View Full Version : Analogue Warmth - where does it come from?
Audio Advent
18-03-2016, 08:44
I came across this whilst looking for ideas to make a synth sound a bit more gorgious and rich sounding. It's quite interesting.
It runs through the recording equipment and techniques of yesteryear and gives technical reasons as to why the old methods introduced "analogue warmth". The article is aimed at helping people recreate that for those finding their digital recordings are lacking something:
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/analoguewarmth.htm
The main conclusion is to use some analogue equipment!
Hahahaha... That old chestnut! :doh:
By the same token, we could talk about 'digital coldness', and equally miss the point... These rather inaccurate and absolutist labels, placed upon aspects of audio reproduction, and usually perpetrated by those with an agenda, serve little constructive purpose or provide much insight into the reality of the matter.
I know exactly the qualities that some sound engineers are striving for when seeking to gain "analogue warmth" from their recordings, but the terminology used, and often how they go about achieving that effect, is all wrong!
Marco.
Interesting article that, with lots of good information. If you are one of the 'analogue good / digital bad' camp then worth a read just to expand your horizons a bit ;)
Yes, but it's choc-full of ill-conceived stereotypical clichés! ;)
Here's one such cracker:
When it comes to audio, some aspects of analogue technology introduce artifacts and distortions that are perceived as pleasant, and are often musically enhancing — and this is something that lies at the heart of the idea of 'analogue warmth'.
Bollocks...
What he fails to recognise and acknowledge is that nothing is 'perfect', and so digital technology also introduces its own "artifacts" and distortions, and thus coloration, which combine to produce a sound that is (wrongly) perceived in every instance as more 'accurate' than analogue (done properly). Therefore, all you can effectively do, as it were, is choose your own poison!
Measurements either certainly don't tell the whole story... :nono:
I could dissect the article in more detail and further highlight the popular misconceptions that lie therein. I'm afraid all it does is superficially confirm the biases of a particular mindset, when it comes to 'analogue vs digital'. It certainly contains no new insight on the subject.
Marco.
StanleyB
18-03-2016, 09:49
By the same token, we could talk about 'digital coldness', and equally miss the point...
The problem as I see it is that a lot of people do theoretical research that is based on reading up on what a lot of people are saying and may have written in published articles, and then take the view of the majority as factual. So once the term digital coldness has been applied, no further measures are attempted in order to find out why a piece of equipment sounds cold, and what can be done to remedy the situation.
I myself did my own research and then ended up trying to overcome the ones that I had identified as possible culprits that could be tackled. One is the noise level in power supplies. The more noise there is, the more the D to A converted audio will sound digital. And that can easily be confirmed by swapping over to a less noisy PSU source.
The next one that makes digital audio sounds cold is due to the missed bits in the D to A processing. This too can be confirmed by improving the digital path so that the decoding process is far more accurate. The digital path can be improved by an improved circuit board layout, and by the use of ancillary components (caps, resistors, etc. ) that can perform reliably and without ringing, phase shifts, etc. at the higher frequency that the digital signal is operating at. A lot of people often use components that are brilliant in the audio spectrum, but are far from satisfactory in the Mega Hertz range. It is mainly the low level signals that go to make up the warm sound. If you remove them, the audio will sound drier, which is then put down to a digital sound.
But before the availability of digital audio, analogue equipment manufacturers were producing audio equipment with a dry sound from time to time. We just didn't label the sound as digital sounding because nobody had yet suggested that as a possible issue. Some of the Naim CD players spring to mind.
Spot on, Stan - and this nails it:
The problem as I see it is that a lot of people do theoretical research that is based on reading up on what a lot of people are saying and may have written in published articles, and then take the view of the majority as factual. So once the term digital coldness has been applied, no further measures are attempted in order to find out why a piece of equipment sounds cold, and what can be done to remedy the situation.
Your last sentence is equally as true.
Articles, such as the one Sam linked to, tackle the subject in a way that is simply too 'broad brush' and lacking in depth - and the BIG problem is that because the content superficially appears as erudite, it can so easily influence and confuse the uninitiated, and then creates what could be referred to as 'informed ignorance', which quickly spreads as 'misinformed fact'... :doh:
Marco.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 10:01
Yes, there are all of the usual stereotypical clichés but certainly where synthesisers are concerned there is a huge void between analogue and digital and yes, it is very clearly audible. Digital are so well known for their glassy, crystalline sound that jangles and splinters whereas analogue synths are so well known for their fat, warm sound. One is certainly not better than the other but they are very, very different. I have owned both, a Korg Z1 and a Cheetah MS6 which was based on an Oberheim filter. I currently use an Arturia Minibrute which has an analogue signal path only.
Yes, there are all of the usual stereotypical clichés but certainly where synthesisers are concerned there is a huge void between analogue and digital and yes, it is very clearly audible. Digital are so well known for their glassy, crystalline sound that jangles and splinters whereas analogue synths are so well known for their fat, warm sound. One is certainly not better than the other but they are very, very different. I have owned both, a Korg Z1 and a Cheetah MS6 which was based on an Oberheim filter. I currently use an Arturia Minibrute which has an analogue signal path only.
Analogue warmth - listen to this Mother 32 - heaven!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7beQLlU478Q
No digital stuff touches this!:)
Analogue warmth - listen to this Mother 32 - heaven!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7beQLlU478Q
No digital stuff touches this!:)
I got bored with it after a minute of playing the clip.
Yes, there are all of the usual stereotypical clichés but certainly where synthesisers are concerned there is a huge void between analogue and digital and yes, it is very clearly audible. Digital are so well known for their glassy, crystalline sound that jangles and splinters whereas analogue synths are so well known for their fat, warm sound.
Indeed, Shaun. The trouble is though, "glassy crystalline" and "fat, warm" often become the perceived de facto sounds for digital and analogue respectively, in terms of playback equipment, and the type of kit we use to reproduce the musical sounds you refer to, as opposed to creating them.
One thing that rips my knitting beyond belief is when, for example, valves are referred to as sounding 'warm and cuddly', or if you want to 'tone down' the brightness of a piece of digital equipment, shove some valves in! :doh:
Yes, if valves are implemented badly into the design of either recording or playback equipment, that's the result you'll get. However, done properly, it's the complete opposite! Therefore, these types of ignorant, stereotypical clichés/preconceptions simply serve to confuse and misinform, thus do nothing to further the process of genuine learning.
Marco.
I got bored with it after a minute of playing the clip.
Wasn't meant for you Barry;)
Bored? That's strange... It's not as if the clip was very long :scratch:
I rather enjoyed it, although with things like synthesisers (as you're creating an electrically manipulated and ultimately 'false' sound), the 'digital vs. analogue' argument takes on a different meaning, as apposed to how it does in the context of recording and playback equipment.
Marco.
Audio Advent
18-03-2016, 10:53
Hahahaha... That old chestnut! :doh:
By the same token, we could talk about 'digital coldness', and equally miss the point... These rather inaccurate and absolutist labels, placed upon aspects of audio reproduction, and usually perpetrated by those with an agenda, serve little constructive purpose or provide much insight into the reality of the matter.
I know exactly the qualities that some sound engineers are striving for when seeking to gain "analogue warmth" from their recordings, but the terminology used, and often how they go about achieving that effect, is all wrong!
Marco.
Oh Man !!! :doh: :doh: :doh: How did you manage to turn this interesting article about the recording gear of yesteryear into some dogma-filled argument, the likes of which is all over this and other forums?
Can't we take a break from it now and again please?
This is the purpose of the article:
"In this article, I'll look at some of the key analogue technologies often associated with 'analogue warmth', and explain why they create the sound they do. Hopefully, this will enable you to make more informed gear choices and create mixes with an analogue feel, if that's what you're after. Some of 'the science' may seem daunting, but the alphabetical 'Technical Terms Explained' boxes should help with that."
Read the words "associated with 'analogue warmth' - even the author puts it in inverted commas and is using the term because that's what people call it !
It's merely an article about what certain gear sounds like - gear both studio types, musicians AND listeners have fondness for - and why it makes the sound it does. Yes you can have a conversation too about why some gear sounds bad but it's not in this article..
Of course if analysis destroys some mystery and belief one is keen to hold on to, don't read it...
The clip was just to highlight the difference between analogue and digital synths. The Moog Mother 32 being pure analogue.
I'm sure Shaun appreciates the difference as I believe he uses the digital variety.
Interestingly digital synths cannot do the analogue sound thing no matter what processing is involved but maybe you might disagree Shaun?:)
Oh Man !!! :doh: :doh: :doh: How did you manage to turn this interesting article about the recording gear of yesteryear into some dogma-filled argument, the likes of which is all over this and other forums?
Because the misinformation (and age-old clichés) contained in the article is what justifiably prompted my response! You can't just 'by-pass' that stuff, or ignore it, to garner whatever else it is you think *should've* been taken from the article instead.
This is the purpose of the article:
"In this article, I'll look at some of the key analogue technologies often associated with 'analogue warmth', and explain why they create the sound they do. Hopefully, this will enable you to make more informed gear choices and create mixes with an analogue feel, if that's what you're after. Some of 'the science' may seem daunting, but the alphabetical 'Technical Terms Explained' boxes should help with that."
So if I disagree with that purpose, or what's contained in it, am I supposed to just shut up and say nothing?
The very term "analogue warmth" raises the heckles of those who love analogue, done well, and who know that it doesn't sound "warm" unless it's deliberately made to be such. Therefore, no matter what else the article was 'meant' to be about, that rather misleading term alone sets the tone from the very beginning!
Read the words "associated with 'analogue warmth' - even the author puts it in inverted commas and is using the term because that's what people call it !
It may be what *some* people call it, but that doesn't make it right or accurate. Furthermore, one of my pet hates is seeing 'analogue' ignorantly referred to in that way, so I will highlight it and oppose it at every relevant opportunity, in the hope of diluting that false perception, by providing some much needed balance!
Marco.
Audio Advent
18-03-2016, 11:04
The problem as I see it is that a lot of people do theoretical research that is based on reading up on what a lot of people are saying and may have written in published articles, and then take the view of the majority as factual. So once the term digital coldness has been applied, no further measures are attempted in order to find out why a piece of equipment sounds cold, and what can be done to remedy the situation.
I myself did my own research and then ended up trying to overcome the ones that I had identified as possible culprits that could be tackled. One is the noise level in power supplies. The more noise there is, the more the D to A converted audio will sound digital. And that can easily be confirmed by swapping over to a less noisy PSU source.
The next one that makes digital audio sounds cold is due to the missed bits in the D to A processing. This too can be confirmed by improving the digital path so that the decoding process is far more accurate. The digital path can be improved by an improved circuit board layout, and by the use of ancillary components (caps, resistors, etc. ) that can perform reliably and without ringing, phase shifts, etc. at the higher frequency that the digital signal is operating at. A lot of people often use components that are brilliant in the audio spectrum, but are far from satisfactory in the Mega Hertz range. It is mainly the low level signals that go to make up the warm sound. If you remove them, the audio will sound drier, which is then put down to a digital sound.
But before the availability of digital audio, analogue equipment manufacturers were producing audio equipment with a dry sound from time to time. We just didn't label the sound as digital sounding because nobody had yet suggested that as a possible issue. Some of the Naim CD players spring to mind.
Thankfully there are people in the world who look at problems as things to be investigated and aren't trapped in dogma of just saying things like "it sound like that because it's digital" (or even that analogue will sound great whatever either..). Same with the article I mentioned - investigating the causes rather than just saying "analogue sounds warm".
Audio Advent
18-03-2016, 11:08
Because the misinformation (and age-old clichés) contained in the article is what justifiably prompted my response! You can't just 'by-pass' that stuff, or ignore it, to garner whatever else it is you think should've been taken from the article instead.
Where is this bit, the clichés and misinformation? In the intro? Well it's an article for people who DO use those terms - obviously it's not aimed at you.
Or have you read through the technical bits and your technical knowledge of the gear tells you it's all cliché amd misinformation? If so I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views to get a different perspective and learn from it.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 11:10
The clip was just to highlight the difference between analogue and digital synths. The Moog Mother 32 being pure analogue.
I'm sure Shaun appreciates the difference as I believe he uses the digital variety.
Interestingly digital synths cannot do the analogue sound thing no matter what processing is involved but maybe you might disagree Shaun?:)
I very definitely agree old pal. Digital synths do not use the raw basics of sound generation, instead they use digital waveforms held in ROM. They then use DCO's to turn that representation of a waveform into a sound. This of course can be manipulated further if one chooses.
I will always prefer analogue synths to digital synths as they are massively more 'organic'. In terms of sound reproduction, I differ from what I have just said, these days, I prefer CD to analogue.
Same with the article I mentioned - investigating the causes rather than just saying "analogue sounds warm".
So do you consider that the following qualifies as the above:
I cut my professional teeth on analogue equipment, but I think modern digital recording is a significant step up from the best of analogue in many practical ways. A lot of the early digital gear certainly didn't live up to the hype that surrounded it, but understanding and technology have come on in leaps and bounds since then, and to my mind digital recording systems can now deliver pretty much all that was once promised: a near‑perfect recording medium that gives back exactly what was recorded.
It's the underlying presumption that digital recording is somehow 'automatically superior'/more accurate than the BEST of its analogue counterpart, which I object to, as it's simply superficial thinking, and grossly distorts the reality.
When you own a large music collection, containing 1000s of examples of both analogue and digital recordings (from various eras), along with top-notch analogue and digital replay equipment, able to get the best out of both formats, and the BEST of those formats, quite clearly, is represented by the early all-analogue recordings on vinyl, which sonically and musically (in terms of realism) notably outperform the best modern digital recordings on CD or file-based media, it hardly adds weight to the highlighted statement above... ;)
And I'm far from alone in coming to that (educated) conclusion, based on considerable experience of being exposed to the best of what both digital and analogue have to offer.
Yes, undoubtedly some progress has been made with modern digital technology, but if the author honestly believes the bit highlighted in bold, then he's deluded and/or has been sucked into the commercial propaganda that digital is somehow 'perfect', when quite clearly, it isn't.
Marco.
Where is this bit, the clichés and misinformation? In the intro? Well it's an article for people who DO use those terms - obviously it's not aimed at you.
Not just in the intro. See my last post.
So because you consider that the article isn't aimed at me, I should just ignore it? Dream on.
Marco.
I very definitely agree old pal. Digital synths do not use the raw basics of sound generation, instead they use digital waveforms held in ROM. They then use DCO's to turn that representation of a waveform into a sound. This of course can be manipulated further if one chooses.
I will always prefer analogue synths to digital synths as they are massively more 'organic'. In terms of sound reproduction, I differ from what I have just said, these days, I prefer CD to analogue.
But what about the first time those "glassy sounds" appeared, I remember the Yamaha DX7, it could do loads of great things with its FM synthesis, but try as we might, it could not make the same sounds as the mini moog that sat on top of it. FM synthesis started with pure sine waves just like the Moog could, but the result was very different because the process was very different. The DX7 did just what you say they didn't. they started with raw basics, there were no waveform roms. At the same time the Synclavier which was also FM based made loads of fat "analogue" sounds (not that we could afford to get our hands on one).
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 11:44
I think you will find that Moog's do not use sine waves. They use square, saw and triangle which are full of harmonics unlike a sine wave. They also have a mixer section like my current synth that allows continuous blending of any of those waveforms. The possibilities are massive with the mixer section.
Hmmm... Yamaha DX7, my most hated synth ever.
