (sorry I didn’t make a note of it except it was somewhere in www.flikr.com) the following is stated (my additions in parentheses):

“Professional scanners (scanning 35mm K25 or K64 slides) doing 8000 to 12000dpi will create a file 100 to 200Mpx in size and can be used for sharp (how sharp?) prints 3 metres wide. Something that can’t be done with 16Mpx cameras. A 16Mpx file is 5000 pixels wide. As a minimum of 100 pixels (sic, I think they mean dpi) is needed for a good print, the (largest) print of a 16MPx camera can only be 50” (1.25m) wide.”

The angular resolution of the human eye is about 0.3 milliradians, so rounding this up to 1 milliradian and taking a comfortable viewing (or reading) distance of 10”, then an angle of 1 milliradian is subtended by a dot or pixel of 1/100”, hence 100dpi.



The next comment has been on the dynamic range of digital v. film cameras. Again it would seem that most digital sensors have a dynamic range of more than 10 stops (that is a brightness ratio of 1000:1), whereas Kodachrome 64 has a range of only 5 stops and print film 7 stops. Round 2 to digital.

Incidentally during my researches I learnt that a dark-adapted eye has a sensitivity of approximately ISO 800, the equivalent of just 2 photons for detection. For a 90º angle of view the human eye is equivalent to a sensor of 324 Mpx increasing to 576 Mpx for a 120º angle of view. (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html)

Game set and match to digital then? If so why then do I, more often than not, dislike digital photographs and can, when presented with a print of the same subject shot at the same ‘speed’, reliably identify the digital and the analogue image? Has anybody tried to replicate Ansel Adams’s photographs using a digital camera?

Too many questions – not enough answers!

Regards

Barry
24-08-2009, 00:41
An artform- of course I am a great admirer of Stanley Kubrick. He chose his own music. I like the pieces he chose for "Eyes Wide Shut" especially Ligeti's piano. I can not find his music on Vinyl although I have the CD of the film track.

Dave (C): I do not believe I have ever come across a digitally recorded piece put on Vinyl. My collection is in Devon, I only have about 50 odd LPs here and keep on buying more. I would certainly see if I can find any.

I bought Shostokovic 15 symphonies ( Boxed set 13 LPs) for £10. Half of them conducted by the composer himself- good sound on Melodiya-EMI.


Hi Varun,

I'm a bit of a Ligeti fan, so

Works by Gyorgy Ligeti


Musica Ricercata (1951-3) No.1
Pierre-Laurent Aimard (piano)
Sony SK 62308


Continuum (1968)
Elisabeth Chojnacka (harpsichord)
Wergo WER 6905-2


Three pieces for two pianos (1976) No. 1 and 2
Fredrick Ullen (pianos)
BIS BIS-CD-1684

Study No. 1 (Harmonies-1967)
Zsigmond Szathmary (organ)
Sony SK 62307


Piano Etudes (Book 1-1985)
Pierre-Laurent Aimard (piano)
Sony SK 62308


Sonata for solo viola (1991-4)
Nobuko Imai
BIS BIS-CD-1379/1380


String Quartet No. 2 (1968)
La Salle Quartet
DG 474 327-2


Chamber Concerto (1965-70)
Ensemble die Reihe, Wein
Friedrich Cerha (cond.)
Wergo WER 6903-2


Horn Trio
Saschko Gawriloff (violin)
Herman Bauman (horn)
Eckart Besch (piano)
Wergo WER 6905-2


Poem Symphonique for 100 Metronomes (1962)
Francoise Terrious
Sony SK 62310


Lontano (1967)
Vienna Philharmonic
Claudio Abbado (cond.)
DG 429 260-2


Melodien (1971)
Schoenberg Ensemble
Reinbert de Leeuw
Teldec 8573-83953-2


San Francisco Polyphony (1973-4)
Berlin Philharmonic
Jonathon Nott (cond.)
Teldec 8573-88261-2


Piano Concerto
Pierre-Laurent Aimard (piano)
Asko Ensemble
Reinbert de Leeuw (cond.)
Teldec 8573-83953-3


Car Horn Prelude (Le Grand Macabre 1974-7, revised 1996)
Philharmonia Orchestra
Esa-Pekka Salonen (cond.)
Sony SK 62312


Nouvelles Adventures (1962-5)
Phyllis Bryn-Julsons (soprano)
Rose Taylor (contralto)
Omar Ebrahmim (baritone)
Esa-Pekka Salonen (cond.)
Sony SK 62311


Clocks and Clouds (1973)
Cappella Amsterdam
Asko Schoenberg Ensemble
Reinbert de Leeuw (cond.)
Teldec 8573-87631-2

Lux Aeterna (1966)
London Sinfonietta Voices
Terry Edwards (cond.)
Sony SK 62305


Requiem (1963-5)
Hessian Radio Symphony Orchestra
Michael Gielen (cond.)
Wergo 60045-50


Suspect that most, if not all, are now only available on CD. Some of the Wergo recordings used to be available on vinyl, for example:

Adventures - Nouvelles Adventures
Atmospheres
Volumena

Wergo WER 60022

Regards

Barry
24-08-2009, 01:51
To now consider the application of digital technology to audio, I'm going to cheat somewhat by first commenting on statements that have already been posted.

From Dave (DSJR):
"... Obviously it's not as cut and dried as this. Many early LP cutters took these losses into account when the master cuts were done and the vinyl results are superb. Other cuts (all the sought after Decca LP's from the late 50's to late 60's) were bodged to take the inadequacies of their cutting lathes into account and all the audiophools hated the more "correct and truthful to the master source" sound of the post 1970 (Neumann cut) re-cuts they did, let alone the CD's made later on.."

Thank goodness someone has pointed this out. The early CD transfers used the bodged tapes, so what you were hearing was the limitations of vinyl. I have yet to hear a remastered CD that does not give me the thrill 'of hearing the recording for the first time'. There are a couple of exceptions (Carol King's 'Tapestry' and Roxy Music's 'Avalon') but in general I am delighted with all remastered CDs I have heard.

Just listen to Love's 'Forever Changes', Rolling Stones' '40 Hot Licks', Zappa's 'Hot Rats', all of John Martyn's catalogue, all of Joni Mitchell's catalogue, all of the Floyd's catalogue, .....

From Alan Sircom:
" Getting back to the original topic (briefly) the reason why I think what applies in audio doesn't really apply to film is because for decades to come there will always be record players and LPs appearing in charity shops, car boot sales second-hand shops.

Let's paint an unrealistically grim picture of the recession - let's say it takes out both film and LP replay. Every single film and film camera manufacturer and every single record player and LP maker stops by the end of the year. What happens after that?

- for film, there will be three or four years worth of film stock available, a few years of slowly running out of date papers and chemistries, and a bunch of gradually crumbling away lab products. 20 years time, a film camera would be effectively an objet d'art, or a curio of a past time.

- for audio, there will still be thousands of records in circulation. And these do not have a shelf-life. Record decks might become increasingly rare, but 50 years from now the ability for someone to use these then-redundant LPs would be not much more complex than it is for someone to engage in 78rpm replay today."

Alan, you're confusing the means of recording and the means of replay. All the while Ortofon, Neumann, Scully etc. manfacture or can maintain record cutting lathes, records can be cut. If however the chemical industries stop producing polyvinyl chloride, the raw material, the record industry will come to a halt. Even were that to happen, record players would still be necessary to replay records.

There may be millions of records 'out there', but there are probably billions of photographs (it's been around for 100 years) in existence and these do not need any specialised equipment to replay them, that is, to look at them.

Finally from Ralph:
"... in developmental terms hearing is more important to our survival than eyesight. Ever wondered why you are woken from a deep sleep by only the tiniest creaky noise? That's the equivalent of a sabre toothed tiger treading on a twig as it creeps into the communal cave back in our caveman days, it's human hearing that responds to threats even when you are not conscious, not vision.
We can be far more easily deceived by visual effects than may be realised. The animal kingdom figured that out millennia ago, go ask a chameleon! The entire movie business is built on an optical illusion, it's called persistence of vision.
It has been said that one reason bad digital sound is so fatiguing is that our brains are having to work hard to fill in the gaps and yet we are reasonably happy to accept relatively low-res digital images as they are less of a challenge to our brains."

Would tend to agree with you on the importance of seeing or hearing. The human hearing is about as sensitive as it can be. If it were any more sensitive then we would be able to hear and be constantly distracted by the invividual motion of the air molecules hitting the ear drums. Mind you, a well trained and dark-adapted eye can detect individual photons. Some time I'll work out which sense is the more sensitive, as regards the energy required at the threshold of detection; however for information the threshold of hearing is taken to be 1 picowatt. The dynamic range of the ear is about 130dB, whereas for the eye it is about 90dB.

I would however disagree with you regarding 'filling in the gaps'. I don't like digital photographs, whereas I'm quite happy with CDs, despite owning and playing about 1000 LPs and don't hear the deficiencies that other members complain of.

Regards

StanleyB
24-08-2009, 05:48
I must confess that I’m particularly ignorant concerning digital photography. I have been using Kodachrome 64 film stock in my Leicas for so long (around 30 years) that I have great difficulty translating between the terminologies of the two technologies. [ ]

Concerning the ‘resolution’ of digital v. analogue, well it would seem that the resolution achieved by Kodachrome 64 (to my mind the best film ever created) is the equivalent of 6 – 10 Mega pixels. s

Have you ever tried Ektachome 64 and 100 ( also known as EPN and EPR)? Surely you are not suggesting that Kodachrome 64 is in any way superior????

