View Full Version : Digital vs. Analogue recordings: which are best?
MPG event 2005 comparison with analogue and digital recordings: Music Producers Guild Event June 2005- video feature.
The MPG held an event at London's British Grove Studios to compare analogue with digital recording. Three digital contenders battled against the heavyweight 16 track 2 inch Studer A800. Watch this video feature.
http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-event-june05-video1.html
Guys,
Please watch the above video and then offer you opinion on the outcome, together with your views on the subject, stating your preference if you have one.
My own view is that I would love to have been at the event and heard the results for myself, as it would have been a useful and educational exercise. However based on the feedback from those present I don't think the results are conclusive that digital is better.
Yes, RADAR seemed a popular choice because it was "clean" and "punchy", and was without doubt the favoured digital recording process of the test, with Nuendo next and Pro Tools last.
However quite a few of the guys favoured results on the A800, and considered the sound "richer", "wider" and more "complete", which is what I would expect from analogue, but it's interesting that high quality results can be obtained by RADAR. I wonder how widely is this process used in modern commercial recordings compared to for example Pro Tools or Nuendo?
The chap at the end summing things up was certainly impressed by RADAR but I got the distinct impression that for him the jury was still out, as he normally uses analogue as his "weapon of choice", although he did state that results vary wildly depending on what tape and machines are used. It seemed that the results with analogue in the test that day didn't match the high standards he was used to getting, so perhaps something was amiss...
What was interesting for me though was the guy who said that at first he really liked RADAR because it was so "punchy" but the more he listened to it the more he went off it. Could it be that RADAR, like many things digital, makes music sound superficially 'impressive' but unnatural sounding with long term listening? If so, then it's what I would have suspected based on my experience of listening to and making analogue and digital recordings myself.
I think the key word which was used to describe analogue recordings was "complete", and "incomplete" was used for the likes of Pro Tools, but not RADAR. The former is how I always view analogue recordings because when listening to them your brain doesn't have to fill in the gaps missing from digital, and so listening 'fatigue factor' is less, if indeed any is experienced at all with analogue.
It was an interesting video, and although intriguing, it certainly hasn't left me with the impression that modern digital recording techniques are undoubtedly superior to tried and tested analogue methods.
What does everyone else think?
Marco.
Filterlab
09-05-2008, 11:30
Great video mate, nice find.
Without actually being there I couldn't say which I'd prefer, however what this test proves is this:
In this instance and this instance only, most of the guys there prefered the sound of the Radar digital systems recording over the Studer A800 recording. That's to say that most of them liked that recording, but it doesn't necessarily mean they prefer analogue over digital or vice versa, or in fact necessarily prefer either recording system over the other. It's simply only that recording, on that day, in that environment. And even then not all of them liked the same thing.
As I've said before I personally prefer digital sound reproduction (on the whole) but I think neither one is better than the other, it's just more suitable either way for certain types of music, musical instruments, environments, equipment and people. It all depends on the person listening at the end of the chain.
I have about 1500 CDs and no other replay media, and although I don't play them on a CD player the music I hear is most definitely stored in a digital medium. However despite how it's stored and re-played in my lounge, a vast percentage of those recordings were analogue recordings in the first place; Dire Straits, Fleetwood Mac, Supertramp, Alan Parsons Project, David Bowie, The Police etc etc all recorded before (on the whole) the advent of purely digital studios, and they all sound absolutely amazing!
Whether analogue or digital, it's the studio engineers who make a recording good - the recording system is just a tool. To level out a context, I'd be prepared to bet that if I was in a waxed canoe using the finest oars, wearing the lightest clothing and floating on calm water, Steve Redgrave would still be able to row a knackered old rowing boat along faster than I could go. Talent over tools. :)
Great video mate, nice find.
Ashley sent it to me (apparently) to prove that digital recording methods are definitely better. Yes, quite... :scratch:
Marco.
Come on, has no-one else got an opinion on this?
Marco.
Filterlab
09-05-2008, 13:14
Ashley sent it to me (apparently) to prove that digital recording methods are definitely better. Yes, quite... :scratch:
Marco.
LOL! "Prove", yeah right. Maybe you should send him my post - or the section that's relevant anyway.
Come on, has no-one else got an opinion on this?
Marco.
Yeah.
The person that sent it to you must be an asshole if they think this is proof of one recording format to be superior to another.