;)
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 11:45
Of course digitally, if you have enough data points doesn't that equate to analogue...??
;)
Rothchild
18-03-2016, 11:55
Err, just to note that subtractive synthesis (what most analogue synths use - a waveform generator with (normally) envelopes/oscillators (LFO) to control pitch and amplitude) can be implemented in both analogue and digital domains - something like a Novation A-Station is a digital subtractive synth, which in topology is very much like 2 Roland SH101s stacked up in a single box.
Frequency Modulation (FM) is more likely to be implemented digitally, it uses sine waves as both 'operators' and 'modulators' to build up very complex waves, and yes is great for things like bells with very complex harmonics and are vary difficult to make with subtractive synths.
The point is that the synthesis method and whether it's analogue or digital are separate things, but they seem to be getting confused in this thread
I like Stan's point though, beyond the theorising they are all implemented in circuits and the better those circuits are designed the more 'accurate' the outcome is likely to be regardless of analogue or digitalness.
I like Stan's point though, beyond the theorising they are all implemented in circuits and the better those circuits are designed the more 'accurate' the outcome is likely to be regardless of analogue or digitalness.
Indeed! :thumbsup:
Optimal implementation is what it's all about.
Marco.
I think you will find that Moog's do not use sine waves. They use square, saw and triangle which are full of harmonics unlike a sine wave. They also have a mixer section like my current synth that allows continuous blending of any of those waveforms. The possibilities are massive with the mixer section.
Hmmm... Yamaha DX7, my most hated synth ever.
;)
Yep, memory fail on my part, the extra oscillator I built for it did, but thats neither here or there. My point was that they didnt need to use wave tables, they may have done, but the basic of a DX7 was a sine wave, not a sampled or other complex shape.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 12:00
Sincerest apologies for side tracking this thread.
Having spent money on a Benz Micro Silver HOMC cartridge I now find that I much prefer CD to vinyl. My main reason is down to the type of music I listen to. I just don't think my favourite music sounds anywhere near as impressive on vinyl.
So, I bought a s/h Bushmaster MkII with a custom built DC psu. Much better...!
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 12:02
Yep, memory fail on my part, the extra oscillator I built for it did, but thats neither here or there. My point was that they didnt need to use wave tables, they may have done, but the basic of a DX7 was a sine wave, not a sampled or other complex shape.
Yes of course, you are correct. Still my most hated ever synth...
;)
Sincerest apologies for side tracking this thread.
Having spent money on a Benz Micro Silver HOMC cartridge I now find that I much prefer CD to vinyl. My main reason is down to the type of music I listen to. I just don't think my favourite music sounds anywhere near as impressive on vinyl.
So, I bought a s/h Bushmaster MkII with a custom built DC psu. Much better...!
I think you may be sidetracking the sidetrack. The thread was originally not about CD and vinyl at all from my understanding.
Sincerest apologies for side tracking this thread.
Having spent money on a Benz Micro Silver HOMC cartridge I now find that I much prefer CD to vinyl. My main reason is down to the type of music I listen to. I just don't think my favourite music sounds anywhere near as impressive on vinyl.
So, I bought a s/h Bushmaster MkII with a custom built DC psu. Much better...!
Happy days, Shaun! However, with respect, I don't think you've taken vinyl far enough to have gotten the most out of it, so I'm not surprised, in that respect, at what you've found. A top-notch digital source will outperform most budget-to-midrange T/Ts, which correct me if I'm wrong, is all you've owned to date.
Trust me, play some superbly recorded 12" singles of dance/ambient/synthesiser music, on a well-fettled SL-1200/1210 (or something else of that ilk), and you may arrive at a rather different conclusion! ;)
Marco.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 12:08
Yep, memory fail on my part, the extra oscillator I built for it did, but thats neither here or there. My point was that they didnt need to use wave tables, they may have done, but the basic of a DX7 was a sine wave, not a sampled or other complex shape.
Strangely, I adore Waldorf synths and they very definitely use wavetables. Oh the joys of screaming, distorted square waves filtered to death.
Rothchild
18-03-2016, 12:08
Hmmm... Yamaha DX7, my most hated synth ever.
Yeah right, not like anyone ever made any hit records with one, 'DX Piano' is irrelevant and the 'Lately Bass' patch has never been in a dance record (or got rid of Wet Wet Wet from the top of the charts, thanks Whigfield) also, of course, Brian Eno is an idiot.
walpurgis
18-03-2016, 12:25
Having spent money on a Benz Micro Silver HOMC cartridge I now find that I much prefer CD to vinyl. My main reason is down to the type of music I listen to. I just don't think my favourite music sounds anywhere near as impressive on vinyl.
Apologies if necessary for extending this sidetrack (I guess :)) I have similar music tastes to you Shaun and I suspect a Micro Silver is not likely to meet your expectations from record playing. The TD160 and LV-V are a capable pairing. I reckon you'd get more from a Decca London or something like one of the better Audio Technica MCs or even a ZYX if the budget could stretch that far.
My CD playback is great, but so is my vinyl side of things. I think you'd love the kind of sound my system generates.
Ok, to answer the question in its basic form: "Analogue warmth - where does it come from?"
My view is that it comes from (i.e. is a by-product of) associated equipment, employed in the recording or playback chain, ameliorating the sonic imperfections of digital, by imbuing the sound with the sonic imperfections of analogue, and thus 'cancelling out' the former.
It is the latter effect that our ears in general consider as less undesirable, and (arguably) which acts as a more natural and believable sounding representation of the real thing (read as closest to what was represented by the original sound, recorded or played back).
For me, that's essentially it in a nutshell, with the bogus notion that either are 'perfect'/more 'accurate', or automatically superior to the other, in all contexts, being quite simply, blinkered bullshit.
"Analogue warmth" certainly *isn't* a coloration that occurs solely or automatically as a result of the best examples of associated equipment being any 'less accurate' than its digital counterpart, or that there is somehow a 'free lunch', and everything becomes 'notionally perfect', whenever a digital process or piece of hardware is applied to the recording or playback of music.
If you genuinely think that, then quite simply, you're kidding yourself on!
Marco.
I don't think that it is disputed that a digital recording is a more accurate representation to the microphone feed in terms of measurement. Whether the result sounds 'more like real instruments' than an analogue recording is a subjective thing and will depend on the individual.
That's leaving aside the way the recording was made - live mic feeds as opposed to direct injection, recording a live take of the whole performance rather than recording each instrument - or group of instruments, individually and so forth.
Any recording should be viewed as a work of art as opposed to an attempt to capture the performance exactly as recorded - lots of audiophiles seem to think all recordings should capture the performance exactly but that is like saying Picasso was a rubbish artist because his pictures do not look like (unadulterated) photographs.
It reminds me of that bit in the Simpsons where the film crew do up cows to look like horses because 'you can't use real horses because they don't look like horses on film'.
"Analogue Warmth where does it come from?"
Stuff happening above 20k (that we cant hear?) and lack of digital noise? :D
I don't think that it is disputed that a digital recording is a more accurate representation to the microphone feed in terms of measurement. Whether the result sounds 'more like real instruments' than an analogue recording is a subjective thing and will depend on the individual.
Yes, but as the test apparatus and measurements currently available to us don't tell the WHOLE story, in that respect, what *real* value does that statement have?
Here's a scenario for you to consider:
Your hi-fi system plays two high-fidelity recordings of a Steinway piano: one a digital recording on CD, and another, the identical piece of music, only on vinyl (via an all-analogue recording).
Measurement tells you that the former is more 'accurate', but a visiting professional pianist, who uses a Steinway himself (and is a long-standing member of the LSO), upon comparing the two recordings reproduced by your system, declares, based on his years of experience, that the analogue recording sounds to him much more like a real Steinway piano, certainly any that he's played for 30 years.
Which, in your opinion, is the more believable arbiter of 'accurate' in that context: the ears of a professional pianist, or the readout on a piece of test apparatus? I know which one I'd go for!! ;)
"Sounds more like real instruments", based on knowing *exactly* what represents such, is what it's ALL ABOUT, since we're judging MUSIC, not merely electrical signals. If the day ever comes when test equipment can 'measure' and assess musical information as accurately as the 'trained ears' of a professional musician, then we can reassess the situation accordingly.
Marco.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 13:25
I suspect that the Steinway on the analogue system will sound considerably superior because it will have an 'organic' and 'earthy' quality to it that I have never heard digitally.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 13:27
Someone mentioned Brian Eno. Now there is a synth and a half, in fact a real signal generator, an EMS VCS3. It is because of this that my favourite synths are made by Doepfer and only come in modules.
With all respect Marco, what you just typed was
"Yes, but as the test apparatus and measurements currently available to us don't tell the WHOLE story, in that respect, what *real* value does that statement have?
Here's a scenario for you to consider:
[A entirly fictional description of a situation that I dont know has happened with a outcome I dont know if occurred that confirms the point I want to make]"
I suspect that the Steinway on the analogue system will sound considerably superior because it will have an 'organic' and 'earthy' quality to it that I have never heard digitally.
Yes, perhaps because said "organic" and "earthy" qualities are intrinsic to the sound of a real Steinway? And how exactly would you measure for that? ;)
Marco.
With all respect Marco, what you just typed was
"Yes, but as the test apparatus and measurements currently available to us don't tell the WHOLE story, in that respect, what *real* value does that statement have?
Here's a scenario for you to consider:
[A entirly fictional description of a situation that I dont know has happened with a outcome I dont know if occurred that confirms the point I want to make]"
Yes, but it doesn't need to have happened, Nick, hence why it was a proposed scenario! It also doesn't mean to say that what I described couldn't happen.
It represents a test that I've always wanted to carry out, as IMO, the outcome would act as far better 'proof' of a sound that was genuinely more 'accurate', than the result of any measurements carried out by test equipment.
Marco.
You can't but again it comes back to that thing of mocking up cows to look like horses because horses don't look like horses on film.
In other words less accurate can appear more accurate from a subjective point of view.
In the case of the article linked to in the o/p that is not about making anything sound 'more real' but about getting the sound you want your recording to have. Like painting a landscape, the sky is blue but what shade of blue do you use? The most realistic one, or one that gives an overall look and effect to the painting?
It is a painting, a work of art, so either choice is valid.
If someone then comes to the gallery and views your painting and their comment is that the sky is not a realistic shade of blue then they have missed the point entirely.
Ok, so "it doesn't need to have happened" so its just some made up stuff that makes the point you are trying to make, just the same as :
"Your hi-fi system plays two high-fidelity recordings of a Steinway piano: one a digital recording on CD, and another, the identical piece of music, only on vinyl (via an all-analogue recording).
Listening reveals that the latter system is more enjoyable and conveys more of the emotion of the piece , but a visiting professional pianist, who uses a Steinway himself (and is a long-standing member of the LSO), upon comparing the two recordings reproduced by your system, declares, based on his years of experience, that the digital recording (on CD) sounds to him much more like a real Steinway piano, certainly any that he's played for 30 years."
Is some made up stuff that says the opposite.
You can't but again it comes back to that thing of mocking up cows to look like horses because horses don't look like horses on film.
In other words less accurate can appear more accurate from a subjective point of view.
Yes, but you're missing the main point, which is this: who or what says which is the more 'accurate'? In that respect, who or what gets to be the 'definitive arbiter'? To answer that question, use the scenario I painted with the pianist.
Try answering the question I asked you there.....?
In the case of the article linked to in the o/p that is not about making anything sound 'more real' but about getting the sound you want your recording to have. Like painting a landscape, the sky is blue but what shade of blue do you use? The most realistic one, or one that gives an overall look and effect to the painting?
It is a painting, a work of art, so either choice is valid.
I completely agree, however, that's not all of which the article infers.
It's also slanted heavily towards the notion that "analogue warmth" is simply a euphonic coloration, and is somehow 'cured' by 'digital accuracy', when the reality is that digital simply imparts its own form of coloration, regardless of what analogue does, and that nothing is 'perfect'. Unfortunately, with either, there is no 'free lunch'!
*That* is the fact which needs to be embraced and accepted by all parties, including the author of the article in question.
Marco.
Ok, so "it doesn't need to have happened" so its just some made up stuff that makes the point you are trying to make, just the same as :
"Your hi-fi system plays two high-fidelity recordings of a Steinway piano: one a digital recording on CD, and another, the identical piece of music, only on vinyl (via an all-analogue recording).
Listening reveals that the latter system is more enjoyable and conveys more of the emotion of the piece , but a visiting professional pianist, who uses a Steinway himself (and is a long-standing member of the LSO), upon comparing the two recordings reproduced by your system, declares, based on his years of experience, that the digital recording (on CD) sounds to him much more like a real Steinway piano, certainly any that he's played for 30 years."
Is some made up stuff that says the opposite.
It's made up at the moment, but if the scenario I proposed was put into practice, one wonders what the outcome would be? ;)
Marco.
It's made up at the moment, but if the scenario I proposed was put into practice, one wonders what the outcome would be? ;)
Marco.
Yes, but without actually doing it its just made up, it all comes down to "I think I am right because of {REASON}". Dont you all get tired of this tribal shit?
The original post on this thread was about the recording process, and the generation of sounds, not the last few steps in our homes. There is no correct when it comes to the question of what sounds better a Moog or a DX7. Its purely subjective, which given this forums stated position I would think you could understand. In practice it seems to be a case of "We are subjective here as long as the overall subjective viewpoint matches the groupthink".
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 13:53
People used to refer to the 'ether' as the 'stuff' that was between everything. I think that analogue has an 'ether' that makes it just everso slightly different to digital.
Of course this cannot be measured because in reality, it doesn't exist
;)
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 13:56
'digital accuracy', when the reality is that digital simply imparts its own form of coloration. Unfortunately, there is no 'free lunch'!
Marco.
I agree with 'digital accuracy' but then I also agree with 'analogue'accuracy
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 14:00
The one thing that really gets my fecking back up when it comes to digital is that almost everything is menu driven...! You can't operate a recording console or a feckin synth without having to go through layer upon layer of bloody menu's. Oh the joy of analogue...! Knobs, knobs and more knobs...!
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 14:04
I think that one of our problems is that quite a lot of people think that digital is 'better' than analogue because it is the latest technology and therefore must be a progressive move forwards. With regard to synthesisers, if this were the case, why has analogue just reinvented itself and in the case of Hi-Fi, why is vinyl in the centre of a huge comeback...?
Yes, but without actually doing it its just made up, it all comes down to "I think I am right because of {REASON}". Dont you all get tired of this tribal shit?
Tribal shit? Lol... It's got nothing to do with that. I'm simply defending my opinion, based on experience. I enjoy the playback of both digital and analogue music, and can appreciate the merits of both, as is proven by the contents of my music collection! ;)
I never said that I was right either; it's simply my opinion, so I'm perfectly entitled to construct a scenario, which *I believe* (although currently cannot prove), if made a reality, would back up my viewpoint.
Marco.
I think that one of our problems is that quite a lot of people think that digital is 'better' than analogue because it is the latest technology and therefore must be a progressive move forwards.
Yes, that is indeed part of the problem: the misguided notion that newest is automatically best. That notion sadly appears to be ingrained in the human psyche. The reality unfortunately is that the latest technology doesn't, in every instance, automatically guarantee *real* progress.
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 14:15
Excellent article. Well written, technically correct and to a far higher technical standard than that usually found in hi fi mags. I'm pretty much in agreement with the lot personally.