Even more puzzling is that you use Kodak film in your Leica. I have found, and also noticed from pictures taken by Leica owners, that the prime Leica lenses produce far better pictures with Agfa film. The Nikkor lenses on the other hand are more suited to the Kodachrome, with its intense and deep red.

Stan

Varun
24-08-2009, 06:13
Hi Barry,

Most scholarly and deeply well researched.

Firstly to Ligeti- I searched and could find no Vinyl. I probably would not go for all his music just Piano and see how he appeals to me. Solo piano music like chamber music is very demanding to listen to. For instance I have Haydn's Opus 20 quartets and have not had the chance to listen in detail,

Anyway as for ffss Deccas (I do not believe I have any) and neither I believe that many of the classical recordings of that period ever came on CDs- so here I am a bit lost with Dave's statements- learned as they are.

I, if I may put it most humbly, got rid of most of my POP/ROCK records long time ago as the music lost its initial appeal, so although I may have about 600 LPs, I simply do not buy those I may just listen to and then shelve.

Thanks for your calculations on film grain etc. Not many master photographers used colour in the old days- and then as an artform colour film soon took over. Raghubir Singh who died in his 50s and had his books published by Aperture in America was highly regarded and perhaps the best photographer India has produced. He used K'chrome 25 and 64 only. Further all these photographers (like Cartier-Bresson) used 35mm lens for nearly all the work, occasionally 50, lesser still 28 and rarely the longer lenses.

Varun
24-08-2009, 06:40
And Barry,

Tongue in cheek and cross stepping forums:

I wish your wine selection was in the same league!

Barry
24-08-2009, 08:46
Have you ever tried Ektachome 64 and 100 ( also known as EPN and EPR)? Surely you are not suggesting that Kodachrome 64 is in any way superior????

Even more puzzling is that you use Kodak film in your Leica. I have found, and also noticed from pictures taken by Leica owners, that the prime Leica lenses produce far better pictures with Agfa film. The Nikkor lenses on the other hand are more suited to the Kodachrome, with its intense and deep red.

Stan

Oh yes! Kodachrome has (had) the best colour 'fidelity' of all the reversal films made. I have used Ekatachrome, usually when I have been on my travels and have run out of Kodachrome, but find the colour balance too blue. I was once travelling in Burma and took some photo of Lake Inle. The water there was a, not particularly attractive, slate colour. I took two shots using up my K64, the rest on Ektachrome 100 (I think). I of course compensated for the change in speed, but whereas the K64 showed the water exactly as it was, the Ektachrome made it a flattering blue. Virtually all of my photography is travel photography and I want my photographs to look exactly as I remember the view - warts and all. I do not want any flattering colours.

I have not used Agfa (CT18) for over 35 years. Not a bad film, but again very flattering to greens.

I'm not sure what to make of your claim that Leica lenses are colour balanced to suit Agfa. I have never heard this before. Is this your opinion, or is it something that you know of? I'm curious.

Now that Kodak have ceased manufacture of Kodachrome, maybe I ought to try the most recent formulations of Ektachrome. Ektachrome E100G/GX and E100VS/EBS are said to be acceptable replacements for K64. I hope they have improved the colour balance. I have yet to try Fujichrome (Velvia etc.) but again have heard that they flatter skin tones - fine for portrait photography but not what I want.

Regards

Barry
24-08-2009, 08:48
And Barry,

Tongue in cheek and cross stepping forums:

I wish your wine selection was in the same league!

Not sure what you mean by that? :scratch:

DSJR
24-08-2009, 09:13
During the eighties and nineties, Decca were methodically digitising as much of their back catalogue as they could - from the original masters, not the safety copies they also held. For some sixties tapes (I can cite the Tom Jones recordings as one example) it was just in time, as the tapes were shedding quite badly, yet some of the 1950's reels were in perfect condition (I asked where the 'Stones tapes were and was directed, "Over there in the corner.."). My mate did most of the 1950's classical releases and transferred them "flat," as the producer heard them and there was quite a difference from disc to disc in the recording venue "atmosphere" and overall sound. Some of his colleagues used to do subtle eq and occasionally it was necessary to gain-ride (one tape had been partially erased and needed massive gain boost as well - a touch more hiss being audible on the final CD). I found it fascinating...

Actually, if you want to hear many early CD masterings correctly, one needs some B&W M801's (not the nautilus version). Most of CD's "problems" disappear at a stroke ;)

StanleyB
24-08-2009, 09:38
Hi Varun, you'll have problems finding Ektachrome. It is no longer available :(.

Stan

Barry
24-08-2009, 09:49
Hi Varun, you'll have problems finding Ektachrome. It is no longer available :(.

Stan

Does that mean that Kodak no longer make any reversal film? Looks like I'll have to try Fuji after all.

StanleyB
24-08-2009, 10:05
You might be right about Kodak, Barry. I started using Fuji some time ago, and they suited me just fine for skin tones. So wedding pics etc have been generally well received by the other side;).

Mind you, I am quite happy shooting digital these days. The Vario Elmar 35 to 420mm zoom range saves me carting round a shed load of lenses.

Varun
24-08-2009, 11:05
Hi Stan

I stopped using transparency film in the mid 80s and never returned to that medium. I followed in line with what the Americal colour photographers were doing- the old Pro negative film was then replaced by Portra. I also do not use Fuji any longer. Did use it fair bit. The lab which used to process my negatives and print them was based in the same building as De Vere in Soho- not far from Ronny Scott.

I will return about CD playing- I have many questions for you and DSJR and who ever can help

Varun
24-08-2009, 12:00
I rang Richer Sounds and they do not have the 640C as advertised. The man said it was old series 1. Series II 640C will cost £170 and that it has also been replaced by series III.

So: Q-1: what if I used my computer CD player- I know the first one is lying somewhere at home unused. It came with my Dell Computer in 2003. I appreciate it will take power source and all that- so many not be possible.

Q-2: If I was to use Beresford for instance- all I need is good CD mechanism- reliable and robust- is that correct?

If so I should aim for the entry level Sony or Panasonic? Am I right again?

Now there is never going to be a computer connected and never AV- plain and simple two channel Hi-Fi. So grateful for all help.

Cheers

DSJR
24-08-2009, 15:57
If you can quieten the computer down, or use one of the new Nano's (I think they are) or baby notebooks which are quite tiny, then you could configure it with USB output as a CD or streaming music server into a Caiman (I think that's right) and this should give you a good music source.

Others here have been doing this for some time and I'd like them, if possible, to talk the rest of us through this, using a Beresford as a DAC..

Varun
24-08-2009, 16:05
Many thanks

That would worry me in terms of acoustic feedback etc.

I wondered if it was possible to plug the old CD player (Ex computer) into Caiman- mind you it is an IDE device. Then I would need some sort of software to have video buttons on it for selecting tracks etc- unless Caiman also do it.

I am exploring here- but the computer side does not appeal to me, not at this stage anyway-unless I know more about it and so on. Simplicity might have to do it for the time being.

Varun
24-08-2009, 16:19
Hello DSJR

Many thanks for pointing out those experiences of Decca engineers archiving. I must admit that that high quality sound quality that you heard using the 801s has not been passed on to the consumer.

I say that for 2 reasons.
#1:- I have yet to hear a CD which matches the analogue sound.
#2:- If the transcriptipn was as secure as the Decca engineers felt then Vinyl surely would have been dead- absolutely dead.

Any way I have posted a few examples here as the sound is simply exemplary.

1959 Columbia recording- MONO- thick vinyl- stunning sound
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6272/ellington.jpg








Then 1959- MONO-Nixa Pye record- thick vinyl excellent sound.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9624/planets.jpg











1960s Mercury Living Presence- thick vinyl - excellent sound - this is the LP which caused me so much trouble with VTA.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9310/doratitch5th.jpg









1970s Dorati- Firebird- OK but no Bass
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/112/doratifb1.jpg










1960s Living Presence 180 gm reissue
Simply Stunning- I use it as reference
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3637/doratifb2.jpg

DSJR
24-08-2009, 16:30
You will rarely hear a vinyl player sound like the CD, but you WILL hear CD's that sound like the master tape if done right...

I never said I LIKED 801's (I hate the bloody things ;)), but their bass-heavy, mid shy and (in their acoustically dead mastering suites) reticent treble balance counteracts the bleached and thin tone of many early CD transfers. Today, engineers have a much free-er choice of monitors and those who still use 801's are used to them and balance accordingly. Last I heard, Abbey Road use theirs as door-stops :D

Decades ago, I complained to a record shop that some of the 1970's RCA pressings I bought (Vangelis & David Bowie) sounded too noisy. The chap suggested that they needed to be tracked at 3 grammes or so to sound best, so I tried a Decca Blue and was hooked on Decca cartridges for life......

Varun
24-08-2009, 19:12
Many thanks,

What you say is most illuminating. I will try some experiments when I have time and report back.

Personally, and this is my view of looking at things- my entire idea of listening changed head over heals once I started going to Classical Concerts and Operas. One might say- my eyes opened to a new dimension and completely changed my Philosophy.

So what I mean is that although I might listen to a few tracks here and there- of my Pop/rock records may be because the short tracks are quicker to get over- I would then after making a preliminary judgement quickly move to classical. This because classical recordings have to do justice to the work- not just sound. This is where a conductor would not tolerate if the recording was incomplete. They are the best listeners- they have to be- to follow and spot errors in timing etc- through out a piece.

By comparison-POP/ROCK- is far simpler to follow.

In Classical music for intance there are layers and layers of sound and the sheer dynamic range is beyond the capacity of any of the POP group's capabilities.

This is where I feel we are getting our wires crossed.

One thing that can not happen in Classical recording- is the perspective or layring can not be compromised. The strings have to be in front, the wind instruments in the middle and Brass etc in the 3rd or 4th row. Then comes the Tympani and Drums and percussion- higher and further back.