:mental:
Filterlab
09-05-2008, 13:35
The person that sent it to you must be an asshole if they think this is proof of one recording format to be superior to another.
Funny you should say.
Come on, has no-one else got an opinion on this?
Marco.
Well yes, seeing as you ask.
I was distracted to the point that I burned my pork chops! :steam:
Yeah.
The person that sent it to you must be an asshole if they think this is proof of one recording format to be superior to another.
:mental:
Now, how can someone with one of the very BEST EVER "EM" records as his avatar be so closed minded HMMM? TD fans are such a pleasant and open minded lot too.............Shame on you sir! :doh:
Top notch analogue recordings with 15 IPS Dolby SR apparently sound very impressive indeed, far better again than the largely grotty performance we use to get from the average Revox used at home. However there are very many variables to consider, such as the state of the tape machine and the quality and age of the tapes used on it, which was acknowledged in the article (which I sent to Ashley by the way) how different batches of tape differ.
Tapes recorded years ago can go off, moisture can affect the adhesion of oxide to backing and as far as I know, most Ampex masters from the seventies are now unplayable, having to be baked/dried in an oven before being played ONCE ONLY to take a digital safety copy! OK, I appreciate that there are thousands of masters from the fifties that have survived reasonably well, but a mastering engineer friend told me it was a race against time to digitise them all before some became unplayable through age.
Finally, it may surprise some of you to know that most Studer style tape machines used to play back the analogue masters when creating digital pre-masters have fairly limited HF response, depending on the age and wear of the heads, sometimes not much more than the lower 20KHz region. The tapes themselves will apparently lose a little too with time. The highest frequency I understand used when setting up the playback machines is 15KHz I understand (at least it was with the copy masters I played and the tapes I saw and heard at Decca when they were at Belsize Road)...
The article was talking about recordings and first, I found it great to hear an un-processed drum kit at the beginning, as most kits on a typical mix have the life throttled out of them. Obviously, the download link won't be of the highest fidelity anyway and as none of us were there (?) it's more difficult to hear what the monitors were reproducing, as the sound feed on the link seemed to come from a mic or two in the control room, rather than from the desk. I have to trust the opinion of the experts who were present and I understand the conclusion was that analogue recording quality on the Studer could be much better than they had that day and that the Radar system was the best of the digital systems (when "everyone" uses pro-tools......).
P.S. I can't remember if Howard sold Linn's products in the late seventies/early eighties but at the time, they did an "Analogue/Digital" LP with the same music "take" done with the studio analogue tape system and a Sony betamax digital recorder (PCM F1?) and didn't tell anyone which side was which. Everyone I spoke to preferred what turned out to be the digital side (confirmed by discussions with the Linn guys and sales ladies).
Nothing wrong with either format if you ask me, it's HOW each format is used that's important....
Cheers fo the video link, suggests that RADAR is the better medium to record on and that analogue as a recording tool can either be magical or disappointing depending on the machine and tape. Just goes to show the amount pf effort a good producer outs into creating a good sound.
I am sure digital as musical medium can still improve, its more of a science and therefore eaiser to control but i am not sound engineer so maybe wrong
The big problem John is that the record companies want the final mixes of "pop/rock" tracks to sound "up front" and rather unpleasant with no perspective at all, something that digital CAN do if it isn't compressed so. All the best techniques seem to be reserved for classical SA-CD releases, the superior sound of these being little or nothing to do with the format I understand, just that more care (and money no doubt) is allocated to these...
I'll go with the late Angus McKenzie, a tape recording expert who always emphasised the superiority of digital recording done well due to lack of distortion and his favourite bugbear, tape modulation noise. One of the earliest examples on CD was the superb Denon recording of the Silbermann organ in Freiberg of 1982.
As tape modulation noise is much more noticable on eg Quad ESLs, many people who otherwise preferred analogue noticed to their slight puzzlement that digital recordings seemed to sound better on ESL 63s than analogue ones.
Hans
Steve Toy
09-05-2008, 17:24
Digital recordings, it would seem, are easier to bastardise. That is not to say the medium in itself is in any way inferior.
I have a questiones
How much are recordings influnced by the medium they are generally heard in and the listeners.
Sorry I am bit naive around this! But eager to learn!!!!
Good post.
It would have been good if the listeners had actually listened to the performance live first. Then listened to the recordings. IMHO they were expressing an opinion to what sounded best to them - not what was most accurate because they did not hear the original performance. What would also be interesting would be say a similar test with a piano player who has an intimate knowlege of how his piano sounds (through years of use) along with some of his collegues.
