The vinyl illusion ?

[magiccarpetride]

Lol - this subject keeps coming up again and again [and again]... Jim, you've heard my T/T at NEBO, which at the time you said was one of the best sounds you've ever heard from vinyl, and I can assure you (as indeed Macca will confirm, as he's heard both in my system), my CD player sounds very similar.

Not the *same*, but so close, as I've said before, that when lying back listening to music, I often forget whether it's a record playing or a CD (based on the former being a pristine vinyl pressing with very low surface noise). I certainly wouldn't be able to do that if CD inherently "lacks soul".

The fact is, it doesn't. It simply necessitates the use of the right digital equipment, in order to release its full potential - and that full potential, in my experience, ably allows it to compete favourably with any turntable. Note, however, I'm not saying that it betters it.

And yes, there will always be differences between digital and analogue, but not the huge discrepancies some claim, which exist simply because either the digital or analogue source equipment being used isn't capable of revealing the full potential of the partnering music software. When that's NOT the case, the real differences are small.

It's *that* simple, folks!

Marco.

I find it hard to believe that you cannot tell, even when lying back, whether it's a CD playing or it's a vinyl record playing. I'm not saying that it is easy to differentiate between the two formats because one is superior to another, but it's a simple fact that digital sounds different than analogue. And the difference may not be attributable to the difference in the quality of the playback equipment, but simply to the difference in which digital format gets mastered from the way analogue mastering goes. I can always tell which is which, without even passing a judgment as to which may sound more desirable.

[walpurgis]

it's a simple fact that digital sounds different than analogue

Not really. Not on my system. They both sound rather alike, i.e., very good indeed.

[Arkless Electronics]

No probs with the rest of your post, Jez, as I accept what you've said, however...



I'm not so sure. Certainly, to my ears, some of the vinyl recordings produced during the period in question sounded dire [much worse than those from earlier years], so there must've been a reason for that, which of course is up for debate.

In my view, it's partly to do with what Andrew has said (and yes he makes some good points), and also partly due to the 'transistor factor', or rather that the (then) 'defunct' valve mixing desks, etc, were actually still sonically superior to their new transistor counterparts - that was until transistor technology improved, and digital came in, both of which helped to level the playing field.

It still doesn't change the fact though, that some of the finest sounding recordings I own, on vinyl, are from the days when valves were used in studios, along with tape machines, and when "boffins" [read as experienced technicians] were responsible for the sound, not musicians - and I don't consider that as a coincidence!

Marco.

I think it's almost entirely to do with what Andrew said, plus new studio effects becoming available and some people not being able to resist over doing it with all the effects and over dubbing. I don't think the switch to transistors made any difference at all. We're talking top quality pro gear here which would have been balanced and used many input and output transformers (to make it balanced or unbalanced and for impedance matching) whether it was transistorised or valved. The colouration of those transformers would be the main characteristic of equipment of the time and would have swamped tiny differences between the sound of SS or valves in the equipment.

Even today recording engineers etc choose particular pieces of studio gear (mainly mics and mic pres) because they like the colouration they have and regard this as part of the creative process... NOT something to be copied on the replay side!

[Marco]

I find it hard to believe that you cannot tell, even when lying back, whether it's a CD playing or it's a vinyl record playing. I'm not saying that it is easy to differentiate between the two formats because one is superior to another, but it's a simple fact that digital sounds different than analogue. And the difference may not be attributable to the difference in the quality of the playback equipment, but simply to the difference in which digital format gets mastered from the way analogue mastering goes. I can always tell which is which, without even passing a judgment as to which may sound more desirable.

Well, Alex, we've been here before, and I've already explained myself in detail. I'm certainly not lying, and I'm also with Geoff on this.

In my experience, when both your digital and vinyl sources impose little of their own sonic signature on the music, you simply get to hear more of the music, and therefore *that* is what you're concentrating on and enjoying, not whether it's been digitally recorded or otherwise.

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between both (there are, unquestionably), simply that the best analogue or digital equipment 'dials out' those differences, and just focuses your ears on the music.