Works like Stravinski's Firebird and Sacre du Printemps do test the playing systen to the limit from quiet pieces touching the noise floor to massive crashes of bass drum- the size of which POP/ROCK groups never have. Besides in some works like Berlioz requiem- there are 14 drums.

Add to this the weght of trumpets, trombones and bassoons- a system has to be able to seperate them - and I found my 509s only went so far.

There is a lot more to talk- but many thanks for your expert views and rich experience- it is opening my eyes quite a lot.

Varun
25-08-2009, 06:40
last night I listened to Tchaikovsky 5th (Dorati-Living Presence) the same one I posted the image of.

The TT VTA had been left at the setting for thinner vinyl like Fleetwood mac, Dark side of the Moon etc (I have 180gms versions as well but usually do not bring them out).

It was quickly obvious that the record was unpleasant to listen to.

The introductory bussoon was bloated and blurred and blended with other sounds- one may pass that as a bad recording but then the edgy harsh strings- unpleasant to the ears quickly made me change the VTA and then all was fine.

So Forum folks- and Barry I sense there is something not right with the way people have commented on VTA etc. The five images I posted all need a VTA change to thicker vinyl setting- the exception being the Ensigna pressing- which is thinner and not good in sound reproduction.

I will try some experiments with CDs once I have a reasonable set up.BUT SUDDENLY STAN has gone silent.

StanleyB
25-08-2009, 06:54
BUT SUDDENLY STAN has gone silent.
Some of us got a business to run, R&D to do, and customers to visit:). It ain't all AoS 24/7 you know;).

Stan

DSJR
25-08-2009, 09:39
In many classical pieces, you're not supposed to be able to separate each individual strand out....

I appreciate you're listening to old analogue recordings, but by the late seventies, multi-micing and multi-tracking had all but ruined a natural perspective on many recordings, CBS being a prime candidate. I liked the Karajan re-mixes done after his death, where the atmosphere of the venue was brought back, giving an audience perspective, rather than from the conductor's viewpoint, as many later recordings had of this era.

I understand that one of the huge advantages of classical SA-CD releases is the amount of love and care that goes into the recording and final mixing of the sessions, not just the SA-CD "Technology" as such.

Varun
25-08-2009, 16:56
Hi Dave,

Abslutely right- I call it disembowelling of the sound. I am bound to have records made in 70s but I suspect not many from the 80s and on. I mean classical.

That is why I think Old Mono recordings can be so good as far as atmosphere and ambience is concerned. To my surprise the few I have also retain the basic essentials of soundstage and imaging.

I was going to ask about the 801s-were you talking about the old ones? There was also the KEF 107 (if I remember the model correctly). Once, as I remember the organ in Usher Hall (Edinburgh) failed. The organist was asked to play in a Church and the music conveyed to the hall by BBC engineers who had positioned 100 KEFs driven by 100 404s or 405s

DSJR
25-08-2009, 17:26
The old 801's were rather coloured, themselves supposedly less coloured than the Tannoys they replaced (allowing for the fact the the pro sector wouldn't have gone the extra miles to get the Tannoys working best as the likes of Marco have done with his..). The Matrix versions were certainly better than the previous ones, but my idea of natural tone isn't balancing a reticent presence range with a hard-toned H&H amp, as Decca, and possibly the rest of Polygram, did with the free gratis 801's they used....

We had the 107's at the time, but we "only" had Naim to drive them at the time. use of the active bass equaliser box would have driven NAP250's or 135's into clipping, let alone the extra distortion added by the LP12 vinyl source - ugh!!! I suspect 107's could fly given a powerful amp able to provide the headroom. Also, the interconnects KEF (and Quad) supplied were horrid - so bland and lifeless. replacement with a humble Chord Cobra or Linn "black" cable improved things no end, even with the Linn and Naim amps we then used mostly (the "Absolute Sounds" revolution was still a year or two away at this point).

Varun
25-08-2009, 19:11
I have just looked up the SACD catalogue on Acoustic Sounds web site. Almost 700 entries- 560 odd for Hybrid; 100 odd for Single layer Stereo.

Disappointing from the classical side as most of the items are the same that have already appeared on 180gm issues-but there are not that many. Another thing on the SACD catalogue was works by lesser known conductors. Rafael Kublick's Mahler is very old- I very nearly bought the whole boxed set in Melbourne 10 years ago. The man was asking $300 Australian.

I have "For Review only-NOT for SALE LPs". These are recorded on only one side. Notably amongst the ones I have are Beethoven's 9 symphonies by Klemperer (EMI) and Wagner Walkure by Solti on Decca. I have since managed to collect the rest of the RING cycle. One of them is thinner vinyl than others.

While that EMI set will not be available on CD- I could see if I can get a cheap secondhand Solti set on CD. So far it still remains THE defintive recording of the Wagner RING CYCLE.

But then I do not have a CD player-bring in SACD and that makes the choice and expense more of a problem!!

Alex_UK
25-08-2009, 19:49
But then I do not have a CD player-bring in SACD and that makes the choice and expense more of a problem!!

And as far as I can work out, The Beresford DAC doesn't do SACD - well not mine, at any rate - (sure Stan can explain why, sampling frequency or something I suspect) so that would be another point to bear in mind, Varun.

Macca
25-08-2009, 20:00
SACD is a different coding system - DVD-A is different again - you can get a reasonably priced Oppo player that will do it all - you can output the higher resolution formats through the internal DACS as analogue into the amp or connect via HDMI lead into a an external DAC that has better quality 24/192 and SACD convertors - I have heard the second option and it does give great quality - I have not heard the Oppo doing it all (i.e analogue connection) but at around £200 plus change for the Oppo player alone not too much of a punt.

Martin

Alex_UK
25-08-2009, 20:12
Cheers for that Martin, very helpful.

Varun
25-08-2009, 20:24
Hi Martin,

Would you be most kind enough to spell out what the system you suggest would consist of- I am a total ignoramus in these issues- now that people are talking of mp3 and streaming and all that. What is Oppo for instance?

Would be grateful,

Cheers

Macca
25-08-2009, 20:30
Thanks Alex - I try, mate, I try.

Seriously, though - this was a combination (24/192 DVD-A via HDMI into Onkyo digital receiver then 3 way B&W (6*** something series - a newish model anyroad) and twin 12'' veolodyne active, motion-controlled subs - I played Steely Dan's 'Gaucho' - the opening bass line on 'Babylon Sisters' - just fantastic! - it even reproduced that slight reverb and decay you get from a tightly, quickly plucked bass string that I have only heard before in a practice room through a bass amp or through a very good PA.

I think the Onkyo amp was about a grand but it does have 7 channels of amplification and a lot of other Home Theatre nonsense on it - I'd be intersted to know if a simpler, cheaper pre-amp that does the same decoding exists - I'm sure it must - maybe someone can enlighten me?

Mart

Macca
25-08-2009, 20:45
Hi Martin,

Would you be most kind enough to spell out what the system you suggest would consist of- I am a total ignoramus in these issues- now that people are talking of mp3 and streaming and all that. What is Oppo for instance?

Would be grateful,

Cheers

Oppo are a Swedish company that make an all-round player (i.e SACD, DVD-A and CD) that has HDMI output i.e you can output these formats as a digital signal and decode them at full resolution further down the chain (in the amp or ideally, I suppose in an active 'speaker).

Originally with these formats you could only output an analogue signal from the SACD or DVD-A because the music industry were concerned about people making perfect digital copies (as I understand it - if I am wrong no doubt someone will pick me up).

HDMI is a form of connection used for convenience in Home cinema as you can transmit the picture and sound of a film, digitally and at high resolution, down through the same cable.

I only came across this due to a pal of mine splurging on a (14K!) home cinema rig (full THX the lot) and buying the Oppo player as a cheapish, all in one source to replace his old Pioneer do-it-all player that had packed in. That did not have HDMI so all the high res music it was playing it decoded on board and output through analogue cable. It was not that impressive.

Oppo are launching (they may have done already) a new model that does all this plus Blu-Ray as well - and you can now buy some music discs on Blu ray (again this is a high res digital format) some with picture also, some without. Not tried any of these though.

MP3 I would forget about |(I'll probably get picked up on that, too:)).

Martin

Varun
26-08-2009, 06:44
Thanks Martin and Alex;

I wonder when these constantly shifting of formats will stop. From CD to gold CD-to SACD and xrCD then DVD-A and now Blue-ray!

The OPPO looks promising Martin-so I must ask if it does justice to the sound and can play CDs?

Macca
26-08-2009, 20:13
I've only heard the Oppo as a transport with decoding done in the amp - not as a stand alone player. To use it as a transport you will need a pre-amp with HDMI input or an integrated AV amp with same, both will need to have inbuilt digital filters able to decode maximum resolution (for the hi res formats - apparantly some do not decode to full 24/192). If you do not want to abandon your current pre-amp you will have to use the Oppo's internal DACS and connect with standard co-ax to a line input on your pre. I do not know how this will compare and I do not know if you can audition one at home - which IMHO is the only worthwhile demo. If you google Oppo you will get some more info.

Martin

Varun
27-08-2009, 05:50
Thanks Martin,

That truly means we are back to the conventional arrangements. I shall go back to see what Marco was saying about his system-with Mana stacks!

Varun
28-08-2009, 06:28
Well Martin,

I have a CD "Transport" now, I have had other mobile little things like the Bose unit which I gave to my wife but this is my first CD device of any kind to plug into the main KIT. It is a TEAC PD-H300 mkIII. Small little unit with basic facilities- which is what I wanted, also has digital output. First listening- not bad on Eagles Greatest Hits CD- but a short run of Tchaikovsky Manfred Symphony (LPO-Jurowsky-LPO recording)-hmmm- flat.