I thought they did, at least when the kit was being set up and we only caught a glimpse of the session, where it could have been easy to compare by the push of a button. I think it can be said that these guys do have an intimate knowledge of the musical instruments and recording tools they use, it's just that it appears that a comparison such as this hadn't been done before. At this level, the way a piano (or cymbal in this case) decays and the way a kick drum "kicks" would be second nature to these guys.
I do appreciate there's often a gulf between many audiophiles and recording engineers, but I still feel that deep down, we're singing from the same song sheet, albeit in different keys...
P.S. Now much decent pro studio gear is affordable, it's interesting that more and more is finding its way into domestic HiFi systems (especially amps, speakers and possibly DAC's). Some of this gear does "sublety" quite well and comes with honesty and absolutely no bull***t.
Iain Sinclair
10-05-2008, 09:32
Come on, has no-one else got an opinion on this?
Marco.
Only that, as others have said, it doesn't 'prove' anything at all.
It's interesting how the participants were able to put their own prejudices aside and be honest about what they'd heard, rather than indulging in a 'this format is better than that format' slanging match. If only participants in hifi fora were as open-minded!
And I felt like telling the bloke in the baseball cap that hats, like shades, are not to be worn indoors.
Yes, and he was an interesting shape as well. As my wife would say: 'built like Santa'! :lol:
I hear what people are saying, but I still much prefer good analogue recordings over good digital ones - to my ears they're much warmer and richer in tone, dynamically extended and 'alive' sounding: just more 'real'. For me, there's no comparison. I don't own one single recording on CD that I prefer to the same version on vinyl.
When I listen to the majority of commercial digtal recordings these days (and I have a very good CDP) I hear a sound that's either 'pumped up to the max', thin, and shrill to the point of removing your fillings, or dynamically constrained, tonally 'flat' and somewhat 'dark' sounding, which is especially disappointing when the music is bloody good! It's a good job that most of the music I buy isn't of the commercial variety! I suppose it's ok if you're listening to music on a ghetto-blaster or on the radio in the car. But the results heard on a high-resolution hi-fi system are often simply awful. If only the majority of recording engineers nowadays would take more time and care with their work...
My favourite analogue recordings on vinyl, in terms of pure sound quality, are the ones on the Capitol label from the 1950s. Stuff such as Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, etc... They sound absolutely stunning. Many recordings on Decca are good, as are those on EMI (Parlophone) which The Beatles used. They used amazing (high quality) valve microphones in those days, and recording engineers had a real passion for producing recordings of the very highest standard - and when you listen it shows! Modern recordings just don't compare, not even expensive 'audiophile' grade ones.
And as far as digital recording goes, if some people think it's supposedly superior, can they tell me why in the 80s CDs marked 'AAD' in general sounded *much* better than the 'DDD' versions?
I've got original albums on CD of that era from Donna Summer, Human League, Depeche Mode, and plenty of others, all marked 'AAD' and they sound better then ANY CDs produced these days. They also sound better than the somewhat sonically 'famed' 'DDD' CD of Dire Straits 'Brothers In Arms'. I wonder why that is, eh? :scratch:
;)
Marco.
I thought they did, at least when the kit was being set up and we only caught a glimpse of the session, where it could have been easy to compare by the push of a button. I think it can be said that these guys do have an intimate knowledge of the musical instruments and recording tools they use, it's just that it appears that a comparison such as this hadn't been done before. At this level, the way a piano (or cymbal in this case) decays and the way a kick drum "kicks" would be second nature to these guys.
I'm not so sure the ones doing the marking were actually there. Certainly the ones running the event were. I'm not convinced they had the intimate knowledge of the instruments used - there were comments about the sound of the the drum set and it being as rare as hens teeth. Every instrument has it's own sound. Also how often do they listen to the actual instruments other than through heaphones or via speakers in the mixing room (I don't know). Myself I'm always suprised at hearing a performance in the flesh so to speak - sounds tons different to recorded.
I didn't pick it up but I wonder what the sampling rate/bit level was used both for recording & playback - I suspect it wasn't 16/44.
I would not say I prefer analogue over digital or vice versa because I only have CD's to compare with Vinyl, and on that score Vinyl wins. But this may be because of the compromises inherrent in the CD format.