It also illustrates one of my own hi fi bete noir which is that many (and yes it's a free country etc) choose to continue this "creative process" by deliberately pursuing this same "analogue editing" regime in their own hi fi's! One will see questions here on AOS such as "can anyone recommend a cheap valve line stage to add warmth" :eek: NOOOO!! Worst case and one ends up with the bods who will have probably an SPU-GT into a SUT into a valve phono stage with added transformers, feeding a valve line stage with 1920's valves and several interstage transformers in the signal path for the hell of it, feeding an SET with interstage coupling transformers and then horns. That's not a hi fi system it's a sound effects machine! Probably only approaching flat response from 100Hz - 10KHz if that, all edges removed (rough or not), several % even harmonic distortion adding even more warmth..... And the likes of 6 moons would go ga-ga for it.... whilst it's owner boasts that all the capacitors were made before 1950 (hence not as good as modern ones in basic design and probably half knackered).
On the converse I often think that the very best kit unfairly often goes unnoticed due to it's getting out of the way and just doing what it's supposed to do IE in the case of an amp, amplifying... without adding anything or taking anything away. Unless the recording and ancillary equipment is of superlative quality and the replay is at natural levels, the really good accurate kit will probably just sound "unremarkable", "matter of fact" whereas if an amp has some odd distortion/colouration that gives a perceived sheen to the top end, that will be the one folks go "Ohhh I like that, that sounds a bit special".
I reckon that often hi fi fans forget how "edgy", "in yer face" etc real live unamplified music can be (depending hugely on the instruments, and acoustics etc) ;)
Horses for courses and yer pays yer money and makes yer choices....
Worst case and one ends up with the bods who will have probably an SPU-GT into a SUT into a valve phono stage...
First of all, daftee, an SPU-GT has a built-in transformer (hence the 'T' in 'GT'), and so doesn't need to be run through a separate SUT. If you did that, then it *really* would be a sound effects machine! :D
Lol... That aside, I can assure you that using an SPU-GT into a quality valve MM phono stage, does not create part of a "sound effects machine". Shall I demonstrate that to you at the forthcoming NEBO, along with the DL-103 and Shure M55E, as previously discussed? ;)
If after listening to the demo (using my T/T, preamp and phono stage) you genuinely consider the results represent that of a "sound effects machine", then I'll donate £100 to your charity of choice, and if you don't, you come on here and say that you were wrong.
Deal? :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 14:31
Has anyone mentioned convenience yet...? Back in the nineties I rode various types of Ducati motorcycle and even though they are considered to be the Dogs Bollox they are a sodding nightmare of inconvenience. You have to constantly top up the fuel with additive just to stop the constant carb icing and then the fuel injected ones suffer from huge flat spots that just take the piss to be honest. Compare this with a nice big four by Kawasaki...! Absolute bliss. Tthe difference is chalk...! Ooops, digital versus analogue...!!
Vinyl playback can be a pain in the arse of a big magnitude.
Compact disc is pure convenience. It may not be perfect but then clearly, neither is vinyl. Vinyl does though have a quality that cannot be given a number. It cannot be analysed and given a qualitative or quantitative value. I work in chemistry and this lack of a defining number really pisses me off. I analyse for a living and have done so for thirty odd years. I do not like stray values in any walk of life. I like things to be black and white. Digital is, vinyl is not.
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 14:32
No. You are taking one aspect of what I said out of context and non familiarity with equipment would not allow a fair test. They are just not my idea of good cartridges though from previous experience.
Haselsh1
18-03-2016, 14:33
First of all, daftee, an SPU-GT has a built-in transformer (hence the 'T' in 'GT'), and so doesn't need to be run through a separate SUT. If you did that, then it *really* would be a sound effects machine! :D
Lol... That aside, I can assure you that using an SPU-GT (with built-in SUT) into a quality valve MM phono stage, does not create a "sound effects machine". Shall I demonstrate that to you at the forthcoming NEBO, along with a DL-103 and Shure M55E? ;)
If after listening to the demo (using my T/T, preamp and phono stage) you genuinely consider the results represent that of a "sound effects machine", then I'll donate £100 to your charity of choice, and if you don't, you come on here and say that you were wrong.
Deal? :)
Marco.
:eek:
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 14:37
Comparing digital and reel to reel would be a better comparison IMHO. A R-R will piss on any TT and yet it is the final vinyl analogue product , cut from the R-R master that we end up comparing with digital..... Oh for easily available, CHEAP, quality pre recorded R-R tapes....
No. You are taking one aspect of what I said out of context and non familiarity with equipment would not allow a fair test. They are just not my idea of good cartridges though from previous experience.
Lol - yes, because you were deliberately skewing the results in favour of your argument, by quoting a context in which said SPU would be hobbled by the (rather coloured sounding) partnering equipment! ;)
Anyone can do that... I, however, am giving an example (and willing to demonstrate it in public, such is the strength of my convictions), of a context in which said SPU would sound nothing like you've described, so would you be man enough to change your opinion, if what you heard contradicted your (seemingly) ingrained bias?
Also, for the record, when was the last time you heard an SPU, of any description, and in what context (T/T, arm and phono stage)? :)
Marco.
Comparing digital and reel to reel would be a better comparison IMHO.
Agreed!
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 14:55
Lol - yes, because you were deliberately skewing the results in favour of your argument, by quoting a context in which said SPU would be hobbled by the (rather coloured sounding) partnering equipment! ;)
Anyone can do that... I, however, am giving an example (and willing to demonstrate it in public, such is the strength of my convictions), of a context in which said SPU would sound nothing like you've described, so would you be man enough to change your opinion, if what you heard contradicted your ingrained bias?
Also, for the record, when was the last time you heard an SPU, of any description, and in what context (T/T, arm and phono stage)? :)
Marco.
That's a ridiculous argument as it is you who are homing in on the SPU which I mentioned in passing as the sort of lush sounding thing which would often be found in the type of system I described. I don't like SPU's or DL103's personally. The carts I most like you would probably find too bright and accuse of "throwing detail at you" and being "unmusical" ;)
It's not a ridiculous argument at all! Take this for example:
it is you who are homing in on the SPU which I mentioned in passing as the sort of lush sounding thing which would often be found in the type of system I described.
I'm "homing in" on it because it most certainly doesn't sound "lush" in the right system, and I can demonstrate that at NEBO.
I'm therefore asking that if you subsequently heard a sound there that you didn't consider as "lush", would you have the balls to come on here (and also admit it at NEBO) that you were wrong, or is your opinion on the matter so dyed-in-the-wool and immovable, that no matter what you heard, you'd never change your opinion or admit that you were wrong? ;)
And please answer the question I asked, about when the last time was you heard an SPU, and in which context. The thing about me, is that I don't allow folk to avoid the difficult questions, by swerving them to save face. I keep on asking them until I get an apporpriate answer! :ner:
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 15:11
Marco I'm really not interested..... I was adding my input to the main thread but you have steered it into a discussion about the SPU which I just ain't interested in...
Lol... That's a bit of cop out, Jez. Here's the thing... I strongly suspect that you've never heard an SPU, used in right context (one that would allow it to perform at its maximum potential), but I guess since you won't answer the question, we'll never know ;)
Marco.
It's not a ridiculous argument at all! Take this for example:
I'm "homing in" on it because it most certainly doesn't sound "lush" in the right system, and I can demonstrate that at NEBO.
I'm therefore asking that if you subsequently heard a sound there that you didn't consider as "lush", would you have the balls to come on here (and also admit it at NEBO) that you were wrong, or is your opinion on the matter so dyed-in-the-wool and immovable, that no matter what you heard, you'd never change your opinion or admit that you were wrong? ;)
And please answer the question I asked about when the last time was you heard an SPU, and in what context. The thing about me, is that I don't allow folk to avoid the difficult questions, by swerving them to save face. I keep on asking them until I get an apporpriate answer! :ner:
Marco.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00909/f6a30c90-fe6b-11e4-_909481c.jpg
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 15:28
Not a cop out at all. The point is I couldn't give a *&^$ as the SPU is not what anyone but yourself is discussing here!! I made several points in my original post which may generate some discussion hopefully but the SPU was very much in passing as part of the example system. You're galloping away on your hobby horse meanwhile....
Not at all. You simply can't expect to make blanket statements like you did, in a supposedly authoritative manner, and not be challenged on it, whether merely part of a point you were making or not. It was you who brought an SPU into the equation, not me!
As for "galloping off on hobby horses", you're the champion jockey here!! :lol:
Anyway, mate, let's leave it there, as this part of the discussion is going nowhere constructive :)
Marco.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00909/f6a30c90-fe6b-11e4-_909481c.jpg
http://theartofsound.net/forum/webkit-fake-url://49f607cf-4834-4c74-a047-70dd263e7b48/imagejpeg
:lolsign:
The last image (whatever it's meant to be) no worky!
Marco.
I once thought the SPU was a lush softie of a cartridge and was roundly set upon when I expressed this opinion here at the time, but a good listen to a late one earlier this year, in a PL71 deck, showed that it's more an emphasis on top quality bass and midrange, with rock-solid stability and low surface noise, with a 'quiet' hf region, rather than finely etched and exposed upper mids and treble - who cares that records are often mostly cut with reduced bass, as this cartridge puts the 'power' back I thought. Not that I found the SPU bad or distorted in the treble, but it had a sort-of 'Zeta and related tonearms (Kuzma)' kind of powerful nature and I feel I better understand it's appeal - I think I'd probably love one, even though I'm a Decca fan ;) simply because the sound is so easy and 'fit and forget,' rather than set-up fussy as so many designs can appear to be. Just my tuppence worth obviously. Maybe the PL71 had a lot to do with it, but it was an enchanting combination ;)
I once thought the SPU was a lush softie of a cartridge and was roundly set upon when I expressed this opinion here at the time, but a good listen to a late one earlier this year, in a PL71 deck, showed that it's more an emphasis on top quality bass and midrange, with rock-solid stability and low surface noise, with a 'quiet' hf region, rather than finely etched and exposed upper mids and treble - who cares that records are often mostly cut with reduced bass, as this cartridge puts the 'power' back I thought. Not that I found the SPU bad or distorted in the treble, but it had a sort-of 'Zeta and related tonearms (Kuzma)' kind of powerful nature and I feel I better understand it's appeal - I think I'd probably love one, even though I'm a Decca fan ;) simply because the sound is so easy and 'fit and forget,' rather than set-up fussy as so many designs can appear to be. Just my tuppence worth obviously. Maybe the PL71 had a lot to do with it, but it was an enchanting combination ;)
How do you set up the correct overhang when using an SPU in the arm of the PL71?
I once thought the SPU was a lush softie of a cartridge and was roundly set upon when I expressed this opinion here at the time, but a good listen to a late one earlier this year, in a PL71 deck, showed that it's more an emphasis on top quality bass and midrange, with rock-solid stability and low surface noise, with a 'quiet' hf region, rather than finely etched and exposed upper mids and treble - who cares that records are often mostly cut with reduced bass, as this cartridge puts the 'power' back I thought.
That's a reasonable description, Dave, of how an SPU-GT sounds in my own set up. There's a lot about the presentation of modern cartridges that isn't in any way 'accurate', despite how supposedly 'well' they measure!
You're to be commended in 're-evaluating' your opinion like that (as indeed you've done before in other circumstances), instead of stubbornly hanging onto preconceived notions, based on outdated and perhaps less than optimal contexts in which you'd heard an SPU in the past, up until that point, simply out of arrogance/pride or the desire always to be 'right'. Some others here should follow your example.... :eyebrows:
Oh, and I can guess who the PL-71 and SPU in question belonged to! ;)
Marco.
How do you set up the correct overhang when using an SPU in the arm of the PL71?
Presumably the same as I've done with my (similarly fixed) Ortofon arm: ensured that the armboard has been drilled out in the correct position (based on relevant measurements) for the tonearm to fit into, in order to achieve the correct overhang/alignment of the cartridge, in my case using Stevenson geometry, as the reference :)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 16:16
:rfl: irony and hypocrisy emojis sadly lacking :)
Presumably the same as I've done with my (similarly fixed) Ortofon arm: ensured that the armboard has been drilled out in the correct position (based on relevant measurements) for the tonearm to fit into, in order to achieve the correct overhang/alignment of the cartridge, in my case using Stevenson geometry, as the reference :)
Marco.
Yes, but you're using an arm designed by Ortofon and made for them by Jelco (or if not designed by Ortofon, it would have been designed to meet their specification). I would therefore expect it to work well with the Ortofon SPU.
The base of the arm on the PL71 is fixed and the cartridge stylus overhang is set within the headshell which is slotted. The SPU is integrated with the headshell, there is no adjustment: it is not obvious that the stylus to headshell bayonet flange distance is such that the correct geometry is guaranteed.
It would be if the user concerned obtained the correct spindle to pivot distance, and drilled the accompanying armboard out accordingly, in order to ensure that the arm in question was positioned correctly to allow the SPU to achieve correctly alignment with the geometry chosen.
I'm only surmising that was the case, however, as it's the *only* way it could've been done, other than simply banging it on and hoping for the best. Dave may be able to shed more light on the matter :)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
18-03-2016, 16:53
Another salient point here is whether or not "analogue warmth" is a good thing... it nearly always seem to be seen as such but surely it is colouration and therefore undesirable?! As of course is "digital hardness/coldness" etc ;)
A truly neutral low colouration system with full bandwidth tends not to sound impressive until volumes approach realistic, due to FM effect etc, I reckon many therefore go for a warm colouration to try and add some fullness missing due to too low a volume in many domestic settings...
I think that's a reasonable way of looking at it, Jez, and in some circumstances most likely relevant.
My 'beef', as it were, the point of which you've just acknowledged, is that it's not only "analogue warmth" that exists (should you desire or perceive such a thing), but also, in the same respect, "digital coldness" - i.e. it's not only in the analogue domain where coloration manifests itself! ;)
It's the blinkered notion often perpetrated by those who mistakenly consider it as 'fact' (and indeed alluded to in the article in question) of 'digital perfection', which stings my sphincter, as there is no such thing. *Everything* in line with the signal path colours the sound to some degree, and digital is no exception.
Marco.
I *think* the socket to stylus tip distance was supposed to be pre-fixed on the arms that use this fitting.
The thing about vinyl cutting Marco, is that the midrange is often lifted - or the bass dropped in level as well as mono'd - when records are cut. not opinion, as I had a lengthy chat with a now sadly deceased Decca cutting/mastering engineer (Tony Hawkins) one afternoon, who wasn't being precious about analogue or digital (as in CD), but was informative on what needed to be done, especially how Decca differed from 'everyone else' until around 1970, when they got new Neumann (70 model?) lathes. Playing some of these discs on an SPU may well restore the balance, as the old fruitbox sort-of did back then by various means. One reason why 'we' disliked the old better direct drives in the days before proper supports, as they either muddled what mid-bass there was, removed the deeper notes that were there or worse, removed the 'tunefulness' in the bass all but entirely - ugh.. For me, the mid 80's were educational on these decks, as the fruitbox had the Pink as a proper competitor (I never really vibed with the Roksan) and proper supports came along. When people bought their ten year old Techie pre-quartz models along for a new cartridge or stylus, we began to hear what they could *really* do and they could do a heck of a lot of good things... Coming to this year, the SPU which sounded so thick and lush on early 80's decks, has this all but removed into the tones I mentioned above - for me anyway.