It is a discontinued model- so was reduced- or is going for around £100- the dealer said as for basic transport it should be OK-good reliable unit. The next will be the question of DAC. This dealer has Cyrus at £1200- I said I was not going to spend that much on a DAC. Rather I would save that money towards my cartridge budget.

Horses for courses!

Stratmangler
29-08-2009, 09:42
Hi Varun

I see that the Teac has Toslink only for connection to an offboard DAC.

My advice for a DAC would be to contact Stan and get one of his http://www.homehifi.co.uk . I've been using a Beresford TC7510 for nearly 2 years now, and I am very satisfied with the sound - I will add that I've had the top off and implemented a few modifications that Stan has suggested along the way.

I'd suggest a TC7520 or a Caiman (TC7520 SE).

Stan can also supply a Toslink cable.

Chris:)

Varun
29-08-2009, 10:12
Hi Chris,

I am truly grateful for your helpul advice. Yes indeed I shall be considering Caiman very seriously. The TEAC unit is quite good for what it does, I felt and for the purpose I am going to use it- I think Caiman will be the ideal solution.

I have not contacted Stan yet as I see there is a backlog. I was faced with the choice of an outgoing Denon with out Digital output and the entry level Denon for £200. In the end the dealer salesman a Vinyl man felt that the TEAC will probably do as good a job if used as a transport only.

Thanks again

Varun

Macca
29-08-2009, 10:22
Well Martin,

I have a CD "Transport" now, I have had other mobile little things like the Bose unit which I gave to my wife but this is my first CD device of any kind to plug into the main KIT. It is a TEAC PD-H300 mkIII. Small little unit with basic facilities- which is what I wanted, also has digital output. First listening- not bad on Eagles Greatest Hits CD- but a short run of Tchaikovsky Manfred Symphony (LPO-Jurowsky-LPO recording)-hmmm- flat.

It is a discontinued model- so was reduced- or is going for around £100- the dealer said as for basic transport it should be OK-good reliable unit. The next will be the question of DAC. This dealer has Cyrus at £1200- I said I was not going to spend that much on a DAC. Rather I would save that money towards my cartridge budget.

Horses for courses!

Hi

Sounds like a good starting point - and again the Beresford is recommended by a satisfied owner! It is either a conspiracy or they must be very good indeed - I am tempted to try one for myself!

The original thread was about digital evolution which is why I got into discussing the various hi-res digital replay options I have heard and been inpressed by - but it all involves expense and 'leaps in the dark' to an extent and I understand that potentially compromising a good set-up with a digital pre is not the way you wish to go.

I am intrigued now as to what classical sounds like through my player - I have a few recordings on vinyl but nothing on CD except a Naim sampler - I will dig this out and see how flat it sounds - my speaker/amp combo is pretty good dynamically so will be interesting.

Martin

Varun
29-08-2009, 10:40
Thanks Martin,

No I would not risk any more changes- the sound that I have had for the last 10 years is about right. The only new addition since moving back was the VPI- which just blended in. I had had to change the speaker leads- because after moving here- I realized I need a longer run- in a smaller room. So that is the only change that will happen and a CD playing system- but as a subsidiary. I have no intention of enlarging my CD collection.

I do buy opera CDs for historical interest- mainly those recorded a long time ago to hear the performers more than anything else and more often then not pass them on to my daughter.

Varun
29-08-2009, 17:53
As promised I shall return to this thread from time to time with my experiments.

This one 1st movement of Tchaikovsky Manfred Symphony-: rarely performed as it needs an organ and a large orchestra and very demanding on the players.

1. CD: Jurowsky: London Phil Orch. LPO recording-2004.
2. LP-Digital-Chandos. Maris Jansons, Oslo Phil-1986.
3. LP-Yevgeny Svetlanov-USSR Symph Orch-EMI-Melodiya, 1967.

First the CD-not a good performace from this young and rapidly rising Russian. Lacks the sparkle and the intensity the work demands. Also the Piccolo is far too prominent- you barely hear it- just amongst the din of the Orchestra. But the CD was played on a £200 CD player- so that might account for a fair bit.

2. Chandos Recording is also available on SACD. Fairly good but as compared to Svetlanov- lacks the full scale of the large Orchestral sound and the details which Tchaikosvky paints in his orchestral works is lacking mainly because the sound is relatively thinner.

Apart from the full scale presence of the orchestral sound- Svetlanov is brilliant as one would expect and my word the depth of the bass on the drum roll at the finish - magnifique. The sheer delight and pleasure such listening experiences provide- can never be Nirvana- as you achieve it only once that is if you ever do. Even if you do- no one including yourself will ever know that it did happen.

Varun
31-08-2009, 10:24
This is turning into a Soliloquy,

Now Neil (Dalek Supremo's) excellent and very organized review of his CD playing system reminded of his comments about the 1990s Player he auditioned. Two or single dimensional sound which was only opened by the newer two box CD players. By the way Neil also writes that Analogue is superior.

The two- dimensional- clinical sound which so characterized the 80s and 90s players had to be modified. REASON: I maintain- to bring it up to the sound provided by analogue. I return to my comments about an article which once appeaed written by a recording engineer who was using a rare Panasonic CD player which had both 48khx and 96Khz recording facilities. He wrote that comparing the two he realized why the 48Khz never sounded like analogue.

The proof of the pudding will come from the new Techie listeners-bcause if it fails to match the CD players of the modern day- WHY ON EARTH BOTHER- can some one explain to me please!!

StanleyB
31-08-2009, 10:54
The two- dimensional- clinical sound which so characterized the 80s and 90s players had to be modified. REASON: I maintain- to bring it up to the sound provided by analogue.
Your comment demonstrate a total absence of factual information, so let me be the one to bring you up to speed.

1. Recording engineers who had been trained and brought up with analogue, were blissfully unaware that the wider digital medium dynamic range would sound compressed and 2D when crammed back into the 70 odd dB analogue standard, instead of using the whole 90 odd dB digital medium dynamic range. So the end results were not as expected.

2. Just about every recording studio was still based on analogue recording equipment. The final Analogue to Digital conversion was done by less than adequate gear. The technology just wasn't there cheap enough yet for all studios to use. Surprisingly, the first 'proper' A to D converter for audio use was a Sony BETAMAX video recorder as used in many homes at the time.

Now, go and borrow or buy a CDP from the 80's like the Philips CD960 or Marantz CD94. Or get a Pioneer CDP91/83/95 from the 90's. Put a CD in it that has been produced in the last 15 years or so and then tell me that the sound is two dimensional and clinical.

Coming to think of it: get the CDP101 from Sony ( the 2nd CD player they made. circa 1983) or a Philips CD303 ( one of their first players from 1983 as well) and listen to modern produced CD material. I bet you that you coudln't tell much, if any, difference between those ancient machines and a modern one.

DSJR
31-08-2009, 11:59
The CDP101 was a well tempered player, just lacking that little bit of spacial depth compared to the better machines from the late eighties..

Varun, I own and still use a machine very heavily based on the CD94, only using transformer coupled outputs to the amp (to minimise rf rubbish coming down the original outputs [the phono sockets are still there and using ferrites on the phono leads narrows the gap quite noticeably]). All I've done to the thing is fit a now out-moded Trichord "Clock 2" to it and stand it on a Sicomin platform (both had a similar effect for some reason - the player is VERY heavy)...

The tragedy today is that the beautifully engineered late eighties players aren't made now - the main criticism of the Cambridge 840C being the casework rather than the electronics inside.....

Varun
31-08-2009, 12:00
Well, that comes from an expert.

I after wanting to ditch analogue and convert to CD medium through to the Mid 90s gave up the moment the Re-issues started appearing. In other words it sealed my decision and have not looked back since. Besides one can pick up great recordings for a quid or two now.

I am afraid I can only say what I read. Please tell me if I am wrong? Is this upsampling to 192Hz a new thing- I am also confused here as some say 'upsampling' is rubbish and yet most of what I come across has that added on in specs including the small CD player I have which upsamples to 96 or whatever.

I know nothing about the intricacies of technology but the issue if I remember correctly raised by the engineer was- things like space-ambience and so forth. Remember this article appeared over 10 years ago.

Varun
31-08-2009, 12:21
Thanks Dave,

Your post must have crossed mine. I have a weakness for the build quality of old things- and so appreciate what you are saying. That is why I understand you are planning to switch to a computer based system-I mean once your old player has its Nirvana (I mean is extinguished)?

StanleyB
31-08-2009, 12:27
The space and ambiance issue is one of design and implementation. My Caiman DAC makes good use of that. Engineers who blame that on the medium are not worth their degree.

I already covered the issue of upsampling. As I mentioned then: it's like a padded bra or a breast enlargement. It looks impressive, but it isn't the real deal. It can be soft and lifeless. Upsampling relies on the addition of extra 0's and 1's to a digital word length, in order to increase its size to match a predefined boundary. That boundary can be 192KHz.

Hard limiting the incoming digital audio data to a fixed frequency is OK for audio that is based around only one incoming frequency. But it starts to reap havoc to audio signals that are varied in nature. It's like forcing tall people and short people into a room with a low fixed ceiling. The tall folks are going to have to bend their knees on in order to fit in.

Digital audio needs breathing space. A 16 bit/44.1KHz signal has less requirements than a 24bit/96KHz signal. The latter contains more data, and the former has less. So imagine you had the same analogue signal and you converted to into two signals. One becomes 16BIT/44.1kHz and the other becomes 24BIT/96KHz. Now, when you play both signals back through an upsampling DAC circuit, which of the two do you think will sound more like the original, or do you think both will sound the same?