Marco, what you hear in recent pop recordings is mastering problems, not faults in "digital." Those old Beatles recordings weren't that much cop either, especially tha late ones with tons of overdubs and track "bumping" going on giving distorted backing tracks quite often (I'm trying to let their wonderful music take a back seat and my God it's difficult). The old Decca LP's were half speed mastered with shedloads of eq being applied to help the cut proceed. The later cuts post 1970 were done on better lathes and less eq was needed and of course all the "enthusiasts" didn't like them as they lacked "character." I've heard various '50's Decca recordings and the old vinyls probably won't be played back with correct eq either and may sound dull. The CD's of these, often mid priced will have far more top end as they were transferred "flat" with no additional eq, let alone LP playback errors..
Of course any half decent eighties CD will sound better than modern over-modulated offerings, but that's a fault of the record companies, not the digital system.
I'll agree that many simple fifties recordings are absolutely superb, especially the jazz ones, but with deepest respect, you hardly have an honest enough cartridge to compare those old LP's with your CD player (down in HF at start of side and almost 3db lower by sides end, with measurable distortion) plus any sexing up a good valve phono stage adds (and I use a Croft preamp too (SM4 "PP") with Brimar valves in the phono section). Those Denon 103's may be icons in the cartridge world, but they're hardly state of the art in truthful transcription these days. Get an AT33PTG in your Technics and listen again.
P.S I used to own a Denon 103 by the way. It was a 103D and was so clearly better than the conical tipped 103 I wonder why Denon kept the inferior versions going, but then the 304 is superior so I suppose Denon reckoned audio enthusiasts would upgrade to this one...
Hi David,
Excellent post. I'll answer it in more detail when I get time later (some of it I've already dealt with in Scoobs' tonearm cable post) :)
However, just to kill this one dead:
Get an AT33PTG in your Technics and listen again.
Been there, done that, and quite liked it. However the AT doesn't have the bass power and tonal richness of the Denon or its sense of rhythmic flow and 'funkyness', which I really love. The 33PTG has a bit more 'balls' than most ATs, but in general I find their sound a bit lightweight and rather 'CD-like' - somewhat also like Lyras, which I find too 'upfront' and 'toppy' for my tastes.
Most Ortofons are also a bit like that to my ears, with the exception of the top Kontrapunkts and the SPU Royal N. We obviously have different tastes in cartridges, which is cool. I love the original SPU, too, Deccas, EMT TSD-15, and suchlike, which I wouldn't imagine would be to your tastes either. I had a 103D, too, but didn't like it as much as the standard 103, as to my ears it made the 103 sound more clinical, and it lost some of its 'magic'. I know you will probably bitterly disagree, but each to his (or her) own, as they say. We seem to agree on most things, though, just not about cartridges! :eyebrows:
I always favour tone and timbre over 'forensic honesty' and absolute detail retrieval with cartridges, which to me is essential if voices and instruments are to be rendered with natural weight and 'body'. I'm not into a 'squeaky clean' sound. I like vinyl to retain its natural warmth and flow, and for me many modern MCs sound somewhat 'brightly lit' and 'anaemic', and make vinyl sound too much like CD!
Marco.
Forgive me Marco, I was just thinking of a juicy sounding SL1200/1210 with a measurably beefy, bassup/top down cartridge, however modified.. It's just not neutral enough to my ears to do a fair comparison with CD IMO using any player, no matter how charming the sound is, that's all.
Bearing in mind the excellent speakers and preamp you use (don't know the power amps), it's obvious that you (and your room) love a beefy bass character with this "warmth and timbre" and I do respect that, but you'll understand my "touch of the Ashleys :)" when I say that I want both my main sources to sound as near to master tape as possible, having experienced some awsome (analogue mainly) masters in my time through fairly big monitors. My CD player has transformer coupled balanced outs (the bigger CDM 100 you'd love as it sounds even bigger) which remove much of the ultrasonic and RF hash from the donor machine that plagued many CD players back then, so you could argue that I'm "taming down" my CD sound. My player was the first CD player that ever gave me a "walk in" soundstage when played through big panel speakers. Most, even the once revered Sony 555 with its wonderful mech, sounded spatially flat between the speakers..
Where you and I differ is in my wanting LP's to sound more "as they were cut." I set up hundreds of springy, belt driven fruit boxes in my time and now have a bit of an aversion to overly juicy sounding LP spinners I'm afraid, hence my recommendation of the AT33PTG.