By the way, I came across the documentation my Garrott Decca Microscanner came with. Would Barry like a scan of it for the library, as it contains some interesting tips on using one of these sometimes frustrating cartridges?
Another salient point here is whether or not "analogue warmth" is a good thing... it nearly always seem to be seen as such but surely it is colouration and therefore undesirable?! As of course is "digital hardness/coldness" etc ;)
A truly neutral low colouration system with full bandwidth tends not to sound impressive until volumes approach realistic, due to FM effect etc, I reckon many therefore go for a warm colouration to try and add some fullness missing due to too low a volume in many domestic settings...
Every piece of equipment you use is coloured to some degree wether its analogue or digital and all have some distortion,
and before you bang on about 0.000007 whatever distortion in equipment you may have or heard - remember speakers distort at about 30%.
It all depends on how you like to mix your sonic cocktail.:)
Rothchild
18-03-2016, 21:31
if this were the case, why has analogue just reinvented itself and in the case of Hi-Fi, why is vinyl in the centre of a huge comeback...?
Because boomers have all the money and nostalgia sells?
I think it goes a little deeper than that ;)
Marco.
Every piece of equipment you use is coloured to some degree wether its analogue or digital and all have some distortion,
and before you bang on about 0.000007 whatever distortion in equipment you may have or heard - remember speakers distort at about 30%.
It all depends on how you like to mix your sonic cocktail.:)
really crap speakers might distort that much. Otherwise for a small speaker stretched to the limits you might get 10% in the bass - most are under 5% - big speakers 1% or less
And distortion is cumulative so add the distortion from the source on to that from the speakers. They don't cancel out.
Too many youngsters buying vinyl for it to be nostalgia - you can't have nostalgia for some thing you are too young to remember. But it isn't sound quality either since the turntables are those cheap USB things from Amazon in a lot of cases.
I think it is because it is a cool physical medium and streaming music or storing it on hard drives gives no emotional connection, unlike a big gatefold sleeve with interesting artwork you can show off to your mates.
Too many youngsters buying vinyl for it to be nostalgia - you can't have nostalgia for some thing you are too young to remember.
Indeed!
Extrapolating that sentiment a little, the exact same applies with those of us here under 60 who use valve amps, SPU cartridges, big old Tannoys, and extol the sonic (and of course musical) virtues of 1950s jazz and classical albums on vinyl, and where we're often accused of liking that stuff because of 'rose-tinted specs' or similar reasons of nostalgia... Bollocks! I wasn't even BORN when that stuff first saw the light of day, so how the f*ck could I like it because of nostalgia?? :doh:
I love it, and am heavily into it, simply because it sounds superb - way better, to my ears, than most of what's produced today! End of. It's nothing to do with how OLD stuff is, but rather how GOOD it is, so why buy new, if old performs/sounds better?
I think it is because it is a cool physical medium and streaming music or storing it on hard drives gives no emotional connection, unlike a big gatefold sleeve with interesting artwork you can show off to your mates.
I think that's definitely part of it, but don't rule out the sound quality aspect, too. As ever, if you want to reveal the habits of more discerning people, outside of the mainstream arena of 'Joe public', you have to look beyond the end of your nose, dig a little deeper, and search in the less obvious places...
In that respect, take a look at the Steve Hoffman forum, in the sections where different pressings of vinyl albums and rips of albums are discussed, and you'll see loads of youngsters (18-25 year olds) going to inordinate lengths to achieve the best quality rips, and to obtain the best sounding pressings of certain vinyl albums, along with upgrading their 'tables', etc. And it's happening on other sites and other places, too - you just need to know where to look.
Therefore, there are many things driving the current resurgence in sales of vinyl and turntables, and at a fundamental level I believe will ensure that it continues (and grows) for the foreseeable future.
Marco.
Haselsh1
19-03-2016, 09:20
Too many youngsters buying vinyl for it to be nostalgia - you can't have nostalgia for some thing you are too young to remember.
Absolutely you can't have nostalgia for something you have no experience of. In my eyes it is young people waking up to a nonsense consumerism that tells them digital is better and the only way forward and said young people making up their own bloody minds.
The argument over the SPU is relevant here I think
When I had a listen to Marco's set up we listened to his fancy Sony CD player first - SQ was superb, faultless. The we had a listen to his TT with the SPU - a modern one I believe. I was surprised that it sounded very much like the CD player, it was not at all warm, cuddly etc - at the same time as one of the few here who - on the whole - prefers digital, I preferred how the cd player did things. If that was my set up I'd never use the TT.
At Nebo, with the same deck but Denon MC it sounded like I want/expect vinyl to sound - and it communicated the music/performance emotionally. If that was my TT set up I would use it a lot.
My take is that if you want to hear the recording how it was intended - then it's digital - it's an intellectual appreciation.
If you want the musical communication - then it is vinyl/analogue - the emotional appreciation.
Is that because of the 'analogue warmth?' I don't think so. I'm not really sure what it is but I'd like to know.
Haselsh1
19-03-2016, 09:26
I personally think that people are getting sick of being fed a load of shite. New technology for the sake of new technology. Aren't we bloody amazing, we can now kill people just by flying an unmanned drone all done with digital data links. Oh the bravery of being a thousand miles away when the bomb explodes. Oh the crystal clarity of CD, perfect sound forever. Bollocks it is. Perfectly flawed is a much better description just like vinyl but then vinyl was never surrounded by marketing bollocks in the way CD was. Rose tinted specs...? Yes, maybe it is, at least the consumer is deciding by his/her self.
I only know one person under thirty who is into music. She goes to gigs but all her music collection is on her telephone.
So I've really no idea what is motivating the youngsters to buy vinyl. Most of them won't have much money - or space - so it can't be the expense or the inconvenience that attracts them ;)
Does anyone here know under 25s who buy vinyl? What motivates them?
You make some interesting points here, Martin...
The argument over the SPU is relevant here I think
When I had a listen to Marco's set up we listened to his fancy Sony CD player first - SQ was superb, faultless. The we had a listen to his TT with the SPU - a modern one I believe. I was surprised that it sounded very much like the CD player, it was not at all warm, cuddly etc - at the same time as one of the few here who - on the whole - prefers digital, I preferred how the cd player did things. If that was my set up I'd never use the TT.
Yup, I know exactly where you're coming from, and indeed we've discussed this before. It's one of the reasons why I sold my 'posh' SPU (Royal GM MKII) because it sounded a bit too 'CD-like', and a little sterile, which of course murders the notion (earlier alluded to by Jez) that SPUs are "lush" sounding! ;)
It does rather annoy me when folk spout stuff that, quite clearly, they know very little about.....
Anyway, it was Ortofon's top of the range cartridge at the time, and fitted with their version of a Fritz Geiger stylus (about the best type known to man) - as 'accurate' as they come, and measured superbly, *yet* it didn't really do it musically for me, and not because it was too bright [it wasn't bright, as I'm sure you'll agree] or that I was seeking a 'warmer and cuddlier' sound, but simply that it didn't really communicate music to me in a way I considered as 'real'.
Subsequently, it was ousted by a (vastly less expensive) 1959-vintage model, fitted with a (technically inferior) spherical stylus, which just sounds so much more musically involving, but not in any way due to it inducing more coloration than the modern version did: it just got more things 'right', by sounding less 'false'. So what does that tell you about the 'latest and greatest' automatically always being the best?
At Nebo, with the same deck but Denon MC it sounded like I want/expect vinyl to sound - and it communicated the music/performance emotionally. If that was my TT set up I would use it a lot.
Well, there you go. You're referring of course to the DL-S1.
So, effectively I had 'downgraded' from a (now) £2300 cartridge, to a £500 one, fitted with an 'inferior' (elliptical) stylus, and yet to your ears (and mine), the sound of my T/T (and crucially, how it presented music) had improved significantly! Essentially what you heard was the 'Denon factor', as pretty much every cartridge they produce sounds so goddamn musically involving, when properly optimised.
And I trust you'll agree that it wasn't better than the Ortofon because it was more coloured, or 'less accurate', but simply because it made a better job of making instruments sound like REAL instruments and voices sound like real voices. I'm also sure that everyone else at the particular NEBO would agree that the sound produced by my T/T that day was just about as good as it gets from vinyl replay - and all with a 'middle of the road', in technical terms, cartridge at the helm.
Trust me, I could also demonstrate the same thing with an even more 'lowly' Denon DL-103. There are a few lessons to be learned there, I feel, for those stuck with a stubbornly inflexible and absolutist view of audio....
Marco.
I only know one person under thirty who is into music. She goes to gigs but all her music collection is on her telephone.
Like I said earlier, you need to go beyond the habits of 'Joe Public' and investigate those of more discerning enthusiasts (in the places where they inhabit), in order to get a proper handle on who is properly 'into music' - and that applies to people of all ages.
Does anyone here know under 25s who buy vinyl? What motivates them?
I can't say what motivates them, but I can tell you I'm regularly shopping for stuff in independent record shops, in and around where I live (including Chester, Liverpool and Manchester), and the clientele certainly aren't crusty old codgers, snapping up Steely Dan records. There are LOADS of 20-40 year olds buying vinyl, with the younger set particularly into the new 7" single indie releases, which you can only buy in such specialist shops.
Therefore, they're certainly not buying them to take home and play on their phones! ;)
Marco.
Yes it is the same in the shops that sell vinyl here. Lots of youngsters (i.e under 30)
I doubt many of them have replay set ups that would be considered adequate, though. No doubt a small minority do.
Part of the fascination must lie in the mechanical nature of the turntable and record. For anyone under 25 it is a total anachronism compared to their world of little white, solid state, no moving parts devices. Ken Kessler related a story where he and a pal were demonstrating vinyl to his pal's 14 year old son. The kid puts the record on the platter and then says 'Okay, so how do I access the tracks?'
I dont know very many who still use it tbh. My neighbour has a deck..i know as i gave him it lol. A sony that opens and a drawer comes out... My postie has as when he brings the records to my door he adks what it is etc.. Hes fairly young...nice lad. Thats about it.. Most folk think im bonkers using an outdated form of replay:doh: my son who is lets say over 35 calls them black frisbees and my daughter just laughs
Yes it is the same in the shops that sell vinyl here. Lots of youngsters (i.e under 30)
I doubt many of them have replay set ups that would be considered adequate, though. No doubt a small minority do.
Part of the fascination must lie in the mechanical nature of the turntable and record. For anyone under 25 it is a total anachronism compared to their world of little white, solid state, no moving parts devices. Ken Kessler related a story where he and a pal were demonstrating vinyl to his pal's 14 year old son. The kid puts the record on the platter and then says 'Okay, so how do I access the tracks?'
Lol... Still, the point is, unlike the girl you know at work, not all 'youngsters' access music solely on their phones :)
When I'm up in Glasgow visiting friends and family, I often pop into a shop called Rub-a-Dub Records [http://www.rubadubrecords.co.uk/music] which sells mainly dance, techno and ambient music, on vinyl, and there are banks of 1210s and Stanton T/Ts, connected to headphones, where you can listen to stuff before you buy.
Needless to say, I'm usually the oldest there by quite a margin, but I've chatted before to some of the guys in their 20s about what kit they play their records on, and I'm usually always told it's a 'DJ deck' of some description, similar to those used in the shop, which they've bought second hand, along with some pro-amps or active speakers - so nothing 'high end', but certainly not a plastic 'supermarket turntable' either....
Marco.
I dont know very many who still use it tbh. My neighbour has a deck..i know as i gave him it lol. A sony that opens and a drawer comes out... My postie has as when he brings the records to my door he adks what it is etc.. Hes fairly young...nice lad. Thats about it.. Most folk think im bonkers using an outdated form of replay:doh: my son who is lets say over 35 calls them black frisbees and my daughter just laughs
Yeah, I think that's probably the norm for the majority, however to get an alternative perspective on the matter, you have to go where 'the scene' is different, and that means out and about, in the type of places I'm talking about, to appreciate that perspective :)
Marco.
I buy vinyl all over the place, markets,car boots, HMV, craft fairs, second hand vinyl shops etc and the one thing that strikes me is how many young people are looking and buying at the same time as me.
I have asked a number of friends who have children and quite a lot are seriously getting into vinyl.
Where they need a bit of education is how to play it and what sort of system they should use!;)
My girlfriend was amused and surprised to see I have and use a tourné disc. (She's a francophone by the way). Was flabbergasted to learn I have four of them, and didn't know what the Radford STA15 amplifier sitting on the floor was. Curiously she didn't ask what the Quad 57s were - I guess the fact there were two of them gave the game away that they were speakers. :)
Rothchild
19-03-2016, 16:45
I think nostalgia, or at least the sense of nostalgia, can be invoked without the person it's being invoked in necessarily having lived through the period referenced.
Nostalgic sentiment for certain things and times can be communicated through, for instance, the oral tradition e.g. kids joining folk music clubs - the tales handed down and the sentiment they communicate become part of a shared history and consciousness, one which none of the folk sharing it necessarily had direct experience of.
This is an important aspect of how advertising works, 'Roots' is one of Packard's 8 hidden needs, but a sense of roots can be 'fabricated / inculcated' around nebulous concepts such as 'national identity'.
Well, as interesting as that is, I can assure you that none of that is remotely responsible for my love of quality vintage gear - my decision to own it and use it is *solely* down to its sonic performance!
:exactly:
Marco.
Rothchild
19-03-2016, 23:06
Well, as interesting as that is, I can assure you that none of that is remotely responsible for my love of quality vintage gear - my decision to own it and use it is *solely* down to its sonic performance!
:exactly:
Marco.
Yes yes, as unaffected by advertising as by expectation bias, one would expect nothing less.
Remember, if you think you're one-in-a-million, in China there are a thousand people just like you....
Yes yes, as unaffected by advertising as by expectation bias, one would expect nothing less.
Remember, if you think you're one-in-a-million, in China there are a thousand people just like you....
Modern Psychology is only just coming to terms with the discovery that quite a few people are wise to their ruses and see through them - or are at least aware of them, even if they do continue to affect their subconscious behaviour to a degree.
Hence why sponsored 'infotainment' is replacing advertisments.
Yes yes, as unaffected by advertising as by expectation bias, one would expect nothing less.
Remember, if you think you're one-in-a-million, in China there are a thousand people just like you....
I'm just telling you like it is. I think I know why I chose the equipment I have better than you. When it comes to hi-fi equipment, I'm very singularly focussed on sonic performance, über alles :)
Marco.
Yeah, I think that's probably the norm for the majority, however to get an alternative perspective on the matter, you have to go where 'the scene' is different, and that means out and about, in the type of places I'm talking about, to appreciate that perspective :)
Marco.
Aldi and Lidl?
Ha - very good! :D
Although, it wouldn't surprise me if they started selling turntables soon, too!
Marco.
walpurgis
19-03-2016, 23:44
Yes. Choices in HI-Fi are definitely personal Marco. Based on experience and judgement.....or not. The chosen balance of component types to achieve the sound I want from my system, I suspect are probably similar to yours. Different constituents obviously, but with the same aim. Old or new items, it does not matter, as long as the end product is as aimed for.
Ha - very good! :D
Although, it wouldn't surprise me if they started selling turntables soon, too!
Marco.
they do...usb ones ;)
Immunity to advertising, I dunno. I kind of think I am, in that I don't watch TV or listen to commercial radio, and don't even look at newspapers much. So why do I buy the things I buy? If I analyse my purchases, it's mostly down to brand loyalty (e.g. I've used the same wine merchants for 30 years) but something must have inspired me to buy that brand/use that shop in the first place.