Stan

DSJR
31-08-2009, 17:49
I cannot answer the above, but I've sometimes felt that a 128Mb/s MP3, sounded a little "easier" when converted to CD audio..

Any comparison with existing DVD's apparently looking much better when played on "up-scaling" players?

Varun
31-08-2009, 17:49
Thanks Stan,

It is the question of data an analogue signal requires for conversion into digital. Now talking as a layman- a POP/ROCK record with 4 musicians playing- I would say will require less dots/per sine wave than a large orchestra with say 100 instruments playing. I am still not clear in my mind if 16bit/44.1khz is enough for both-or to put it another way-ideal for all audio RECORDING or ACQUISITION.

Also another simple question- are you not in a way by increasing the existing 16bit/44.1khz into a 24bit/96 or 192-making it to sample more points on the sine wave. You have to forgive my ignorance here (total) in these matters. So would be grateful for enlightenment.

Varun
31-08-2009, 18:00
Of course Stan I had plenty of opportunity of listening to many CD players- some on loan from dealers, some in their well set up audition rooms with expensive gear. So what I say is not just something I have heard others say.

For instance the example I gave a while ago- of a 50-60k CD player +amplification failed to do justice to the CD used- always ends up being blamed on the recording. It was Linn's top CD player and their top amplification and the CD sounded "terrible". Not a great deal different from the £100 TEAC I am listening to now and quite like it-that too without a DAC. I listened to the entire disc-1 of Don Giovani Opera lying on the settee- I am taking ideas from Marco!!

Varun
05-09-2009, 08:24
Return to digital images Marco- to analogue. I do this because of the number of people on the forum show their photographs. The image is from Andreas Gursky who uses a 5x4" camera and then scans the negative. The final image-often several feet by several feet is created in Photoshop. One of his prints sold for $2.48 million.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6712/bahrainipresse264.jpg

Varun
16-09-2009, 17:35
Shane's post in which he praised his latest acquisition of a 70s Hasselblad and 50mm lens reminded my of this thread.

Shane might want to comment on the films he is going to use but I thought I will return to the question of Analogue. I now have a reasonable nucleus of records to put in some serious listening.

In one of my earlier posts I mentioned how I was shocked by the CD of Rimsky Korskov's Sheherazade lacking the dynamic range it has. The listening was done on the top Linn CD player and top Linn amp-costing about 60K. This weekend I found a 1950's mono on Vox label. Very thick vinyl could be shellac- sounds great but needs cleaning. So after a brief trial I played my 180gm re-issue of the same work on Mercury Living Presence label. The initial massive explosion of the brass and woodwind etc is followed by a solo violin accompanied by harp. The sound level suddenly drops to a low level. This is what NAT8088 was telling us that in CDs the bottom end (not LF) is pushed up and the higher louder end down-thus compressing the music.

I will in due course run my next experiment. I have Beethoven 9th on EMI (du Maurier) record which was recorded digitally and will compare it with a Decca.

twelvebears
17-09-2009, 06:59
I know this thread has gone down a detailed discussion of digital photography, but taking a more simplistic look at the thread title, there is something more general which strikes me.

In the field of photography, the onward drive is to increase quality and resolution. Seemingly to the point where quality digital cameras now exceed the capabilities of film.

On the other hand, the same hardly seems to be the case for music, where convenience not quality is king.

I guess my point is this; as I think about the future of these two fields, I have complete confidence that in 5 years time I will easily have access to photographic tools which better what we have now. With music, I'm far less certain about having easy access to new music in a format with as good a resolution as we do now.

Varun
17-09-2009, 17:32
Thanks Steve,

The idea of including photography was to offer a parallel development and what the future held. I was surprised at the interest shown on the photographic side of things.

We all heard in the 90s that Vinyl was dead. We also heard in mid 80s the B&W photography was dead-but still remains the preferred medium by many leading masters. Here the digital is dragging behind as my friend was telling me that somehow the digital B&W does not have the same feel as the film. The same friend is using digital more and more and that too only an old D70 and has 2 Hassies in collection.

I think you have put the gist of what the thread was meant to discuss very nicely and succinctly.

Macca
17-09-2009, 19:45
Steve

Appreciate that post because it has got the thread back on topic - what we are essentially discussing is the future of musical playback, surely a topic of interest to all who enjoy music?

Many of you have thousands of recordings on LP and CD and say 'well, regardless of what happens I have plenty of recordings on formats that I like and am used to, I am not a teenager and do not buy 'new' music, so I do not care if five to ten years down the line everything new is only available by 'downloads'.'

I think there are some very positive aspects to the way things are moving on the 'downloadable' music front - namely a levelling of the playing field (somewhat) for all artists. However it is not the way I would personally like to see things go unless a high quality stereo audio alternative was offered in addition - For me, ideally, an analogue format along the lines of laserdisc (a laser reading an indelible analogue signal). Would this not have the best of both worlds? And if so why is this an avenue which seems to be no longer pursued? - admittedly it would be a niche market - but considered globally, that niche market can be huge.

Like it or not there is a major change occuring in the sphere of recorded music that is continuing to happen in the immediate years to come - is it not worth trying to influence the outcome in a way that will benefit those of us who actually like to listen to music?

Martin

Alex_UK
17-09-2009, 20:02
One of the exciting things for Audio in my opinion is that in the next few years we will think of Terrabytes like we do Gigabytes now (not long ago, a Megabyte was, well, mega!) and bandwidth (once we get fibre everywhere) will keep increasing - this basically means lossy codecs can be banished, and everything can be lossless - now I wouldn't mind downloading CD Quality files quite as much as MP3s... Or, in my case, my 2,000 odd CD Albums can be re-imported in WAV format onto a multi-Terrabyte NAS at reasonable cost.

With photography, I can't see the point in keeping increasing the pixel rate now that *possibly* better resolution than film is possible - more convergence of devices is what I expect will happen - witness SLRs now being used as HD Camcorders - now that I didn't expect! Integration into the web? GPS? Automatically recording grid references and location information? Who knows - but I doubt resolution ever increasing will get people to trade in their current DSLR.

All just my (ill informed) opinion of course!

Macca
17-09-2009, 20:09
But will hi-rez dowloads be offered as an option? And if so it is still digital - it still has to go through a pointless process of being converted into noughts and ones and back again before we can hear it.

This is the 21st Century! Surely we can do better?

Martin

twelvebears
17-09-2009, 20:29
Steve

Appreciate that post because it has got the thread back on topic - what we are essentially discussing is the future of musical playback, surely a topic of interest to all who enjoy music?

Many of you have thousands of recordings on LP and CD and say 'well, regardless of what happens I have plenty of recordings on formats that I like and am used to, I am not a teenager and do not buy 'new' music, so I do not care if five to ten years down the line everything new is only available by 'downloads'.'

I think there are some very positive aspects to the way things are moving on the 'downloadable' music front - namely a levelling of the playing field (somewhat) for all artists. However it is not the way I would personally like to see things go unless a high quality stereo audio alternative was offered in addition - For me, ideally, an analogue format along the lines of laserdisc (a laser reading an indelible analogue signal). Would this not have the best of both worlds? And if so why is this an avenue which seems to be no longer pursued? - admittedly it would be a niche market - but considered globally, that niche market can be huge.

Like it or not there is a major change occuring in the sphere of recorded music that is continuing to happen in the immediate years to come - is it not worth trying to influence the outcome in a way that will benefit those of us who actually like to listen to music?

Martin

That's exactly my concern. Yes I do have a pretty big collection of 'old' recordings on LP and CD, but I'm also VERY interested in new artists. And although some new issues are available on record still as well as CD, with the ongoing march of the download, how long before the CD's days are also numbered for new issues?

Realistically, with today's technology and broadband speeds, there's no reason why lossless downloads couldn't be possible (apart from the arguments over open source FLAC or proprietary formats like ALAC), however they are nowhere to be seen outside unlicensed file-sharing sites.

Quality is VERY important to me, and while 320kpbs MP3 is OK to try new stuff out, for things I really like, I want the best possible.

The trouble is most people, especially don't know or seemingly care about the difference, and certainly wouldn't pay extra for it, so where does that leave audiophiles in the long run? Consigned to 'old' CDs?

Alex_UK
17-09-2009, 20:34
But will hi-rez dowloads be offered as an option? And if so it is still digital - it still has to go through a pointless process of being converted into noughts and ones and back again before we can hear it.

It might be "pointless" in some contexts, but for many people there's a lot of point in being able to carry several thousand tunes around in a box the size of a fag packet, or stream songs through the internet.

DSJR
17-09-2009, 20:37
A quick comment for Varun - I suspect that modern orchestras limit their own dynamic range, as they did in the seventies and eighties, so that less tinkering would be done in the miximg of the albums.

Those Mercury living presence recordings almost certainly used a combination of good mic technique, using the tape as the limiter, and simple mixing straight to two track. Some of these old valve microphones had a lift at very high frequencies, something that didn't work well once the mod-noise was removed from the equation ;)

Many of the live concerts I went to years ago sounded rather flat and sometimes tuneless compared with the recordings sometimes done of the same orchestra and conductor. Abbado's Mahler 6 was a notable exception I remember.

Don't use old Decca LP's for sound *quality* listening. They're ALL equalised to high heaven. the 1970 onwards re-cuts (and the CD's) were much truer to what was really there, but lack the sonic "character" and added "flavour" of the black label originals.

DSJR
17-09-2009, 20:42
It might be "pointless" in some contexts, but for many people there's a lot of point in being able to carry several thousand tunes around in a box the size of a fag packet, or stream songs through the internet.