I'd recommend one cartridge you'd like though, which the Technics should happily take and that's the ZYX R100, which costs more than the SL1210 sadly. Now THAT'S one cartridge I'd love to own, keeping surface noise well in the background yet retaining "proper" bass power when there on the LP without adding anything obvious of its own. The top end is naturally crisp without sounding in the tiniest bit thin toned too - something you may not have liked with the AT33........ This cart, when used on an NAS Dias with 12" AceSpace arm and Tron phono stage, restored my memories of just how good LP sound can be, even on iffy pressings.... Tons of money though...
The top end is naturally crisp without sounding in the tiniest bit thin toned too - something you may not have liked with the AT33...
Spot on - it's exactly what I don't like about ATs in general; the OC9 is the same, and to be honest most modern MCs. They all seem to lack the power and slam of the 103, and its creamy sounding 'valve-like' midrange, when suitably set-up and partnered, even cartridges that are 10 or 15 times the price - although they might be 'cleaner' sounding and more 'finessed' at the top end, none have the quality of bass of the 103, or its magical way with vocals, which is why I've stuck with it all these years in various formats. I've had them all and first started using the 103, and its variants, in 1982! I hate 'weedy' sounding cartridges with a passion, and I'm quite willing to sacrifice some 'subtlety', 'finesse' and absolute detail retrieval to get the beautiful rich tonality the 103 has. I've not heard the ZYX, but I like your description. I also like AudioNote MCs very much. Maybe it's the Alnico magnets? The 103 also uses them - they seem to give an effect that I like. However, the combination of the SL-1210 and 103 in terms of bass solidity and impact with suitable material is frightening, especially when playing well-recorded 12" singles. The bass would awaken the dead!!
Forgive me Marco, I was just thinking of a juicy sounding SL1200/1210 with a measurably beefy, bassup/top down cartridge, however modified.. It's just not neutral enough to my ears to do a fair comparison with CD IMO using any player, no matter how charming the sound is, that's all.
Bearing in mind the excellent speakers and preamp you use (don't know the power amps), it's obvious that you (and your room) love a beefy bass character with this "warmth and timbre" and I do respect that...
LOL! You really must pop round some time, David, and have a listen. It's not really like that at all. Yes, the sound is very 'big' with lots of clarity, slam, detail, realism, and the bass mines subterranean depths (you betcha! :eyebrows:) but it is also sphincter-tight and controlled with no excess warmth or 'bloom', just massive visceral impact that rattles your ribcage with suitable material at very naughty levels...
Think 'mini snapshot of a live gig' in your room and you're about there :fingers:
As I said, come round and have a listen for yourself, because I could waffle on here page after page and you still wouldn't really be any the wiser - as its just words. If you do come though I'd advise you to bring a spare pair of underpants ;)
Marco.
If you do come though I'd advise you to bring a spare pair of underpants ;)
Marco.
:gig:
:lol:
Where are you located? We're at the ends of the earth (or so it seems to friends and family...)
Have a look where it says 'location' on the top R/H side of my posts ;)
Where are you? Your geographical location is somewhat more ambiguous.
Marco.
PM sent Marco...
As with digital CD, there are good and bad "analogue era" LP cuts too.. I played a selection this afternoon:-
Led Zep II - shedloads of bass distortion on Whole Lotta Love on the recording sadly unless Atlantic (or the band members) still have the mixdown premasters for each track.
Groundhogs - Hogwash. My recently acquired CD of this sounds great, the LP does too, incredibly powerful mixes only getting a little confused at end of side and this is my turntable system I suspect
The Enid - In The Region Of The Summer Stars - cleaner EMI issue of original mix on BUK Records - severe bass distortion all through and more than I remember the EMI cut having. I changed cartridges but the same on all - I wonder if the Croft was troubles by it...
Seventh Wave - Sci-Fi - Another Decca cut for BUK Records. Cleaner bass than my original LP12 had but I wonder when Decca actually went away from their FFRR disc eq and took up RIAA as everyone else did as the sound is dull like their cut of the Enid LP above?
Julian Cope - My Nation Underground - A stunning modern cut, clear and bright with loads of level. I suspect the sssibilants went through a little "dee-essing" as compression of sibilants is audible and I think my deck and phono stage is OK on this...
To conclude, I did some LP versus CD comparisons of my favourite Tangerine Dream albums of the seventies and I thought the CD's were rather better and certainly clearer.