Indeed, Geoff. So you're a hapless victim of nostalgia, too? ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
19-03-2016, 23:51
Indeed, Geoff. So you're a hapless victim of nostalgia, too? ;)
Marco.
No mate. Just what sounds right to me. My ears are the best judges. :)
If I analyse my purchases, it's mostly down to brand loyalty (e.g. I've used the same wine merchants for 30 years) but something must have inspired me to buy that brand/use that shop in the first place.
If you're into wine, Joe, why don't you talk about it more, especially on the wine thread section? If you buy wine from a wine merchants, I'm guessing that your palate appreciates something a little more sophisticated than Blue Nun! ;)
Out of interest, which wine merchants do you use?
Marco.
No mate. Just what sounds right to me. My ears are the best judges. :)
Ditto :thumbsup:
Marco.
If you're into wine, Joe, why don't you talk about it more, especially on the wine thread section?
Sheer bloody laziness, mostly.
Out of interest, which wine merchants do you use?
Marco.
Berry Bros & Rudd, in St James's Street in That London. I used to work just round the corner from them, but annoyingly can't remember why I first bought wine from them, but I remember my first purchase was a bottle of claret. Must have been a recommendation from a workmate, I guess.
I'm also still a member of the London Library in St James's Square, which was where my office was then located.
Isn't that how most music lovers choose the equipment they use?
walpurgis
20-03-2016, 00:01
I think people should not lose sight of the fact that much of what is regarded as 'high end' Hi-Fi is just evolution of pretty old ideas. For instance the most vibrant and live sounding speaker I've heard is the original Quad ESL (yes I've owned Lowthers, they ain't quite right). It has limitations, that's why I don't use them (any more), but they are amazing. Not bad for a still very well respected sixty year old design.
Sheer bloody laziness, mostly.
Berry Bros & Rudd, in St James's Street in That London. I used to work just round the corner from them, but annoyingly can't remember why I first bought wine from them, but I remember my first purchase was a bottle of claret. Must have been a recommendation from a workmate, I guess.
I'm also still a member of the London Library in St James's Square, which was where my office was then located.
Interesting... I haven't heard of them, but then what I know about London, in general, you could write on the back of a postage stamp.
So, claret eh? I presume then that you're an 'old world' sort of chap? You'd get on well with Barry. I'm also a big lover of good claret. Haut-Médoc is a favourite of mine, as is St-Emilion Grand Cru Classé :)
I also enjoy good Burgundy.
Marco.
Dunno about 'analogue' per se.
But recently Douglas Self opinied a viewpoint in DiyAudio that Vinyl was attractive/ owed a Lot of it's claimed goodness due to base/floor level background noises inherent in vinyl playback.
The distortion itself was what pleased most.. or at least caused listeners to enjoy the recording 'more'
Lotsa Babbles followed (dohhh!) but the base observation proved as more plausible/credible/astute than Most any other ;)
Rothchild
20-03-2016, 08:22
Modern Psychology is only just coming to terms with the discovery that quite a few people are wise to their ruses and see through them - or are at least aware of them, even if they do continue to affect their subconscious behaviour to a degree.
Hence why sponsored 'infotainment' is replacing advertisments.
Vance Packard's 'Hidden Persuders' was published in 1957, providing insight and helping us 'get wise to the ruses' so it's not a recent thing - and yes certain things work even if you're aware of them happening / being done 'In-group preference' is one of them.
Interesting... I haven't heard of them, but then what I know about London, in general, you could write on the back of a postage stamp.
So, claret eh? I presume then that you're an 'old world' sort of chap? You'd get on well with Barry. I'm also a big lover of good claret. Haut-Médoc is a favourite of mine, as is St-Emilion Grand Cru Classé :)
I also enjoy good Burgundy.
Marco.
I drink new world wines as well; mostly Chilean and NZ Sauvignon Blanc. I do like a good burgundy, indeed last night we polished off a 2004 Vosne-Romanée, the last of the case.
Yeah, I 'do' new world sometimes, too. Quality Chilean Cab Sav and Oz Shiraz is usually a good slurp. However my favourite South American wines come from Argentina - you get some stonking wines from that region!
Whites, I can go some of the new world stuff, as long as it's not overly oaky. Some of the Oz Chardonnay is dreadful in that respect, but there is some good stuff, too. In general, with whites, I'm more into Italian and classic French wines.
I picked up a couple of unusual wines from Bulgaria and Hungary respectively, called Sant' Ilia, which is a Cabernet Sauvignon/Cabernet Franc/Melnik mix, available from Waitrose: https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/02/top-10-wines-in-the-uk-press-149/7/ and this from Hungary, from Lidl:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/9uTmnx.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pm9uTmnxj)
Details here (scroll down passed the whites): http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/11130.htm
I sometimes like going a little 'off the beaten track', so those two should be interesting! Hungary and Bulgaria used to produce some good wine, then it all went a bit crap, so hopefully those represent a return to form!
Do you ever shop for wine in Lidl? If not, you should, as there are some cracking bargains and unusual stuff to be had, if you have a good rummage through their selection and know what to pick.
Marco.
Marco,
whats a good red from Lidls?
What style of red do you like, Gaz: light and fruity or full bodied? :)
Marco.
Do you ever shop for wine in Lidl? If not, you should, as there are some cracking bargains and unusual stuff to be had, if you have a good rummage through their selection and know what to pick.
Marco.
I've never been in Lidl, and am not even sure where the nearest one to me is. I'll check it out if there's one reasonably handy!
Rich n full
Like my women that way too:eyebrows:
Rich n full
Something like this should hit the spot nicely: http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/11133.htm
Or this: http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/11135.htm
Or this: http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/11134.htm
:cheers:
Marco.
I've never been in Lidl, and am not even sure where the nearest one to me is. I'll check it out if there's one reasonably handy!
I'd recommend it, Joe. You need to be pretty selective with the wine. Go for the specially selected stuff in the 'wooden crates' at the end, nearest the checkouts, avoiding the stuff on shelves before it, as it's all a bit 'meh'.
In terms of food, anything from their 'Deluxe' range is superb :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
20-03-2016, 12:53
My favourite at the moment is that Casillero Del Diablo Carmenere stuff. It is so potent it is bloody 'chewy'.
Like my women that way too:eyebrows:
I thought that was thick and willing? :D
Marco.
I thought that was thick and willing? :D
Marco.
only around the wallet ;)
Something like this should hit the spot nicely: http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/11133.htm
Or this: http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/11135.htm
Or this: http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/11134.htm
:cheers:
Marco.
Spot on Marco, not too spendy either. :)
thanks.
No worries, Gaz. Do me a favour, eh? If you try any of them, post your thoughts on the wine thread in Abstract Chat, as good reccos are always useful for folk :)
Marco.
Dont you all get tired of this tribal shit?
Yup.
Indeed. Luckily there is no evidence of that on this thread; merely folk legitimately defending their respective opinions, based on experience, which is a rather different thing :)
Marco.
Audio Advent
21-03-2016, 23:14
Like my women that way too:eyebrows:
You mean when they've finished a big meal? Something about their drowsyness and malaise? I can see you smiling whilst handing out a couple of rennies as your pulling tactic :lol:
Audio Advent
21-03-2016, 23:21
Modern Psychology is only just coming to terms with the discovery that quite a few people are wise to their ruses and see through them - or are at least aware of them, even if they do continue to affect their subconscious behaviour to a degree.
Hence why sponsored 'infotainment' is replacing advertisments.
I you're using the term "Modern Psychology" to mean something other than modern psychology.
And that's a just as much a deliberate misdirection to paint something as it is not in order to influence others as is used by the modern (well, not so modern really!) marketing and PR you are really talking about.. See how that kind of talking is contageous - very similar to tabloids' and some politicians' mis-use of terms and descriptions to tar something unjustly.
Audio Advent
21-03-2016, 23:40
Absolutely you can't have nostalgia for something you have no experience of. In my eyes it is young people waking up to a nonsense consumerism that tells them digital is better and the only way forward and said young people making up their own bloody minds.
I think you can have a constructed idealism which feels the same as nostalgia. When you have younger people interviewed about why they're buying vinyl, some will talk about the crackle and static - the sound of an old record - even though they have no previous experience.
I don't see that people are being told that digital is better... they are being clearly demonstrated how digital is convenient and how it enhances your ability to discover new music and have massive collections to share with friends and get genuinely enthused about with people all over the world. Buying vinyl then becomes simply another way to enjoy music - it doesn't replace the digital, it complements it. Those buying it are also consuming a lot of digital too - I think it is only older generations who may shun digital for analogue, don't think that mindset applies to a younger generation at all.
Audio Advent
22-03-2016, 00:04
Measurement tells you that the former is more 'accurate', but a visiting professional pianist, who uses a Steinway himself (and is a long-standing member of the LSO), upon comparing the two recordings reproduced by your system, declares, based on his years of experience, that the analogue recording sounds to him much more like a real Steinway piano, certainly any that he's played for 30 years.
Which, in your opinion, is the more believable arbiter of 'accurate' in that context: the ears of a professional pianist, or the readout on a piece of test apparatus? I know which one I'd go for!! ;)
"Sounds more like real instruments", based on knowing *exactly* what represents such, is what it's ALL ABOUT, since we're judging MUSIC, not merely electrical signals. If the day ever comes when test equipment can 'measure' and assess musical information as accurately as the 'trained ears' of a professional musician, then we can reassess the situation accordingly.
Marco.
The measurement!
A pianist in the LSO for 30 years will have emotional stakes in what a Steinway sounds like. The analogue recording on vinyl may well be pushing those signature characteristics of the Steinway to the fore and so the Steinway will be even more recognisable than what was truthfully picked up by the microphone. Pushing them because there is a very real possibility that "analogue warmth" is very similar to the pleasing aspects of a Steinway. It's like the random analogue detail of life.. but not necessarily the sound that what was hitting the mic diaphragm.
Therefore the pianist will pick up on those characteristics, they will envoke emotions associated with playing a Steinway more and consequently his emotional state will match his memory of playing one.
It will be his emotional reaction by which he judges the "accuracy". And this is without mentioning that every time he plays he will be awash with the emotion of the music and not listening critically at all.. And not to mention the direct vibrations from the piano moving through his body which will be a large factor of his experience AND hearing via bone conduction (which will be missing from an accurate recording).
I would probably agree that a pianist may have better acuity for hearing sonic differences due to experience but at the same time I think a performer has much more bias and emotional complication going on.
A better judge will be someone with no emotional stakes and who is able to compare to what is going into the microphone rather than what is being heard at the piano stool. Perhaps a sound recordist professional would be better than the musician or the measurement... but wasn't an option you gave!
Audio Advent
22-03-2016, 00:12
Oh yeah, and lets not discount the social pressure of expectation that the pianist MUST have good ears and MUST know the sound of a Steinway when he hears one else he may loose face and credibility in front of others. May already have an ego based around that - I'm sure there's a lot of competition and rivalry in that world!
Probably that expectation is reflected by others and so they are often being asked their views on people's systems when they get invited around to listen to a hifi hobbiest's pride and joy.. Now imagine they say the opposite of what their host is expecting, their sonic acuity will be questioned by the host and their respect for the musican lost. Makes sense then to go with whatever they feel the host is implying about their system.
So many human constructs pushing and pulling people away from any sense of reality...
Audio Advent
22-03-2016, 00:29
It's the underlying presumption that digital recording is somehow 'automatically superior'/more accurate than the BEST of its analogue counterpart, which I object to, as it's simply superficial thinking, and grossly distorts the reality.
When you own a large music collection, containing 1000s of examples of both analogue and digital recordings (from various eras), along with top-notch analogue and digital replay equipment, able to get the best out of both formats, and the BEST of those formats, quite clearly, is represented by the early all-analogue recordings on vinyl, which sonically and musically (in terms of realism) notably outperform the best modern digital recordings on CD or file-based media, it hardly adds weight to the highlighted statement above... ;)
And I'm far from alone in coming to that (educated) conclusion, based on considerable experience of being exposed to the best of what both digital and analogue have to offer.
What is being expressed is his opinion after years and years and years of using all sorts of analogue equipment and all sorts of digital equipment and comparing the live sound to that ending up on the recording medium.
After all that experience of making those comparisons day after day after day, that is now his conclusion...
With all due respect to your hearing abilities, at no point are you making the same comparison and judgement between what was just played and what is coming back off the recording. You simply do not have access to those live situations and no, live gigs are no comparison either!
In my mind that's an obvious elephant in the room for that argument - to extend the metaphor, it's like you're arguing that elephants don't exist whist there's one in the room, such is the big problem with it. As with the pianist, a hobbiest is more making an emotional judgement on what subjectively FEELS real (not what sounds like what was going into the mic).
Read that carefully though! At no point am I stating that one is more accurate than the other - I don't care :) - so hopefully you won't assume that I am. Only the reasoning I'm disputing and who's opinion of recording methods I think should be trusted first (the one with the vast studio experience using lots of generations of analogue and digital recording mediums, just to be clear).
Audio Advent
22-03-2016, 00:37
Any recording should be viewed as a work of art as opposed to an attempt to capture the performance exactly as recorded - lots of audiophiles seem to think all recordings should capture the performance exactly but that is like saying Picasso was a rubbish artist because his pictures do not look like (unadulterated) photographs.
It reminds me of that bit in the Simpsons where the film crew do up cows to look like horses because 'you can't use real horses because they don't look like horses on film'.
:lol:
Totally agree with this Macca.
That's why I thought the article would be interesting to people - people can get to know what they're listening to, the sounds, the character. The cows giving a more accurate represenation of horses when recorded on 1" tape etc :)
For me, that adds another dimension to the music and sound. It also makes me look for a more detailed system and equipment choices which can reveal more subtleties and differences in the records (as much as that is possible to do via subjective means anyway.. objective numbers and stats bore me too much).
No worries, Gaz. Do me a favour, eh? If you try any of them, post your thoughts on the wine thread in Abstract Chat, as good reccos are always useful for folk :)
Marco.
Sure thing.
Few bottles this coming weekend, will post thoughts.
I can't be arsed going through the rest of what you've written, Sam, so I'll just highlight this:
The measurement!
But, as those measurements are only telling part of the story (unless you believe that we can currently measure not only *everything* relating to the subject of audio, but all that we can genuinely hear), then they're arguably not any more reliable than the experienced ears of the pianist.
The best way to perform the test would be to do it blind, so that the pianist didn't know which recording was digital, and which one was analogue, and simply let him judge, totally detached, (on a purely sound quality basis) which recording, in his opinion (and that's all it would be), best represented the sound of a real Steinway.
There would be no "emotional stakes" present in that scenario: he would simply be judging one sound blindly against another, and giving his verdict - and I would take that verdict, and his educated and experienced opinion, ahead of what any measurements indicated on the matter. But that's only my view. YMMV.
My main point, however, is that we need to rid ourselves of the notion that digital is somehow 'perfect' and/or automatically more 'accurate' (as in musically accurate) than analogue, which is somehow automatically 'more flawed' in comparison (the key word here being 'automatically'), as experience tells me that simply isn't the case. Digital is NOT the 'magic bullet' that some folk want it to be.
I believe the reality is that, at their respective best, both analogue and digital are flawed in different ways, but in terms of the title of this thread, one in a way (due to "analogue warmth") which doesn't offend our ears as much as the other. In that respect, the distortions of analogue are more benign, but that doesn't automatically make it less 'accurate'.