In a few years, high speed downloads will be the norm, huge storage on the cheap should be as well and MP3 will be unnecessary IMO.

Alex, you could have least given your daughter a *proper* beer or lager can to play with. the poor mite will get terrible hangovers with that chemically addled stuff...:lolsign:

Macca
17-09-2009, 20:58
The trouble is most people, especially don't know or seemingly care about the difference, and certainly wouldn't pay extra for it, so where does that leave audiophiles in the long run? Consigned to 'old' CDs?

And when stocks of old CDs run dry or they are taken out and binned because they are selling so few that they are no longer worth the warehouse space?...

I would suggest:

1) The continuing survival and even resurgence (at a premium) of vinyl suggests there is a viable niche market composed of people who are discerning and will pay for (and go to the effort of seeking out) quality.

2)That considered worldwide that market is in the range of millions of pounds per annum.

3) That our experiences in the UK are not typical - our culture very much revolves around about cheapest/most fashionable brand and (in the vast majority) cares little for quality; whereas in other parts of the world quality is regarded as a superior criteria by a much higher percentage of the population.

4) That a non-contact high resolution analogue source (and recordings to play through it) is achievable with the current technology.

5) That there would be a viable market for such a source and for the recordings produced for it, old recordings being re-mastered from the analogue originals where possible.

Martin

DSJR
17-09-2009, 21:09
hey macca, what you suggest above regarding people accepting the minimum necessary appplies to LP's as well, as any of you who've heard a good Sheffield direct cut will attest to. most commercial LP's had all sorts of terrible things done to make sure that granny's old BSR autochanger "groovegrinder" would plough its way through them without jumping...

Macca
17-09-2009, 21:17
hey macca, what you suggest above regarding people accepting the minimum necessary appplies to LP's as well, as any of you who've heard a good Sheffield direct cut will attest to. most commercial LP's had all sorts of terrible things done to make sure that granny's old BSR autochanger "groovegrinder" would plough its way through them without jumping...

Yes they do - and we both know that the case against vinyl LP/SP as a method of reproducing music has been well stated many times and has many good arguments. What I am suggesting is a new medium - analogue, non-contact with none of the drawbacks of vinyl replay and a flat frequency response from 4Hz to 22KHz. All the advantages of vinyl - none of the drawbacks. Would such a device not interest you?

Martin

Varun
18-09-2009, 06:13
The Future Martin will depend on who is successful in forcing their own way. We are talking of computing leading the way- just think of how Bill Gates has wiped all competetion-destroyed it- in order to let his very poor software MS DOS rule the world. What we have is far inferior to -what it might have been.

The most advanced computer in the world in the late 80s was made here in UK -a company which started by making the BBC basic.. a lot of their ideas were stolen by Bill G.. and even now those machines outperform PCs.

As far I am concerned I always watch what is happening. Downloads and Hi-Fi do not equate in my mind. Boy's toys and nothing more.

Varun
18-09-2009, 06:23
A quick comment for Varun - I suspect that modern orchestras limit their own dynamic range, as they did in the seventies and eighties, so that less tinkering would be done in the miximg of the albums.

..........old Decca LP's for sound *quality* listening. They're ALL equalised to high heaven. the 1970 onwards re-cuts (and the CD's) were much truer to what was really there, but lack the sonic "character" and added "flavour" of the black label originals.

Hi Dave,

I take what you say very seriously. No doubt that live sound had to be subjected to all the travails of conversion- and the limitations of the equipement. I have to look at how many black labels I have.. I do not always take note of what I am listeining to.

My observations relate to more to the thickness of the vinyl and the depth of grooves to anything else. From 80s onwards- records started becoming thinner and the sound-compressed started to sound like the CDs. Leaving the Eq factors aside- I look at the reason all those people who went for re-issues-returned to the older recordings rather than the post 1970 ones.
Must have been a reason?

What I have been trying to say is that financial reasons were the driving force-in other words Profit for not only the LPs becoming thinner but also CD being launched before the medium was 'ripe'. As Stan has said earlier-many commercial recordings were made using the domestic Betamax Sony boxes.

twelvebears
18-09-2009, 06:53
In a few years, high speed downloads will be the norm, huge storage on the cheap should be as well and MP3 will be unnecessary IMO.

Unfortunately what is necessary and what is commercially advantagious are seldom the same thing.

Alex is right, there IS huge value to many people in being able to have their whole collection on their iPod. And while the next leap in storage capacity to something like 'racetrack' technology COULD allow the use of a high resolution format, why would companies bother for music?

The fact is that most people simply do notice or care, and even those are quite fussy are quite happy with something like 320kpbs MP3.

It seems more likely to me that the increased storeage density will be used for HD video or to pack large storage into multi function devices (i.e. phones with the storage of current iPod Classics), than to handle hi-res music.

The ONLY site offered a full range of quality options was the dubious ALLOFMP3.COM where you selected your choice of format (WAV, MP3 ALAC, VOG ORBIS etc) and then your bit-rate. The amount you paid was directly proportional to the size of the file you dowmloaded.

The fact that such a site existed and worked fantastically well some time ago, proves that it COULD be being done now. That there are no providors of any real note offering anything better that 320kpbs speaks volumes for the chances of hi-res music.

I have to say that I'm not particularly hopeful. :(

Alex_UK
18-09-2009, 08:56
I have to say that I'm not particularly hopeful. :(

I am - the beauty of the digital age is that it would be relatively easy/simple for this to be extended on existing download sites, or relatively cheap (compared to a record factory!) to set up from scratch an audiophile quality download site - hell, if there's that much demand and no one's doing it, I'll do it myself! ;)

What about the sites for the likes of Naim Label http://www.naimlabel.com/ - and Linn Records http://www.linnrecords.com/ (I think there are others, but I've never looked into them, just noticed the above 2 when checking out these two companies for the contentious "what's the problem with..." thread)

If you follow a link to a Linn recording (this one for example http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-a-modern-art-claire-martin.aspx) you can see the various different options available - not suggesting that you would have all these options on Amazon for instance but interesting to see what they are doing. Linn will even sell you a 2 Terrabyte NAS box preloaded with your choice of music - at a price though, I'm sure!

(Please don't turn this into a Linn/Naim slagfest, I'm just using these examples as I came across them! ;))

So yes, I am quite optimistic.

twelvebears
18-09-2009, 09:43
I am - the beauty of the digital age is that it would be relatively easy/simple for this to be extended on existing download sites, or relatively cheap (compared to a record factory!) to set up from scratch an audiophile quality download site - hell, if there's that much demand and no one's doing it, I'll do it myself! ;)

What about the sites for the likes of Naim Label http://www.naimlabel.com/ - and Linn Records http://www.linnrecords.com/ (I think there are others, but I've never looked into them, just noticed the above 2 when checking out these two companies for the contentious "what's the problem with..." thread)

If you follow a link to a Linn recording (this one for example http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-a-modern-art-claire-martin.aspx) you can see the various different options available - not suggesting that you would have all these options on Amazon for instance but interesting to see what they are doing. Linn will even sell you a 2 Terrabyte NAS box preloaded with your choice of music - at a price though, I'm sure!

(Please don't turn this into a Linn/Naim slagfest, I'm just using these examples as I came across them! ;))

So yes, I am quite optimistic.

It may be that for the moment, the CD provideds the 'hi-res' option at the moment and that the tipping point for offering the equivilent online hasn't been reached yet. In which case, that day may come and as CD's vanish, lossless downloads replace them, in which case cool. I'm just not sure that will happen, and with all due respect, Linn and Naim aren't exactly the big name, mainstream providors I'm talking about.....

Perhaps I'm just being pessimistic, but if the poor quality of Apple's HD iTunes movie downloads is anything to go by, perhaps not.

Time will tell. Until then, I'll be buying as much as I can. ;)

Barry
18-09-2009, 15:47
A quick comment for Varun - I suspect that modern orchestras limit their own dynamic range, as they did in the seventies and eighties, so that less tinkering would be done in the miximg of the albums.

Those Mercury living presence recordings almost certainly used a combination of good mic technique, using the tape as the limiter, and simple mixing straight to two track. Some of these old valve microphones had a lift at very high frequencies, something that didn't work well once the mod-noise was removed from the equation ;)

Many of the live concerts I went to years ago sounded rather flat and sometimes tuneless compared with the recordings sometimes done of the same orchestra and conductor. Abbado's Mahler 6 was a notable exception I remember.

Don't use old Decca LP's for sound *quality* listening. They're ALL equalised to high heaven. the 1970 onwards re-cuts (and the CD's) were much truer to what was really there, but lack the sonic "character" and added "flavour" of the black label originals.

So the Decca SXL recordings that 'audiofools' go ape-shit over and for which Oxfam charge a premium price are over-rated? Thought as much, but you try telling collectors this.

I have to say Dave, that I find your revelations of the 'tweaking' that went on (and maybe still goes on) in the record cutting industry fascinating, as it reinforces my own impressions and suspicions. Unfortuately I could never express them with any authority, as I do not know anyone who worked in the business.

Regards

DSJR
18-09-2009, 16:49
My mate told me all sorts, confirmed by his boss, who's now deceased sadly. Decca used slightly different frequency bands for aligning their tapes too and any third party doing re-cuts or mastering to digital from these tapes will get slightly different eq even if the tape machine is set "flat." the "Audio Archiving Company" is staffed by ex-Decca engineers and using well maintained ex-Decca gear I suspect and working from part of the old Decca premises too.....

Those old SXL's were cut using half-speed cutting because they couldn't get the best performance from their lathes otherwise. When they got their new Neumann lathes in 1970 or thereabouts, they could cut in real-time and set the eq nearer to "flat." because it sounded "different" to the SXL sound, all the "purists" dismissed the new better cuts.