Honestly, I'd be very confident in blind-testing you here, in that respect, and how afterwards, having listened to both CD and vinyl in my system, you'd come to the same conclusion as me

Marco.

[Marco]

I think it's almost entirely to do with what Andrew said, plus new studio effects becoming available and some people not being able to resist over doing it with all the effects and over dubbing. I don't think the switch to transistors made any difference at all. We're talking top quality pro gear here which would have been balanced and used many input and output transformers (to make it balanced or unbalanced and for impedance matching) whether it was transistorised or valved. The colouration of those transformers would be the main characteristic of equipment of the time and would have swamped tiny differences between the sound of SS or valves in the equipment.

Even today recording engineers etc choose particular pieces of studio gear (mainly mics and mic pres) because they like the colouration they have and regard this as part of the creative process... NOT something to be copied on the replay side!

Well, I'm afraid on that I fundamentally disagree, so probably best leave it there, to avoid a pointless circular argument. What I do know for sure is which recordings I've got on vinyl sound the most believable and lifelike, and most predate 1960!

Marco.

[montesquieu]

Not really. Not on my system. They both sound rather alike, i.e., very good indeed.

Mine too. In a blind test I might well struggle.

[Arkless Electronics]

Well, I'm afraid on that I fundamentally disagree, so probably best leave it there, to avoid a pointless circular argument. What I do know for sure is which recordings I've got on vinyl sound the most believable and lifelike, and most predate 1960

Marco.

Little to do with valves and everything to do with being recorded live, without effects units and over dubs to wreck the sound and with "the sound" being obtained from choice of recording acoustics, mic placement etc.

[Marco]

Little to do with valves and everything to do with being recorded live, without effects units and over dubs to wreck the sound and with "the sound" being obtained from choice of recording acoustics, mic placement etc.

I agree that's a significant part of it, but so is the likes of tube-driven Telefunken U47 microphones, which unquestionably have a unique sound, and one which in my opinion captures the natural detail/tone of instruments, and the warmth and richness of the human voice, like no other.



Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

Valve mics, including the u47, are still widely used today and in fact much more so than any other type.... that didn't really change much when mixing desks went over to transistors. I have a modern Rode valve mic myself.

[magiccarpetride]

Well, Alex, we've been here before, and I've already explained myself in detail. I'm certainly not lying, and also I'm with Geoff on this.

In my experience, when both your digital and vinyl sources impose little of their own sonic signature on the music, you simply get to hear more of the music, and therefore *that* is what you're concentrating on and enjoying, not whether it's been digitally recorded or otherwise.

Honestly, I'd be very confident in blind-testing you here, in that respect, and afterwards, having listened to both CD and vinyl, in my system, you'd come to the same conclusion as me

Marco.

Sounds intriguing, Marco. I wish I was near you to take you on the bet, as I'd really like to experience what you're having

On my system, digital sounds pronouncedly different from vinyl. Of course, I am referring to the vinyl that was cut from the analogue tape. Indeed, if I play a recent FLAC that was recorded, mixed, and mastered digitally, and then I play a vinyl copy that was cut from that same digital source, then yes, I'd have trouble easily hearing much differences between the two formats. But if I am to play, say, Stan Gets/Charlie Bird original 1962 pressing of "Jazz Samba", and then play the same material on the CD, the sonic differences are easily detectable. I attribute those differences mostly to the different approach to mastering.

Even two digital formats (Red Book 16/44 compared to hi rez 24/96 FLAC) sound noticeably different. And this is when I'm playing these two formats side-by-side on my system. All else being equal, the mastering plays a huge role in the sonic signature.

So if that's the case with different digital dithering, how much more pronounced the changes are in the world of vinyl sounds shouldn't be that hard to fathom.

Unless, of course, one is listening with their intellect instead of with their ears...

But maybe on your system those differences disappear? That would be a magic trick I'd like to hear!

P.S. I can bring my battered old copy of Jazz Samba, you provide the CD/FLAC.