Marco.
I you're using the term "Modern Psychology" to mean something other than modern psychology.
.
No, I'm using it to distinguish between that and Esoteric Psychology. In the East they have known exactly how the human mind works for millennia. Read some Ouspensky. :)
Audio Advent
25-03-2016, 20:59
I can't be arsed going through the rest of what you've written, Sam, so I'll just highlight this:
Shame, because you missed my point.
Given the specific scenario you asked about, picking which recording sounded most like a Steinway to be some indicator as to which is more transparent and then using a Steinway pianist of some 30 years as the only human judge, then I'd go for the measurement because the your scenario is a fundamentally flawed test of "transparency" IMHO.
If - as is the real context of the article - it's a comparison as to whether the digital or analogue recording process gave a more transparently recorded result, then the best qualified human judge is someone with extensive experience of that very same scenario of comparing the source at the microphone and the resultant recording AND who has extensive experience over the years of the different mediums and equipment and so has made such comparisons extensively over their career. They will also be un-attached to the source material and hopefully be pragmatic about which is the best sounding because that is their goal too.
Neither a listener at home, nor even a recording musician at the piano stool has that experience as a generalisation (some may also be recording engineers too of course).
Being able to accept the opinions of someone with that experience as being a simple result of that experience seems to me to be closer to the free-thinking you mention in your signature than would be proclaiming that opinion to be brainwashed dogma. The latter sounds more like it's coming from an entrenched position, unwilling to take on more opinion and information in order to get a better picture of things.
Again, I'm not stating either/or is correct. But I am saying that someone with that experience I'd trust over my own opinion (or that over a concert pianist) - I simply don't have that same experience.
Whatever, Sam. I still stand by all I've written on the matter, and could say more. However, I've lost the will to live now, so I think it's best that we simply agree to disagree and move on.
Marco.
Haselsh1
31-03-2016, 06:22
I have the answer...! I have been thinking about this for a week or so and, I think, I have the answer.
Now someone else may have already come up with this in the meantime but, as far as vintage analogue synthesisers are concerned it just has to be - distortion. Distortion within the oscillators and filters. Where Hi-Fi is concerned, I still think it is distortion. The very thing we have ironed out has been the very downfall of everything we held so close.
Digital synths and wavetables - awful...!
Transistors and MOSFETS - awful...!
Mini Moogs and ARP Odesseys... wonderful
Valves... wonderful
So M'Lud, that is my case for the defence.
And of course... digital photography - bloody awful whereas medium or large format film, stunning.
Rothchild
31-03-2016, 07:17
I have the answer...! I have been thinking about this for a week or so and, I think, I have the answer.
Now someone else may have already come up with this in the meantime but, as far as vintage analogue synthesisers are concerned it just has to be - distortion. Distortion within the oscillators and filters. Where Hi-Fi is concerned, I still think it is distortion. The very thing we have ironed out has been the very downfall of everything we held so close.
Amazing insight!
It's almost as if you read the OP article....
It's just as well Moogs don't have any of those nasty transistors in them, else they'd be awful
Blueflash
31-03-2016, 07:57
Going back about 5 years I used to think that Digital = Cold, Analogue = Warm.
Then I got back into DIY ....
I built a DDDAC and spent quite a while working on the power supply.
At long last I can now have depending on the recording, warmth detail and good timing.
I does seem that the distortion signature is what give electronics their sound. After spending a while chasing down the power supply chain, adding a choke here and a small value capacitor in various places for HF dumping I now have a very listenable Dac.
So I think it is down to distortion or the lack of it and I prefer less distortion and more music route :-)
Depends where the distortion is. I agree at the beginning of the Audio chain you want absolutely minimum distortion but a little in the amplification stage helps ie valves.
To me digital, although lacking in measured distortion, sounds unpleasant. However the distortion created in vinyl sounds very listenable as long as there are not too many clicks and pops!
You can't get away from the fact speakers will distort so there you have to choose your poison depending on what sounds pleasing to your ear.
Haselsh1
31-03-2016, 11:19
It's just as well Moogs don't have any of those nasty transistors in them, else they'd be awful
Yeah good point of course because one thing all Moog's have is a 24db/octave transistor ladder filter. One thing for definite though, they are not digital. We seem to be constantly fed this shit that the latest invention is better because, well, it just has to be. Digital photography is my main point here. How many people I wonder have seen a contact print from a 10X8 sheet of Ilford FP4+ ? I cannot honestly see a day when digital photography outperforms silver halides. It certainly is nowhere near at the moment.
I still think a certain degree of 'analogueness' is caused by all of those things that the latest technology seeks to remove.
Depends where the distortion is. I agree at the beginning of the Audio chain you want absolutely minimum distortion but a little in the amplification stage helps ie valves.
depending on what sounds pleasing to your ear.
Heresay!
you really don't want any distortion in the amps at all - especially if using vinyl since that is already adding distortion, quite a lot of it. yes speakers will add some distortion, the smaller they are the more they add, but all this distortion is cumulative, you can't say that it doesn't matter that the source and amps distort because the speakers do as well.
Digital is a very low noise and distortion medium so it should sound either very good or a bit bland (if you prefer vinyl with its 2nd harmonic distortion that makes it all sound a bit more 'live') - it should never sound nasty unless you are adding distortion from somewhere else i.e pre and power amp.
Heresay!
you really don't want any distortion in the amps at all - especially if using vinyl since that is already adding distortion, quite a lot of it. yes speakers will add some distortion, the smaller they are the more they add, but all this distortion is cumulative, you can't say that it doesn't matter that the source and amps distort because the speakers do as well.
Digital is a very low noise and distortion medium so it should sound either very good or a bit bland (if you prefer vinyl with its 2nd harmonic distortion that makes it all sound a bit more 'live') - it should never sound nasty unless you are adding distortion from somewhere else i.e pre and power amp.
Agree - all distortion is bad, but some types of distortion are more acceptable to the ear than others.
Heresay!
you really don't want any distortion in the amps at all - especially if using vinyl since that is already adding distortion, quite a lot of it. yes speakers will add some distortion, the smaller they are the more they add, but all this distortion is cumulative, you can't say that it doesn't matter that the source and amps distort because the speakers do as well.
Digital is a very low noise and distortion medium so it should sound either very good or a bit bland (if you prefer vinyl with its 2nd harmonic distortion that makes it all sound a bit more 'live') - it should never sound nasty unless you are adding distortion from somewhere else i.e pre and power amp.
I was referring to the second harmonic distortion characteristics of valves which is perceived as pleasant form of distortion, however I do agree with you that this can also create intermodulation distortion which is unpleasant.
Arkless Electronics
31-03-2016, 12:05
I had a SET in the other day...... I measured 0.3% @1W, 4% @2W and 10% @6W. Distortion was so bad it was clearly visible on the scope screen just viewing a sine wave... no THD analyser required! Clearly not within a country mile of being a hi fi amp in spite of this being its intended purpose. In fact the amplifier in the average TV set would completely wipe the floor with it!!
I bet it has plenty of "analogue warmth" :lol:
Can you explain Jez why two transistor amplifiers which measure exactly the same technical characteristics and THD can sound completely different ie one clinical and the other warm?
Just my technical ignorance but would be curious to know why?:)
I can explain. The amps you describe do NOT exist.
Terse and to the point, but hey...:)
I was comparing Jethro Tull's 'Crest of a Knave' on vinyl and cd the other night
It is a good digital recording, very clean.
CD sounded like a studio recording. Vinyl sounded more like the band playing live. I determined that this was because there was an undercurrent of distortion on the sound. Not nasty sounding but just verging on 'shoutiness' on the louder sections.
When you compare it back to back to the CD you can hear the distortion vinyl is adding
I think most people would prefer the vinyl as it sounds more live and less antiseptic/anodyne.
I sort of prefer it myself. It is more 'fun' to listen to, it has more presence and bite. But the cd is higher fidelity, it is closer to what a quality studio recording sounds like. It is closer to what the artist intended.
Digital does not sound hard or cold on my system, consequently I am inclined to believe those levelling that criticism at digital have an issue with their set up.
Haselsh1
31-03-2016, 13:53
I just don't know what it is. Technology and technological advances are determined to remove us from all of the 'things' that make everything more analogue. Whether that be synthesisers (resurgence in analogue), photography (resurgence in analogue) or Hi-Fi (resurgence in analogue). I detect a trend here but I just cannot understand why these things are all going back to analogue. My interest in synthesisers began around 1973 with the VCS3 and I hated digital synths for their total lack of tweakery. My interest in photography started in 1969 when I developed my first film and printed my first print. My interest in music started in 1965 at the age of six but my interest in Hi-Fi started in 1978. I love analogue because it is more of a lifestyle choice. I just don't really know what it is.
I had a SET in the other day...... I measured 0.3% @1W, 4% @2W and 10% @6W. Distortion was so bad it was clearly visible on the scope screen just viewing a sine wave... no THD analyser required! Clearly not within a country mile of being a hi fi amp in spite of this being its intended purpose. In fact the amplifier in the average TV set would completely wipe the floor with it!!
I bet it has plenty of "analogue warmth" :lol:
Just out of interest, did you wonder what it would sound like when partnered with a set of loudspeakers that only required 100mW?
Can you explain Jez why two transistor amplifiers which measure exactly the same technical characteristics and THD can sound completely different ie one clinical and the other warm?
Just my technical ignorance but would be curious to know why?:)
All depends what you mean by "technical characteristics". Certainly possible for two amps with the same THD to sound very different.
We are analogue beasts Shaun and our analogue senses are hard to trick both visually and audibly.
Maybe this is why digital just doesn't quite cut the mustard. Analogue is just more pleasing to our senses, mine at least:)
Rothchild
31-03-2016, 14:22
We are analogue beasts Shaun and our analogue senses are hard to trick both visually and audibly.
Maybe this is why digital just doesn't quite cut the mustard. Analogue is just more pleasing to our senses, mine at least:)
Not true, we're closer to digital devices with analogue interfacing - both visual and audio senses, whilst amazingly sensitive, are demonstrably easy to trick.
How any of your analogue LPs were recorded digitally? And how many of those recorded in analogue were pressed after 1980 and have therefore been 'digitised' when cut?
Do you not rate those lps? and if you do rate them, how come the digital processing didn't ruin them?
Analogue record = frequency and amplitude over time
Compact Disc/digital file = frequency and amplitude over time
There is no difference in the information stored. Only the retrieval method differs.
I'm sure some people think you can break down a digital file and say 'these noughts and ones are the first violin, these are the trombone. it doesn't work like that. It works exactly like a vinyl Lp except with lower noise and distortion. There's no 'digital' to 'fool our analogue senses'
Can say this.... My rpi cuts the mustard ...cd player is not too shabby either although may be a bit shabby chic. I go through stages when i prefer the tt and rpi etc but no idea what the difference is... Maybe not much. Guess it may be music as a lot of my vinyl is not on cd etc. Blues for instance imo should stay on vinyl, clicks and his and all.
How any of your analogue LPs were recorded digitally? And how many of those recorded in analogue were pressed after 1980 and have therefore been 'digitised' when cut?
Do you not rate those lps? and if you do rate them, how come the digital processing didn't ruin them?
Analogue record = frequency and amplitude over time
Compact Disc/digital file = frequency and amplitude over time
There is no difference in the information stored. Only the retrieval method differs.
I'm sure some people think you can break down a digital file and say 'these noughts and ones are the first violin, these are the trombone. it doesn't work like that. It works exactly like a vinyl Lp except with lower noise and distortion. There's no 'digital' to 'fool our analogue senses'
It's not digital recording that's the problem it's what happens to it afterwards .
Haselsh1
31-03-2016, 14:57
Not true, we're closer to digital devices with analogue interfacing - both visual and audio senses, whilst amazingly sensitive, are demonstrably easy to trick.
We work by chemical messengers which are definitely not digital in a binary sense. The way we work bears little resemblance to a true electrical binary system.
We work by chemical messengers which are definitely not digital in a binary sense. The way we work bears little resemblance to a true electrical binary system.
The signal from the ear to the brain is very similar to a PCM output from a fourier transform. Digital and binary are not the same thing.
It's not digital recording that's the problem it's what happens to it afterwards .
What happens to it afterwards that is so awful?
How any of your analogue LPs were recorded digitally? And how many of those recorded in analogue were pressed after 1980 and have therefore been 'digitised' when cut?
Do you not rate those lps? and if you do rate them, how come the digital processing didn't ruin them?
Analogue record = frequency and amplitude over time
Compact Disc/digital file = frequency and amplitude over time
There is no difference in the information stored. Only the retrieval method differs.
I'm sure some people think you can break down a digital file and say 'these noughts and ones are the first violin, these are the trombone. it doesn't work like that. It works exactly like a vinyl Lp except with lower noise and distortion. There's no 'digital' to 'fool our analogue senses'
I appreciate that some of the albums I have were recorded digitally after 1980 but interestingly nearly all the LPs I have recorded before 1980 in Analogue sound better. Not an absolute but easily decernable on my system in most cases.
Not all LPs were recorded in digital after 1980.;)
Haselsh1
31-03-2016, 15:19
The signal from the ear to the brain is very similar to a PCM output from a fourier transform. Digital and binary are not the same thing.
Yes, I'll agree with that because we very definitely work by chemical messengers which are analogue pulses. We are in no way binary. The chemical messengers are converted into electrical pulses when they bond with the receptors. These electrical pulses are constantly being transformed from electrical to chemical and back again. As far as I am aware there is only one system in the body that does not use this synaptic way of communicating.
I appreciate that some of the albums I have were recorded digitally after 1980 but interestingly nearly all the LPs I have recorded before 1980 in Analogue sound better. Not an absolute but easily decernable on my system in most cases.
Not all LPs were recorded in digital after 1980.;)
No they weren't but almost all of them after 1980 (and many before) were cut using a digital cutting lathe. So to actually produce the record the analogue recording was run through a 24 bit A to D converter.
With regard to the analogue recordings sounding 'better' - I do find that they sound 'different' to the digital recordings, when playing CD. Mostly, anyway. It is difficult to distinguish the really slick analogue recordings from the slick digital efforts, Gaucho and Love Over Gold come to mind.
The interesting thing is that it is possible to get an impossibly slick sounding studio recording with digital but this will be frowned upon by some as it sounds 'slick' and artificial' and 'not like the sound of a live band', absolutely missing the point that it is not meant to sound like a live band.
But as I say even if the recording was all analogue, post 1980 it has had it's frequency and amplitude stored as zeros and ones, as opposed to storing it as specs of magnetised metal on a length of tape.
Have a look at this link Martin, you might find it interesting and it will explain better than I can from someone who really knows about digital and vinyl mastering.:)
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/wax-mastering-panel-videos#2VwL6cxBCALkGE3G.97
Audio Advent
31-03-2016, 19:49
Whatever, Sam. I still stand by all I've written on the matter, and could say more. However, I've lost the will to live now, so I think it's best that we simply agree to disagree and move on.
Marco.
Haha... likewise hence I didn't return to the thread expecting to return to a circular argument. Have to agree to disagree.
Audio Advent
31-03-2016, 20:53
Yeah good point of course because one thing all Moog's have is a 24db/octave transistor ladder filter. One thing for definite though, they are not digital. We seem to be constantly fed this shit that the latest invention is better because, well, it just has to be. Digital photography is my main point here. How many people I wonder have seen a contact print from a 10X8 sheet of Ilford FP4+ ? I cannot honestly see a day when digital photography outperforms silver halides. It certainly is nowhere near at the moment.