And some of you wonder why subjectively based "HiFi" is sneered at by professional engineers who balance quality of sound with decent technical practice?

Varun
18-09-2009, 18:33
Hi Dave (DSJR),

We are at considerable distance from each other on this issue- we are talking very different things-not on the same wavelength.

Firstly- I do not honestly know how many black label Deccas I have- the majority I would say are the 180 gm re-issues, then there are quite a few Mercury re-issues as well as DG. My own pre-reissue collection is evern more diverse with EMI, CBS, Columbia, DG and Phillips with Blue Note and Verve also adding to my classical and Jazz collection. In essence the Decca contribution will be small. I also have some Japanase Super Analogue recordings

Essentially - I listen to music and neither Hi-Fi components nor recording techniques. As for what is flat and what is not- it is not too difficult to work out. Familiarity with music is essential and some live listening experience crucial.

It is not possible to convey what I am saying without providing examples. I was listening to Miles Davis "Sketches of Spain" last night. Columbia 180 gm re-issue. For the amp to warm up I played the CD of the same music first.

The first track- (de Aranguez) starts with castanets-crackes- which I could barely hear when I had the Well Tempered and 509s. Then comes in Miles and other players (arranged by Gil Evans). When I say it should be easy to work out- one has to think how loud the castanets should sound and then compare that with a man standing next with his trumpet- the difference in sound pressure levels would be huge and that is what happens on the LP. But not so on the CD- on which the castanejlos were quite loud. I should not be comparing this cheap CD player though.

The fact of the matter is that such differences in sound pressure dynamics will be beyond the capacity of any recording medium and some adjustments and compromises have to be made.

The whole issue is of what came out of those compromises. If which ever record I have does justice to the music- not sound- that matters to me. Will come back on this issue later.

By the way I do not have to compare the Digital Du Maurrier Beethovens' 9th with Decca at all. I have several other recordings- including the EMI test records recorded on one side only. I usually have several versions and recordings of the same work.

Varun
19-09-2009, 10:58
Hello Dave (DSJR);

I have done some research this morning- (I should be doing other things and writing my other research). I understand that Decca had developed their own in house digital hardware and codec in the 70s- and so did not follow the usual CD recording thing like Sony's so were ahead of their time.

For music buyers- CD/tapes/mp3 or whatever- the price of vinyl- if one looks around is a major bonus. You will be interested to see these images I have posted below. I have reduced the size in photoshop so hope the details will show.

These relate to Wagner's ring cycle conducted by Solti. Even to day is considered the defintive performance. I am not a Wagner fan though.
I first obtained the Walkure (2nd of the 4 operas) set from Thomas Heinitz
who was getting rid of his old vinyl collection. I then bought the 1st of the 4-Rheingold here- as you will see for £4. I was delighted as the same record was being advertised at up to £60 by Vinyl specialists.

The third and fourth- and this is what will please you- are digitally remastered-they are thin records.

I have heard only the 1st one through. It is a time consuming undertaking- and I am yet to get round to doing all that.

1: Rheingold- recorded in 1959:£4.0
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9341/ring1c.jpghttp://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7193/ring1n.jpg


2: Walkure - recorded in 60s- note the stamp on the record-£10:00
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5462/ring3a.jpghttp://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1917/ring4a.jpg


3: Siegfried-record 1964-Digitally remastered 1985.£5.0
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7661/ring5m.jpg4: Gottedammerung: recorded 1966-digitally remastered-1986:£5.
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2057/ring6g.jpg

DSJR
19-09-2009, 15:45
I wonder if my mate Chris did these? he is a major Wagner fan and loved these as I recall.
I'll email him and ask. if he DID do the digital mastering in '85, I can guarantee that what you hear on CD is as near to the master as he could get - i.e. identical and as the producer passed it.....

Varun
19-09-2009, 18:44
Would be fascinating to know and also if Decca were using there own IN HOUSE built digital system. If so that puts a very different emphasis-importance on Decca as opposed to the run of the mill - digital recordings.

Varun
23-09-2009, 12:22
Hello Dave (DSJR)

I return to this thread rather than thread jump by inserting this into the "valves Vs SS" debate.

I looked at the Speakers Corner catalogue last night (I receive thier newsletter regularly) and noted that I have quite a sizeable collection of their label- mostly Decca and mostly from the 60s.

So I wrote to Kai Seeman of Spealers Corner and include what he has to say. He also says that most of the equipemnt has now been sold so they have stopped releasing DECCA reissues as they can not guarantee quality.

"…DECCA in the 60s is partially correct. They were recorded in a non-standardized manner indeed, but this was a subject of a specially modified tape recorder, not the cutting lathe. As we started with our DECCA titles in the early 90s, we visited their recording studio in Belsize Road, London. The cutting lathe was a 'stock' Neumann VMS 80, but the tape recorder was a considerably different unit than standard machines.
Without exception the lacquers for our releases were cut from the master tapes at these very studios by DECCA-engineers (Tony Hawkins mainly) on the dedicated equiment".

It would be interesting to compare the Speakers Corner releases with the old pressings.

Varun
25-09-2009, 06:39
Hello Dave,

I think I have enough material now to close this talk on the 60s DECCA recording. Firstly I have been told that those recordings had a huge dynamic range which could not be accommodated on the less rigid cutting lathes of the time. So the cutting enginners had to make compromises- it hardly deserves the comments aimed at the recordings made earlier (not by you). The question is-did they manage to make the best of a bad job. Also I do not believe that this problem was confined to DECCA.

The issue is of performances- many of which are still considered unsurpassed and legendary. Lastly Dave- CD has no chance of standing up to these recordings. I would love to compare Wagner Walkure CD released in 1997 of the same album as the image I provided earlier. Unfortunately it costs £40. Kai Seemen was also telling me that the tapes (as you have said) have been deteriorating- so how the '97 CD will stand out remains to be seen.

I may come back if and when I lay my hand on it.

DSJR
25-09-2009, 07:21
Hello Dave,

Lastly Dave- CD has no chance of standing up to these recordings.
.

Sorry varun, you're quite wrong with the above comment. certainly with Decca, the CD's are all but indistinguishabke from the analogue masters. Sorry to break the audiophool bubble, but I've done it and it's true, hence my support of the Red Book standard, which is MORE than able to reproduce venue and recording differences -

Those audiophool ideas based on opinion and not fact are what has ruined "our" industry (hence my bad vibes towards the likes of Malcolm Steward, who wishes to locate copies of his blinkered and factually wrong "reviews" from the 1980's dark period in UK audio) and although industry professionals have their own blinkered and narrow minded views too, to so casually dismiss CD and transistor amps in favour of 1920's valve technology and a deeply flawed, if "musically enjoyable" LP source is plain daft IMO...:)

let's just get off our high horses and enjoy the product - CD and LP, valves AND transistors - for the product it is and go and enjoy live music too...

DSJR
25-09-2009, 11:53
Re Decca's Tony Hawkins - Unless I'm very much mistaken, HE was my mate's boss, with whom I had a very enlightening conversation in the early nineties when Chris got married. It was he who explained ablout the half-speed mastering and the compromises they worked with back then. By the nineties, he was almost exclusively in charge of the re-mastering team, of which Chris was a member, re-mastering mainly late fifties/early sixties recordings by this time. Any cheap-label Decca "classical" CD's you come across were almost certainly mastered by Chris and transferred "flat" with no compression or eq over what was originally there - very good some of these are too ON A DECENT CD PLAYER!!!


If we are far apart in this varun, it's more to do with fidelity to the original master recording, rather than fidelity to personal expectations of what it "ought" to sound like. Just a few of us have personal experience of the former (some a lot more than others like me)) and sadly, these people have been hounded off audio forums because their findings and personal experiences are way different to a fanbois audio hobbyist, as so few of the latter don't actually go out there and make their own live recordings, playing them back at home and tuning their systems to re-create as near as possible what they got at the "session," as once happened in the "good old days." I'm thinking the likes of Tim Farney and Ashley James, the latter, IMO, being no more defensive of his little monitors than Dave Cawley has recently been of his (excellent) work on the Technics 1200..... of course, the senior members here own the Technics, so there's no anti-feelings there (nor from me, as I know and love these decks' ancestors very much).

Varun
25-09-2009, 13:17
Hi Dave,

Well I take note of what you are saying. My opinions on CD are the result of my experience and I use it as a general comment. As for Decca CDs Vs analogue you have started me on to a quest or search. This because I believe every thing you have said.

I might buy the Walkure CD. The small point I was making was that I do not listen to just Decca- but whole raft of other companies. Huge number of LPs from DG as well as quite a few from Philips.

If the 60s pressing due to poor quality lathes were below standard then the Speakers Corner pressings should show them up. That was the point I was making. The big question was - did they release CDs in the 70s. Do you know?

Varun
25-09-2009, 13:19
I am afraid I have never heard of Malcolm Seward or who ever- and never read record reviews- never have done. Besides the 60s review -again well before my time.

DSJR
25-09-2009, 17:43
Put it this way - you don't need to know who MS is, except to say he nailed his colours and fags to the Naim mast decades ago, wrote articles and "reviews" in an apparently Naim sponsored monthly rag amongst others and now, on his website, wants copies of this mostly woefully inadequate and innacurate stuff as he doesn't have any of his own to place there... I believe a "fishie" has scanned it all and has it on a disc, so we needn't be bothered any more... That old rag makes me sick every time I read my few remaining copies anyway.