I won't bore you any more with this. I tend to go off on one given half a chance - apologies!
I agree, Dave.
What I was pointing out was that faced with the choice of a superb analogue recording and a superb digital one, provided of course I liked the music, I would always choose the analogue version, as in my experience when analogue is done well the results obtained have more natural warmth and generally a tonally richer sound, which I feel more accurately represents the sound of real instruments and voices.
This view is confirmed from my own personal experience of making both analogue and digital recordings of the same music. I also own many pieces of the same music both on vinyl and CD, and if the vinyl version is produced from an analogue source, the sound quality is always superior. But I do appreciate that some people may prefer the 'cleaner', more upfront, and 'punchier' sound of many good digital recordings.
One point I would mention from before when I was discussing 'AAD' and 'DDD' discs from the 80s, and which I think you misunderstood, was that, yes, the fact that many CDs from the 80s sound better is partly because of the inferiority of recording techniques now (engineers these days don't care as much about sound quality as they once did, or perhaps more accurately, the majority of producers don't) rather than the format used - but what I was getting at was if 'AAD' discs sound better than 'DDD' discs of the same era (and to others and my ears they do) then that's because the analogue mastering process on 'AAD' discs is affecting, in a positive sense, the quality of the results obtained.
I used the CD of Dire Straits 'Brothers In Arms' as an example. If you remember it was the defacto test disc of the 80s, with 'Money For Nothing' belting out at hi-fi shows around the world. Everyone marvelled at the recording quality of the CD, and yet whilst agreeing that it sounded very 'clean' and 'clear', and 'punchy' (undoubted traits of good digital recordings) I found the sound quality of the vinyl version infinitely superior, which was more natural and less 'artificially processed' to my ears. The point I want to get across here is that a 'squeaky clean' 'punchy' sound is not necessarily the most accurate or faithful representation of the music.
Furthermore, other CDs I have from the same era which are 'AAD' recorded (from an analogue source), as opposed to all-digital 'DDD' discs, have similar sonic characteristics to what I've just described, so what this shows to me is that it's not just simply the fact that the prowess, in general, of today's recording engineers is inferior or that there is less emphasis placed on sound quality - it's that in many instances analogue mastering on CDs results in superior quality recordings.
I think it's one of the reasons why in general today's CDs sound worse than those from the 80s when analogue mastering was used up until the final stage of the recording process. There is no such thing now as 'AAD' and 'DDD' discs, as everything is automatically 'DDD', much I feel to the detriment of how good CDs can actually sound when both analogue and digital technologies are combined to great effect.
For those who doubt this, simply listen to any good quality 'AAD' disc from the 80s and compare it to the average commercial CD available now. Then, for an even bigger shock, compare it to many supposed 'audiophile' recordings on CD nowadays and you will get a rude awakening at how much genuine progress has been made in terms of CD recording quality in the last 20-odd years...
Marco.
I'm not an expert but isn't it the case that the analogue tape hiss introduces "dither" which is necessary for a good digital recording ? That could explain why many AAD discs sound better.
Hans
I'm sorry, Hans, I don't understand :scratch:
Regardless, though, of whatever it is, good analogue recordings to me always sound better than good digital ones.
Marco.
http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/dvdaudio/dither.htm
randomly from Google...
Hans
Iain Sinclair
12-05-2008, 20:17
I used the CD of Dire Straits 'Brothers In Arms' as an example. If you remember it was the defacto test disc of the 80s, with 'Money For Nothing' belting out at hi-fi shows around the world. Everyone marvelled at the recording quality of the CD, and yet whilst agreeing that it sounded very 'clean' and 'clear', and 'punchy' (undoubted traits of good digital recordings) I found the sound quality of the vinyl version infinitely superior, which was more natural and less 'artificially processed' to my ears. The point I want to get across here is that a 'squeaky clean' 'punchy' sound is not necessarily the most accurate or faithful representation of the music.
Yebbut Dire Straits are shite, so that the clearer sound of the CD just shows the shiteness up more clearly.
Yes I agree. I always thought that they were rather ironically well named.
Marco.
I'm new here, and I haven't even viewed the video, but I have an opinion on this, and it is that....
Whether analogue or digital, it's the studio engineers who make a recording good - the recording system is just a tool. To level out a context, I'd be prepared to bet that if I was in a waxed canoe using the finest oars, wearing the lightest clothing and floating on calm water, Steve Redgrave would still be able to row a knackered old rowing boat along faster than I could go. Talent over tools.