I still think a certain degree of 'analogueness' is caused by all of those things that the latest technology seeks to remove.
The photography connection is completely wrong-thinking.
If you're comparing the PRINT of a photograph err... how are you comparing it to the digitally taken photo? Are you comparing the analogue display screen on a computer to the physical print? Or are you comparing some analogue inkjet print out with the Ilford FP4+ ? Either way you are NOT comparing the digital photograph to the analogue one! You're comparing different ANALOGUE print or display methods.
In the dark a contact print is pretty useless and has no image. A computer screen displaying a "contact sheet" of digital photos glows in the dark of it's own accord - might seem a pointless and irrelevent thing to say but I'm pointing out that both are completely different things which cannot be compared. If there were a computer screen which was designed to look like an Ilford FP4+ sheet with a certain colour of lightbox set behind it, then quite possibly people COULD make something that was as good. But no-one has made such a thing and no-one has wanted to. Colours on a computer screen are much better than Ilford FP4+ for example. Again, more examples of reasons why you're not comparing anything like similar things, nor is the analogue/digital part the difference between them.
If you want to make the comparison you need to make a print of a digital photograph onto Ilford FP4+ in the same way as the traditional film negative. To do that you also need to invest in a projector that can project cleanly in a high enough resolution onto the paper.
To the sound of synths: the same thing applies but in a different way.
Firstly when listening to different synths, you're not comparing the source sounds at all, you're really comparing the filters at the back end. A real comparison would be to play the same digital front end source through a Minimoog's analogue filters. Perhaps then you'd love the sound because you love the analogue filters and find it had nothing to do with how the sound was generated.
The Fairlight is a fantastic example. Some of my favourite "analogue" pads and synth sounds are made on a Fairlight - all digital samples of course passed through analogue filters. Think how terrible that Fairlight's digital processing and converters were compared to even a Raspberry Pi with HifiBerry DAC... and yet sounded fantastic. Today's emulations and plug-ins were unthinkable then - play today's sources through a Minimoog's filters and see what you get.
Secondly the digital synth sound is a sound of its own (well ok, each different synth has a sound of its own, analogue, digital or whatever). People CHOSE a digital sound over analogue in order to embrace a NEW sound, different to a decade of analogue synth sounds. Sonically where digital synths could go simply couldn't be reached by analogue ones. Thankfully not every musician wants every sound to be "nice" and warm and analogue, thankfully some want a great variety in their sonic palette.
Hating one and loving the other is a person's perogative but it's like declaring that trumpets are shit and cellos are beautiful. Very hard to get that beautifully fat and dynamic brass band sound with a bunch of stringed instruments! Equally pretty tough to get an evolving trance Wavestation pad from an analogue beast.
you dont have to digitise a 35 mm pic to print it on pater, or didnt when I printed my pics. You do to print it on a printer. think that was his point. no idea if it is still a valid point though.
Audio Advent
31-03-2016, 21:48
Is that in response to my post or Haselsh1's post?
If mine, then the point I was making is that comparing a 35mm analogue set of negatives on a contact print using Ilford FP4+ to a digital photo either printed out or displayed on a screen is not comparing the analogue photo to the digital photo. What you're comparing there is the Ilford FP4+ to the analogue inkjet print or the analogue display screen. The computer display, the Ilford FP4+ and the inkjet are ALL analogue. There is no possible way you can display a photo digitally - all light producing displays are analogue in their output.
To compare the quality between 35mm film and a digitally captured photo, you'd have to "develop" them in the same way to ensure that it is only the capture process you are comparing. The only way I can see you can do that is to develop the 35mm onto something like Ilford FP4+ contact sheet paper in the usual way (by shining light through the negative onto the paper) and do the same, as best you can, with the digital photo (by projecting the photo onto the contact paper as you would with an enlargment but obviously at some kind of reduced ratio to make it the right size).
But you'd have to ensure the projection wasn't deteriorating the photo quality by introducing it's own distortion or lowering the resolution. Personally I can't think of a projector that can give full 18 megapixel resolution onto a 30.2mm x 16.7mm area! So you'd have to blow up the analogue photo to an absolutely massive size onto a massive bit of Ilford FP4+ until you matched the size of the highest resolution projector you could find able to give the full 18 megapixel resolution.
You can still make the comparison and I'd guess that the digital photo printed on to Ilford FP4+ would have all the good bits of Ilford FP4+ showing - that dynamic richness you get, for want of better words - but would end up a much much poorer resolution than the 35mm film, not as a fault of it being digital but as a result of technical limitations of projectors to get it on the Ilford FP4+ in the first place.
On second thoughts you'd actually be better off with the highest pixel density thin screen you could get, remove the backlight and try to use it as if it were the negative, placed directly on the paper in the same way (whilst obviously displaying the digital photo).
EDIT: I realise that's a lot of waffle and see the point that you're pointing out Shaun might be making. But it isn't in any way comparable to audio. You CAN use all the same back end to compare analogue and digital sources - you can't in photography.
Haselsh1
02-04-2016, 07:44
I am comparing a digital monochrome print to a silver halide monochrome print. The digital print is captured using a digital camera and printed using Lyson monochrome inks on an A3+ printer. The real photograph is printed in a darkroom using cold cathode illumination, a chlorobromide photographic paper and a warmtone developer along the lines of D163.
There is quite simply no comparison whatsoever. The digital print is way to sharp, it has little or no depth and has very few tones when compared to the silver halide print. The digital print looks amazingly contrived and 'false' whereas the silver halide print oozes quality. The digital print has no evidence of any kind of quality.
I think you need to go back and re-assess what you think you know about photography.
Haselsh1
02-04-2016, 07:46
I am discussing here a negative that is ten inches by eight inches. Work that out at 300dpi.
Haselsh1
02-04-2016, 07:55
One of the big problems here is that you are discussing 35mm photography and I am not. Discussing 35mm photography would be like talking about 8 bit audio and trying to compare it with something that is a million miles for what I have in mind. Go to a decent exhibition and look at prints taken from a 10X8 negative preferably in black and white. In comparison, digital is laughable.
I used 35mm as an example Shaun to be turned into a neg then exposed traditionally. V a digitally taken pic printed on a digital printer. I had a medium format camera and know how good they are far less the big guys
Haselsh1
02-04-2016, 16:27
I used 35mm as an example Shaun to be turned into a neg then exposed traditionally. V a digitally taken pic printed on a digital printer. I had a medium format camera and know how good they are far less the big guys
Yes Grant, fully understand where you are coming from but the other guy here is making claims that just do not stack up. It is easily possible to make comparisons between digital photography and digital audio because they rely inherently on the same system of binary numbers and sample rates. They use the same mathematical system. Silver halide photography and vinyl on the other hand do not. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the analogue versus digital debate is just as relevant. The same set of arguments apply to one as they do to the other. It also comes back to the point that there is a very real difference but I haven't a clue why. I do not know why monochrome digital imaging is so bad when compared to silver halide analogue photography but you only have to go and view the results and they are blatantly obvious.
Apologies Grant old pal, I wasn't having a go at you.
Yes Grant, fully understand where you are coming from but the other guy here is making claims that just do not stack up. It is easily possible to make comparisons between digital photography and digital audio because they rely inherently on the same system of binary numbers and sample rates. They use the same mathematical system. Silver halide photography and vinyl on the other hand do not. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the analogue versus digital debate is just as relevant. The same set of arguments apply to one as they do to the other. It also comes back to the point that there is a very real difference but I haven't a clue why. I do not know why monochrome digital imaging is so bad when compared to silver halide analogue photography but you only have to go and view the results and they are blatantly obvious.
Apologies Grant old pal, I wasn't having a go at you.
This may be why you prefer your analogue photographs
Dynamic range[edit]
Practical imaging systems both digital and film, have a limited "dynamic range": the range of luminosity that can be reproduced accurately. Highlights of the subject that are too bright are rendered as white, with no detail; shadows that are too dark are rendered as black. The loss of detail is not abrupt with film, or in dark shadows with digital sensors: some detail is retained as brightness moves out of the dynamic range. "Highlight burn-out" of digital sensors, however, can be abrupt, and highlight detail may be lost. And as the sensor elements for different colors saturate in turn, there can be gross hue or saturation shift in burnt-out highlights
But I disagree that photography is a valid comparison with sound reproduction. Yes, both systems are 'digital' but the task they are performing and the way they perform it are very different.
Haselsh1
02-04-2016, 17:58
Both systems reduce a pure analogue signal to digits by way of conversion and 'sampling' therefore both systems work on what is basically the same process. OK so one uses an A-D converter but then what is a CCD...? A CCD reduces light into a string of numbers and lo and behold, so does an A-D converter in sound reproduction. Someone, somewhere must be able to change my thinking but then the Jehovah's Witnesses have been trying that for decades.
Haselsh1
02-04-2016, 18:01
I will definitely agree that both systems handle their respective data in completely different ways but binary digits are binary digits. A digital system is a digital system. An analogue system is just so very different (and better) :eyebrows:
Rothchild
02-04-2016, 18:12
Given the poor understanding of digital recording and replay tools expressed by some in this thread I'm not sure I trust an analysis of (the far more complex process of) photography and printing any better (and I suspect it's likely a bum steer detour to another version of the 'nice vs accurate' argument).
This may be why you prefer your analogue photographs
Dynamic range[edit]
Practical imaging systems both digital and film, have a limited "dynamic range": the range of luminosity that can be reproduced accurately. Highlights of the subject that are too bright are rendered as white, with no detail; shadows that are too dark are rendered as black. The loss of detail is not abrupt with film, or in dark shadows with digital sensors: some detail is retained as brightness moves out of the dynamic range. "Highlight burn-out" of digital sensors, however, can be abrupt, and highlight detail may be lost. And as the sensor elements for different colors saturate in turn, there can be gross hue or saturation shift in burnt-out highlights
But I disagree that photography is a valid comparison with sound reproduction. Yes, both systems are 'digital' but the task they are performing and the way they perform it are very different.
Not sure I would say film has anywhere near a low a dynamic range as digital. thats its strength. once digital get that sorted then they will be nigh on perfect. I like digital photography as its quick, safer,cheap, convenient and reliable....but film, especially medium and large format is way better; at the moment, but its difficult to keep working with it unless you have a great processor for you near by.
Audio Advent
02-04-2016, 21:33
I am comparing a digital monochrome print to a silver halide monochrome print. The digital print is captured using a digital camera and printed using Lyson monochrome inks on an A3+ printer. The real photograph is printed in a darkroom using cold cathode illumination, a chlorobromide photographic paper and a warmtone developer along the lines of D163.
There is quite simply no comparison whatsoever. The digital print is way to sharp, it has little or no depth and has very few tones when compared to the silver halide print. The digital print looks amazingly contrived and 'false' whereas the silver halide print oozes quality. The digital print has no evidence of any kind of quality.
I think you need to go back and re-assess what you think you know about photography.
That comes across as a bit confrontational, unnecessarily so and with a lot of forum-common nerd-arrogance coming across (throwing technical details at someone to prove a deep knowledge of the subject as if to show superiority of your opinion?) This is a conceptual argument - not much technical knowledge needed. There's no need to go down that route! Please.. for the good of the forum.
I know what I wrote/write is long winded and not very enticing to read, too much black - but you need to re-read what I wrote and re-assess your understanding of what I said.
What you are comparing are two different methods of realising the captured image onto a hard copy positive. BOTH are analogue !!
The digital origin of the printed photo is absolutely irrelevent to the poor quality, poor resolution of the Lyson ink printing method that you rightfully dislike. It is the printing method that you are looking at! You surely must be able to err... 'see' that ?
There is simply no way to print a digital photograph at the same resolution as a traditional print for a start.
Ilford themselves do have a service where they will print digital photos onto silver gelatin RC paper (not silver halide) but their method gives you just 2 megapixels on a 4" x 6" print (1200 x 1800 pixels). And that just the resoultion - god knows what the dynamic range of their developing method is, how the image is projected or whatever onto the paper. Their 8 x 10 is 2400 x 3000 pixels.
Just to re-iterate. YES , you're correct in my view that silver halide, traditional, chemical photographs look beautiful (silver gelatine even better in my limited experience) but when you are comparing them to print-outs using Lyson inks you have moved away from comparing the image source completely. You are explicitly comparing a dot matrix ink jet process with a chemical development process. Both of which are analogue processes, neither of which have any relation to digital at all.
It would be the same with audio IF you could only listen to digitally recorded music through built-in tv speakers and then saying that analogue was better (because you could listen to it through proper, full range speakers). You'd really be comparing the speakers ..
Audio Advent
02-04-2016, 21:48
One of the big problems here is that you are discussing 35mm photography and I am not.
That's absolutely not the big problem here.
It's how you're understanding the concept of "digital" - you're seeing the end result and considering that end result as a product of digital whereas in fact it is a very very poor ANALOGUE representation of the digital information ... and then you're comparing it to the long-estabished and very good traditional method. Certainly in imagary there is yet no technological way to display or make a hard copy of a digital image that either aproaches our human limits of perception or even as good as the traditional method.
Digital CAPTURE has long since surpassed human perception limits of resolution but perhaps not in dynamic accuracy, maybe colour too - but who knows what the spy cameras can do or even the difference between the 80's tech of the hubble telescope's camera and current consumer tech.
That is fundamentally different to audio and is NO comparison.
I was talking about 35mm film because when you wrote
How many people I wonder have seen a contact print from a 10X8 sheet of Ilford FP4+ ? I read "Contact Sheet" . Very incidental to the meat of the discussion.
Audio Advent
02-04-2016, 22:01
In any case - this is photography discussion is all about the "artistic" representation of a 3D world onto a 2D "canvas" . There is no real accuracy in those 2D prints compared to the 3D real-life we experience. They don't even move..
The article talks about ways of artistically changing the audio to make it more "beautiful" and appealing (as does certain photo developing methods). They are interesting in my opinion.
The argument in this thread started when Marco took exception at the author's stance that digital today captures the sound at the mic "more accurately" in the authors extensive professional experience.
Prefering the sound of analogue audio also agrees with the author, otherwise he wouldn't write an article about improving and getting that great analogue sound that people desire and that he himself expresses does sound great.
Your preferences, Shaun, have really no relevence to a discussion of what's more accurate (and I don't think that's your point either) but that was the discussion beforehand in the thread. They only go to re-enforce the author's whole point with which I'd also agree. I came across the article myself because I was looking to find a way to make things sound "nice" ... artificially !
If I was recording a trumpet being blasted loud, I would NOT keep that loud, hard, and tiring loud trumpet sound on the recording. I would actively seek to make it less accurate and instead make it nicer and warmer and ephasise parts of the sound which are otherwise over-powered by all the grating and ear-splitting dynamics. Then I bet an audiophile would come along and tell me that the recording was fantastic, so realistic and accurate! No mate - you weren't there. I had to work hard to make that sound nice!
Prefering the sound of analogue audio also agrees with the author, otherwise he wouldn't write an article about improving and getting that great analogue sound that people desire and that he himself expresses does sound great.
Ok, so on one hand, the author's stance, according to you, is that "digital today captures the sound at the mic more accurately", and on the other, he's stating that he prefers the sound of analogue because it is 'warmer'.
Therefore, which process/format does he choose to produce his recordings: the one which results in "that great analogue sound that people desire and that he himself expresses does sound great", or the one which "captures the sound at the mic more accurately"?