Varun
26-09-2009, 07:35
Staying with the Decca theme. Kai Seemen told me that the 60s recordings managed to squeeze in 60% of the 100% info of the huge dynamic range on the tape-on to the vinyl. For Speakers Corner Tony Hawkins would have been successful in achieving 95% retrieval of the remaining 80% as the tapes had deteriorated. What this means is that the digital recordings can not be compared with the original LPs. The LPs of Wagner ring cycle I have (digitally re-mastered) are thin so again can not be compared.

I shall come back on the CDs if I get some cheaply.

For the forum members- one track which can be used for testing the Dynamic range capabilites of the system is Rossini's overtures and especially- The William Tell overture. I was listening to the same work for the first time (after years) on my VPI based system (Karajan -DG). The loud brass and wood wind fanfare was very well handled by the system as were the very quiet sections. Until now I had considered the LP poor in quality and lacking in dynamic range. So the ability for an LP playing system to retrieve information is also important-as far as comparisons go.

DSJR
26-09-2009, 08:37
Who says the tapes would have deteriorated. Apologies, but this is another piece of audiophool bull unless we have PERSONAL access to the tapes concerned! I can't speak for EMI or CBS/Sony, but Decca looked after their tapes very well indeed and almost always kept safety masters from a different make "just in case."

I saw tapes from the fifties (one back to the spool, the other face left open) in perfect condition and probably only played once or twice. There were many like this. Chris told me of the 1990's two disc Tom Jones compilation that he and Tony did. Some of the tapes were almost falling apart and shedding badly. The sound quality was still excellent though. I was once given a cassette (no Dolby) of a Jimmy Young EP from the mid-fifties. The tapes usually resided in the "Vault," a secure facility containing shellacks of early 20th century recordings and very old tapes. All I can say is that this cassette, recorded on a then mid-grade machine from the original tapes, sounded clearly better than the EP, played on "anything" - even the Microscanner cartridge couldn't fully close the gap on this one...


I have to tell this as an aside for those that may be interested - Chris had to master a recording of Peer Gynt. this particular tape had it's start within a "nats" of the music signal and there was an annoying "pop" as the track started. Chris used editing as much as possible to remove this "pop" but also ended up starting the track down in level, gradually bring it up over the first few seconds (kosher to do with this particular section - Hall of the Mountain King).

Another was a remastering of Holst Planets. the score calls for the ending of Neptune (?) to fade away into nothing. The recording does its best, but the voices stop and the tape finishes shortly after. Chris did an "assisted" fade, so that the voices gradually faded into silence, keeping to the score's intention and meaning that the "effects" of the tape hiss were inaudible.

Finally, he was called to prepare a symphonic recording for release. Trouble is, there didn't appear to be a "safety" master available and the existing master had been partly erased somehow, causing a drastic loss in level.. Fortunately, the signal to noise ratio on these old tapes was sufficient to allow a digital dub to be made with levels adjusted and with little noticeable hiss in the way (I don't think Decca used the terrible "No-Noise" software, which, if used inappropriately, takes the music and reverb away along with the hiss.....).


Sorry Varun (and any others who feel original LP pressings are superior to carefully remastered CD's), I would ALWAYS take a properly remastered CD's over LP's any time, as the CD if done right gets closer to the heart of the recording and performance in most cases.

Having read the paragraph above, I should say that many "classical" LP cuts from Decca and I suspect EMI as well, were taken from the 2nd generation tape (mixed from the first generation multi-track tape). So many pop and rock recordings are made from tapes several generations down the line and the red-book CD format will ruthlessly expose this (perhaps this is one area where higher-res transfers can be less "fussy" - MP3 vs CD resolution effects again).


P.S. After the sermon above, I think I'm talking in circles again. CD is usually GOOD to EXCELLENT. Vinyl can be DREADFUL to EXCELLENT and if you find CD unacceptable, change your speakers for something better balanced..... I can assure you Varun that the FULL dynamic range available on these Decca masters was used WITH NO COMPRESSION!!!!!!!!! What you hear is as near as damnit what was there on the original analogue tapes. I can't speak for the later digital recordings, which had various things done ot them (coupled with many "edits" from different takes making up the whole).

P.P.S. Cutting records really is an expert art in itself. There was an EMI Vivaldi LP shown me which Chris was in awe of for the expert quality of the cut. When he tried to cut the same piece (different recording obviously) on the Decca label, he gave up after his fourth attempt and had to resort to computer aided cutting. I'm not sure he ever tried to cut lacquers after this, preferring to stick with what he knew ;)

Varun
26-09-2009, 08:53
That Got you fired again!

I hope it did not push the BP too high, would not like to be responsible for damaging any one's health.

I think you said the tapes were disintegrating- earlier in the thread.

Kai Seeman - no Audiophool I can re-assure you. As for the CD and transistor amps- I rest the case. We have re-iterated the same issues several times over in different threads. Good to have a discussion with people of experience.

I tell you what Dave, the reason our angles are so different is that my listening experience was completely transformed by attending classical music concerts (live) and many and many of them- and still do but the numbers are dropping as the modern concert goers behaviour can be at times very annoying.

To repeat- I was hell bent on buying Naim amps nothing else. Had been to audition the Naim 135s or 140s and coming away disappointed I happened to be passing by a shop which sold EARs. I was stunned by their sound- and what they did. That is what I realized I was looking for.

The issue here is which turn table was used to compare the recordings of 60s with CDs. Please forgive me- I question everything -including my own judgement. Heisenberg's uncertainty priniciple applies at all times.

DSJR
26-09-2009, 09:41
No worries, I may be over 50 now, but I'm still too much like a kid in a toy-shop - the school I have some casual work at has an AMAZING music department - all those keyboards, mixers and some good looking Behringer "Truth" active monitors with 8" bass units - I look forward to hearing if these are any good - they're incredibly well priced for such a large "bookshelf" sized speaker (maybe Ash is right all along------ :))

Like I said (I think), 1950's and many 1960's tapes if stored correctly seem to have stood up well, apart from possible print-through issues, but this would have happened early on in storage. It's the Ampex Grand-Master tapes from the 70's and 80's which are failing, but if baked carefully, they can be played once to take the digital copy. The biggest advances in mastering appear to be in the superior digital mixers out there, as well as far superior computer power, meaning that the signal doesn't have to go through A-D-A-D to have various treatments applied and then have the 16th bit mangled by a dated digital mixer. Most of this is now done at 24 bit (more room/tolerance for error) and in the digital domain.


i think we've covered it all now :) I hope you find a good turntable to play your lovely vintage pressings on. As many cutting lathes dispensed with their (often) belt drives and used technics direct driven motor units (with no-doubt beefed up thrust bearings?), you'd do very well to consider an SP10 in a "proper" plinth and with a 12" arm that allows you to change cartridges. The LP cutters in the 70's used the Stanton 681EEE a lot - maybe the early version of this cartridge with its falling treble gave a simile to the vinyl result when played with a "flat" cartridge. Apparently, the 600 series body hasn't changed, but the stylus HAS and once I've got a 680 series body I'll get a stylus for it!!!!!!!!


This leads me on to another "revalation" - Marco and Dave Cawley take note. What did Decca listen to their test pressings on (and the BBC often use for transcription)? Unless I'm very much mistaken, in the eighties a TECHNICS 1200 (Decca) or SP10 (BBC) with Shure V15 III cartridge (honestly, I saw the 1200/V15's all over the mastering facility and the beeb used the V15 for some years for delicate work, but I don't know what was in their EMT decks)...

Varun
26-09-2009, 15:23
My turntable Dave is extremely good- the best I have had so far and at this stage it would be foolhardy to change it. I have no need to change anything at all. The cartridge once it needs replacing will be the only change I will need to make- but then it would be within the confines of what I know and am used to-unless I go to the Decca. Need to audition first.

My speakers are also full range and damn good I say. The fanfare of the "William Tell Overture" I was talking about was reproduced marvellously-the full scale I mean.

I have added another 9 records to my collection-@£1 each. Boxed set of EMI Don Giovanni-Giulini 1962. I have it on CD as well.

On this forum- the modded Gerard seems to be regarded more highly. Then we have arms like the one Clive is using. I would not wish to jump into the fray of an SP10-without having an ability to fix things myself. It would seem from what an American analogue website claims that a SP10 with a good arm will take on a TT costing $20K.

DSJR
26-09-2009, 19:27
Turntables DON'T NEED to cost $20K plus - total madness and a case of throwing money at a greedy supplier (and I also mean a certain springy belt drive with high profit margin and ideas well above its station).

Remember as an aside that the Beeb replaced their Gates and Garrard 301's with SP10's mostly. I think the Radio 1 Roadshow used either TD125's or EMT's, but I can't be sure.

LP's in playable condition for a quid each is mad really and very much to your advantage as long as you know what you're getting :)

Varun
01-10-2009, 17:56
Dave (DJSR)

This may be of interest to you and others who have some interest in "re-issues". This comes from Classic Records. I have a number of their re-issues as well- but only one 45rpm.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/Magazine/manufacture/classicrecords.htm

For me Hi-Fi works really well.

DSJR
01-10-2009, 20:58
I'll have a look when I get some time (running around like a headless chicken these last few weeks...).

I'll tell you one HUGE reason why I laughed so hard at LP lovers, and that's the fact that 12" 45's can sound SO much closer to the master, given an un-compressed cutting session and tracks not lasting too long..

Varun
02-10-2009, 05:59
Then you will find this article of great interest. Tony Hawkins features prominently here as well with Bernie Grundman. It had to do with tape size and not being able to fit on the side of a 33 and half rpm LP. Yes Classic Records have produced a lot of 200gm 45rpm records. I have tended to avoid buying them for reasons of expense/space and fiddle of changing records so frequently.