...while I have no idea what knackered is (I probably am knackered and just don't know...) and I'm not familiar with Mr. Redgrave, I pretty much agree with everything else said above. Good job. A great recording, a great master, will be great and a bad one will be bad - analog or digital. It isn't about the methodology.
Tim
Prince of Darkness
28-05-2008, 21:21
...while I have no idea what knackered is (I probably am knackered and just don't know...) and I'm not familiar with Mr. Redgrave, I pretty much agree with everything else said above.
Knackered is a term used to describe something which is generally worn out or in a state of disrepair.
Steve Redgrave was a rower who won gold medals in an incredible five consecutive Olympic games.:respect:
Knackered is a term used to describe something which is generally worn out or in a state of disrepair.
Steve Redgrave was a rower who won gold medals in an incredible five consecutive Olympic games.:respect:
That settles it. I'm definitely knackered.
Tim
Filterlab
28-05-2008, 22:07
That settles it. I'm definitely knackered.
Tim
I'd say join the club, but I'm too knackered to bother.
BajaGringo
29-05-2008, 01:16
Although I own a fair collection of audio gear, I never have been confused with anyone even close to being an audio engineer. In fact I probably couldn't make a good enough argument either way that even someone the likes of Steve Redgrave could keep afloat on a calm day out on the bay.
But I will add my dos centavos anyway...
Having lived over a half century, one of the qualities to my music library I am learning to appreciate more and more is longevity. The ability to store and enjoy music in perpetuity is a definite plus. Analog has its limitations in that arena.
OK, I'll shut up. One or two more Cadillac Margaritas and I will definitely be knackered...
[Having lived over a half century, one of the qualities to my music library I am learning to appreciate more and more is longevity. The ability to store and enjoy music in perpetuity is a definite plus. Analog has its limitations in that arena.
Very interesting, is the digital / analogue debate. Ultimately, I think it boils down to the quality of the recording, irrespective of format. Unfortunately modern recordings are digital and usually compressed which is a real bummer, but some years ago I stored my records and went digital as a matter of convenience and my disappointment with, having bought a new lp, finding clicks, pops etc appearing as if by magic on a regular basis. I use a Nagra cdp now, which sounds great, and I doubt if many can tell the difference between this and a good analogue set up. (difference doesn't imply 'better').
What does interest me is the current idea of digital streaming, storing etc of music. Can this method of replay really maintain the quality when compared to playing a commercial cd in a dedicated player?
Mike Reed
29-05-2008, 07:09
Knackered is a term used to describe something which is generally worn out or in a state of disrepair.
It derives from the men whose job it was to collect the dead horses (when horse-drawn transport was the norm).
They took these carcasses back to the 'knacker's yard', where they used heat processes to make glue and other by-products.
Don't think worn-out hifi has such an efficient recycling process
Nor us knackered audio/music enthusiasts.
[Having lived over a half century, one of the qualities to my music library I am learning to appreciate more and more is longevity. The ability to store and enjoy music in perpetuity is a definite plus. Analog has its limitations in that arena.
Although the abstract bits have greater longevity the retrieval method ie longevity of the software is a real headache for archivists this seems as true in audio as it is in photography.
Well, a quick tour of the section of the board where folks are posting pics of their systems is enough to tell me that my rather carefully-assembled little Headphone and speaker systems are plastic portables compared to what some of you have, but they are resolving enough to tell me this is a pretty silly issue. Digital and analog each have their strengths and weaknesses. The superiority of one over the other is purely a matter of which one's strengths appeal to you most (or weaknesses annoy you most). And perhaps more important, the quality of the recording and mastering has a much greater impact on the net result and the listening experience than the choice of digital or analog in either the studio or the home.
At home, I finally made the full commitment to digital and it has elevated my listening experience dramatically, not because it is superior, but because I now have my entire cd collection on a big hard drive, cataloged and at my fingertips, and because of that, I listen more, and to a much broader variety of music. In that arena (computer-based music), here is my comment on the next big controversy: I can't really pay attention to the music and hear the difference between lossy and lossless files, at least not 320kbps lossy files. If I stopped and A/B'd them, listening repeatedly to small sections of a wide variety of tracks, I'm sure I'd get to where I could identify the lossless with some accuracy some of the time. I'd much rather listen to the music. But I ripped all the files to lossless anyway. Bytes are cheap.
Tim
Filterlab
29-05-2008, 14:54
Good move Tim. All my files are stored in AIFF format which is completely lossless and has no DRM either. As you said, hard drive space is so cheap these days.
Iain Sinclair
29-05-2008, 20:12
Well, a quick tour of the section of the board where folks are posting pics of their systems is enough to tell me that my rather carefully-assembled little Headphone and speaker systems are plastic portables compared to what some of you have, but they are resolving enough to tell me this is a pretty silly issue. Digital and analog each have their strengths and weaknesses. The superiority of one over the other is purely a matter of which one's strengths appeal to you most (or weaknesses annoy you most). And perhaps more important, the quality of the recording and mastering has a much greater impact on the net result and the listening experience than the choice of digital or analog in either the studio or the home.
At home, I finally made the full commitment to digital and it has elevated my listening experience dramatically, not because it is superior, but because I now have my entire cd collection on a big hard drive, cataloged and at my fingertips, and because of that, I listen more, and to a much broader variety of music. In that arena (computer-based music), here is my comment on the next big controversy: I can't really pay attention to the music and hear the difference between lossy and lossless files, at least not 320kbps lossy files. If I stopped and A/B'd them, listening repeatedly to small sections of a wide variety of tracks, I'm sure I'd get to where I could identify the lossless with some accuracy some of the time. I'd much rather listen to the music. But I ripped all the files to lossless anyway. Bytes are cheap.
Tim
Well said. I'd do exactly what you've done if (a) I wasn't such a clueless gimp and (b) my own laptop hadn't gone tits-up.
Well said. I'd do exactly what you've done if (a) I wasn't such a clueless gimp and (b) my own laptop hadn't gone tits-up.
Having the entire collection available in software (I use iTunes) is the greatest thing since toilet paper on a roll...another American colloquialism, one that pretty much pales next to "tits up."
Tim
Iain Sinclair
30-05-2008, 22:29
Having the entire collection available in software (I use iTunes) is the greatest thing since toilet paper on a roll...another American colloquialism, one that pretty much pales next to "tits up."
Tim
Here we say 'the greatest thing since sliced bread'. If I ever get my laptop back from the repair shop, I'll get my collection loaded.
Filterlab
31-05-2008, 12:48
What happened to your laptop Iain?
Iain Sinclair
31-05-2008, 12:59
What happened to your laptop Iain?
Suddenly one day it stopped charging up from the mains. I thought, wrongly as it turned out, that it would be a simple repair, but something more serious has gone wrong; diodes burnt out, possible damage to the motherboard. It doesn't help that the manufacturer has gone bust, so spares are hard to come by. It's been in the workshop for a couple of months. I ought to accept that it's past help, but it has lots of files, software etc on it that I'd rather not lose.
Filterlab
31-05-2008, 13:02
Is there a chance you can remove the hard drive and install it into another computer to copy the data?
Iain Sinclair
31-05-2008, 13:06
Is there a chance you can remove the hard drive and install it into another computer to copy the data?
There's no chance I could do it (I am a ham-fisted, clueless n00b when it comes to such things) but it's quite possible someone more savvy than me could. Indeed, that's probably what I'll ask the repair bloke to do once he runs out of possible fixes for the laptop.
Filterlab
31-05-2008, 13:20
Best to do it sooner rather than later, the more fiddling a hard drive encounters the more likely it is to throw a wobbly!
Nowadays I keep everything important on an offboard hard drive (with another offboard containing a back-up), they're easier to rescue data from in case of problems. When data is stuck on a boot drive and there's a failure of the computer, it can be a nightmare to recover the data.
However, I'm guessing I should have told you this before your diodes went pop. :)
Iain Sinclair
03-06-2008, 21:44
Best to do it sooner rather than later, the more fiddling a hard drive encounters the more likely it is to throw a wobbly!
Nowadays I keep everything important on an offboard hard drive (with another offboard containing a back-up), they're easier to rescue data from in case of problems. When data is stuck on a boot drive and there's a failure of the computer, it can be a nightmare to recover the data.
However, I'm guessing I should have told you this before your diodes went pop. :)
Thanks for the tip. Hard drive rescued and put inside USB thingy, so I can a) retrieve files and b) use it as a place to back stuff on to. So, a result of sorts. I'm now saving up for a new laptop.
Filterlab
03-06-2008, 22:18
Cool beans. Get a Mac. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.