The inference here, for me, is that the author seeks to tailor the sound in a way that deviates from reality, based on the (IMO, erroneous) notion that analogue automatically makes things sound 'warmer', when what he should be doing is seeking to faithfully reproduce the original sound, 'warts and all', via whichever method best achieves that goal.
This is a primary example of why many of the truly great recordings, produced in a now bygone era, sound so much better than those made today, simply because they weren't 'fucked about with' like that, i.e. governed by a recording engineer's notion of what he considers as a 'warm' sound!
Instead, back then, they kept it simple and merely sought to achieve maximum fidelity, via the use of the best equipment that they had to hand at the time - and that's why the finest examples of those recordings sound utterly stunning (read as extremely realistic and lifelike)....
They only go to re-enforce the author's whole point with which I'd also agree. I came across the article myself because I was looking to find a way to make things sound "nice" ... artificially !
Why? If that's your goal with playback, then it's not hi-fi. Others and I, who've very carefully assembled our systems to achieve maximum fidelity with recordings, certainly don't seek to make things sound "nice". We want the recordings of voices and instruments we've been given to sound as realistic and LIFELIKE as possible (within the boundaries of the sound that left the studio), which brings me onto this:
If I was recording a trumpet being blasted loud, I would NOT keep that loud, hard, and tiring loud trumpet sound on the recording. I would actively seek to make it less accurate and instead make it nicer and warmer and ephasise parts of the sound which are otherwise over-powered by all the grating and ear-splitting dynamics.
So what you're saying is that you'd seek to achieve a false, dynamically compressed sound, simply to create your notion of 'nice'? That's fine, if that's what you want, but count me out. And I'm sure that many others with similar proclivities towards audio, would agree.
Then I bet an audiophile would come along and tell me that the recording was fantastic, so realistic and accurate! No mate - you weren't there. I had to work hard to make that sound nice!
Not me, because I'd want the trumpet to sound like a trumpet ["ear-splitting dynamics" and all], and not a euphonically tailored/'niceified' version of such, based on some recording engineer's notion of what he defines as "analogue warmth"! ;)
Marco.
Accuracy in the recording - and by that I mean being as faithful as possible to the real-life sound of the instruments you are recording, and accuracy in playback - that is replaying the recording as accurately as possible are two completely different things.
The example is given of recording the trumpet. The artist may decide he wants it to be recorded as faithfully as possible. Or he decides to record it so the sound it makes fits in with the overall feel of the music he is making. Both approaches are valid.
All we need to be concerned about on playback is whether we reproduce that trumpet as he intended. If he softened it out etc then that is how we should hear it. If he left it raw then likewise.
A system that takes that softened out trumpet recording and makes it sound raw again on replay is badly flawed, likewise the system that softens the raw recording of the trumpet.
I was reading a thread on another forum (Hoffman) where a bloke who has just 'upgraded' his vintage speakers for some small, contemporary type is unhappy that many of his albums are now unlistenable.
The advice he is given is
a) sell your poor recordings and only buy good recordings
b) maintain a second 'low-fi' system that makes the poor recordings sound acceptable.
The bloke who suggests that the problem is that the new speakers are crap, with a 6dB lift in the top end and a broad midrange suck-out is, of course, ignored.
The problem is not digital vs analogue or the recording choices of the artist and the engineer, it is audiophiles simply not understanding the basics of what they are trying to achieve.
Haselsh1
03-04-2016, 07:00
Given the poor understanding of digital recording and replay tools expressed by some in this thread I'm not sure I trust an analysis of (the far more complex process of) photography and printing any better (and I suspect it's likely a bum steer detour to another version of the 'nice vs accurate' argument).
Perhaps, as you are obviously such an expert in photography you'd like to enlighten us all....? Or are you just going to make negative comments that don't really mean anything.
Rothchild
03-04-2016, 07:20
Perhaps, as you are obviously such an expert in photography you'd like to enlighten us all....? Or are you just going to make negative comments that don't really mean anything.
Read again, I'm not an expert on photography, else I'd be hanging out on a photography forum having this discussion. I do however know a reasonable amount about audio and recording techniques, so if there are any aspects you'd like enlightening on just ask ;-)
Marc: Perhaps some sort of AoS field trip can be arranged where a bus full of audiophiles can be taken to a recording studio to watch some recording being done and talk to the artist and engineers about what they are doing, why they are doing it and what they are trying to achieve?
I'm not serious, obviously, but it really would help with these sort of threads in the future.
Haselsh1
03-04-2016, 07:33
Read again, I'm not an expert on photography, else I'd be hanging out on a photography forum having this discussion. I do however know a reasonable amount about audio and recording techniques, so if there are any aspects you'd like enlightening on just ask ;-)
Apologies, photography has been my baby for forty six years, I'm not really into audio recording I just want to listen to good music. The recording part does not really concern me. I just want the music to be full of passion and power and guts.
Accuracy in the recording - and by that I mean being as faithful as possible to the real-life sound of the instruments you are recording, and accuracy in playback - that is replaying the recording as accurately as possible are two completely different things.
The example is given of recording the trumpet. The artist may decide he wants it to be recorded as faithfully as possible. Or he decides to record it so the sound it makes fits in with the overall feel of the music he is making. Both approaches are valid.
All we need to be concerned about on playback is whether we reproduce that trumpet as he intended. If he softened it out etc then that is how we should hear it. If he left it raw then likewise.
A system that takes that softened out trumpet recording and makes it sound raw again on replay is badly flawed, likewise the system that softens the raw recording of the trumpet.
I completely agree, Martin.
However, in this instance I don't consider that the author's preference for the sound of analogue audio has anything to do with 'artistic intent', as such, but rather his desire to create something that sounds 'nice' (an effect that Sam has also admitted to seeking), and that in his opinion represents, to quote Sam: "the great analogue sound that people desire", which the author considers is best achieved by employing the use of analogue equipment, in order to create that sound, with said 'warmth'.
Essentially, the author's position is pretty black or white: use analogue equipment to create a 'nice warm sound', or use digital to create an 'accurate' one. That's a pragmatic and objective position to adopt, rather than an artistic one.
Marco.
Marc: Perhaps some sort of AoS field trip can be arranged where a bus full of audiophiles can be taken to a recording studio to watch some recording being done and talk to the artist and engineers about what they are doing, why they are doing it and what they are trying to achieve?
It'd never work. Marco would be in their leccy cupboard before you could say 'knife', whipping out fuses and polishing the pins.
Rothchild
03-04-2016, 08:00
I'm confident that if Hugh Robjohns wanted to make an 'accurate' recording using only analogue technology he would be able to do so. My reading is that it's easier and quicker to do the same using digital equipment.
However, when one does want some pleasing sonic artifacts most of those, often through familiarity, are the artifacts of analogue recording techniques / tools (quite often when used at the edge of, or beyond, their specified 'sweet spot'). This is the distinction, not that analogue == warm & digital == accurate but that they function differently at the same boundary - push the level in to a tape machine and you get a potentially useful effect, push the level in to a digital converter and you get nasty digital clipping.
Note, he's also not saying that one has to use analogue technology to get these effects, many of them have been pretty well modelled in the digital world now - the article just describes what they do and where the idea came from.
I completely agree, Martin.
However, in this instance I don't consider that the author's preference for the sound of analogue audio has anything to do with 'artistic intent', as such, but rather his desire to create something that sounds 'nice' (an effect that Sam has also admitted to seeking), and that in his opinion represents, to quote Sam: "the great analogue sound that people desire", which the author considers is best achieved by employing the use of analogue equipment, in order to create that sound, with said 'warmth'.
Essentially, the author's position is pretty black or white: use analogue equipment to create a 'nice warm sound', or use digital to create an 'accurate' one. That's a pragmatic and objective position to adopt, rather than an artistic one.
Marco.
He does say:
to my mind digital recording systems can now deliver pretty much all that was once promised: a near‑perfect recording medium that gives back exactly what was recorded.
That's great in some circumstances, but it's not always what we want: in many cases, the technical limitations and imperfections of analogue systems have become an integral part of the quality of the recorded sounds that we all grew up with — and the end result is perceived by many people as being more pleasing than we can easily achieve today with all‑digital recording chains. Further than that, some of the sounds resulting from 'abuse' of analogue gear have become recognised effects in their own right (tube overdrive and tape saturation being obvious examples).
Which I think you are truncating to 'analogue is inferior' but that isn't what it is all about at the recording end which is why he has written this article.
I know a few musicians who record reasonably frequently and none of them are bothered about 'capturing the lifelike sound of the instruments'.
Just last week I was round a pal's place where he and a couple of other musicians were playing back a recording they had just completed. Of all the things they discussed about it there was no mention of whether the trumpet - or any of the other instruments - sounded real or not.
He does say:
to my mind digital recording systems can now deliver pretty much all that was once promised: a near‑perfect recording medium that gives back exactly what was recorded.
That's great in some circumstances, but it's not always what we want: in many cases, the technical limitations and imperfections of analogue systems have become an integral part of the quality of the recorded sounds that we all grew up with — and the end result is perceived by many people as being more pleasing than we can easily achieve today with all‑digital recording chains. Further than that, some of the sounds resulting from 'abuse' of analogue gear have become recognised effects in their own right (tube overdrive and tape saturation being obvious examples).
Which I think you are truncating to 'analogue is inferior' but that isn't what it is all about at the recording end which is why he has written this article.
Nope, I can assure you I'm not. It's got nothing to do with inferior or superior, but rather what is actually responsible for creating the effect that the author desires.
I simply don't agree that what he's seeking to create is automatically best served by using analogue equipment, as I don't buy the notion that "the technical limitations and imperfections of analogue systems" automatically create the "warmth" that he seeks.
The fact is, there are technical limitations and imperfections with digital systems too, simply of a different type, so it's not automatically the case that they will produce more 'accurate' recordings than analogue, which appears to be what the author is also suggesting.
It's the underlying premise, purported by some, that 'analogue/valves' = best way to achieve euphony [a 'nice warm sound'], and digital = best way to achieve 'accuracy', which rips my knitting, as I know from experience that unless the former are badly implemented or used in way to deliberately create distortion (such as, for example, overdriving valves in guitar amps), that is NOT the result that is obtained.
Marco.
It's the underlying premise, purported by some, that 'analogue/valves' = best way to achieve euphony [a 'nice warm sound'], and digital = best way to achieve 'accuracy', which rips my knitting, as I know from experience that unless the former are badly implemented or used in way to deliberately create distortion (such as, for example, overdriving valves in guitar amps), that is NOT the result that is obtained.
Marco.
For replay purposes I agree. Analogue plus valves do not have to sound warm and euphonic, although it often does, hence the reason that catch-all notion persists.
Recording, on the other hand, is a completely different mindset. It is rarely the stated intention of a musician to get the recording to sound as 'accurate' as possible, in the same way as a painter is not trying to replicate a photograph when he does a portrait. In the studio everything and anything is acceptable. It is only in the replay that the notion of accuracy becomes important.
I'm confident that if Hugh Robjohns wanted to make an 'accurate' recording using only analogue technology he would be able to do so. My reading is that it's easier and quicker to do the same using digital equipment.
However, when one does want some pleasing sonic artifacts most of those, often through familiarity, are the artifacts of analogue recording techniques / tools (quite often when used at the edge of, or beyond, their specified 'sweet spot'). This is the distinction, not that analogue == warm & digital == accurate but that they function differently at the same boundary - push the level in to a tape machine and you get a potentially useful effect, push the level in to a digital converter and you get nasty digital clipping.
Note, he's also not saying that one has to use analogue technology to get these effects, many of them have been pretty well modelled in the digital world now - the article just describes what they do and where the idea came from.
I completely agree, Marc, although that's not quite how I interpreted the article.
So why then automatically attribute analogue with "warmth", without also acknowledging what you've just said? All that does, IMO, is bolster the misguided perception of many that it's only analogue that contains any inherent distortions.
It's this rather absolutist 'analogue is warm', 'digital is accurate' thing that isn't useful, and which I feel completely distorts the reality when analogue is at its best, and panders to the biases of those who believe that digital is somehow 'perfect'.
Marco.
For replay purposes I agree. Analogue plus valves do not have to sound warm and euphonic, although it often does, hence the reason that catch-all notion persists.
Recording, on the other hand, is a completely different mindset. It is rarely the stated intention of a musician to get the recording to sound as 'accurate' as possible, in the same way as a painter is not trying to replicate a photograph when he does a portrait. In the studio everything and anything is acceptable. It is only in the replay that the notion of accuracy becomes important.
I completely agree. In reference to the bit in bold, that's why I challenge and dispute that notion at every appropriate opportunity, and introduce some balance, as it needs eradicating from the heads of the biased and/or uninitiated! ;)
Marco.
Which is fine but you are talking replay and the article is talking recording.
Well, what about the fact that I consider the best (read as most 'accurate'/real sounding) recordings were produced in the late 50s, using all analogue (mainly valve) equipment, and that I could back up that assertion with an appropriate demonstration? ;)
This has been mentioned here many times before, Martin, probably also somewhere on this thread. In my experience, the best analogue equipment is capable of competing with digital in the musical accuracy stakes, regardless of whether it's in the recording or playback domain.
Marco.
Well, what about the fact that I consider the best (read as most 'accurate'/real sounding) recordings were produced in the late 50s, using all analogue (mainly valve) equipment, and that I could back up that assertion with an appropriate demonstration? ;)
This has been mentioned here many times before, Martin, probably also somewhere on this thread. In my experience, the best analogue equipment is capable of competing with digital in the musical accuracy stakes, regardless of whether it's in the recording or playback domain.
Marco.
I don't disagree and that statement backs up what you already know I think on that - the reason those recordings are so 'real' sounding is nothing to do with the recording medium itself
Yes, well, we're partly in agreement, but I also believe that the equipment used has a significant influence on the results obtained. It's one of the reasons why I use valve playback equipment, as I believe that its unique qualities can also be applied in the recording domain.
Marco.
I'd caution against mixing ones opinion of 'best' with that of 'fact' and steer clear of absolutism. I suspect the liking of older 1950s recordings has nothing to do with being analogue but all to do with the simple techniques used back then and the skill of the recording engineer. I have some really good 1950s recordings and also some shockers, just as I have some excellent modern recordings and some absolute shockers....
There a short but interesting discussion here: http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=101857
Hi Neal,
I'd caution against mixing ones opinion of 'best' with that of 'fact' and steer clear of absolutism.
"Best" simply based on my ears and experience. I'm certainly not the absolutist type.
I suspect the liking of older 1950s recordings has nothing to do with being analogue but all to do with the simple techniques used back then and the skill of the recording engineer.
Yes, that's undoubtedly a big part of it - probably the greatest part.
However, I also believe that some of the best valve recording equipment (e.g Neumann U47 microphones) succeed in capturing instruments and the human voice more believably and realistically, in terms of tone and dynamics, than anything I've heard produced today. That single item alone, IMO, contributes significantly to why the best jazz albums from the late 50s sound how they do, especially when vocals are being reproduced.
I have some really good 1950s recordings and also some shockers, just as I have some excellent modern recordings and some absolute shockers....
Ditto, which is why there are no absolutes. But if I picked the creme de la creme of the all-analogue recordings I have from the late 50s, and compared them with my all-digital modern counterparts, the former undoubtedly are considerably better (achieve a greater sense of realism) in the areas I've mentioned.
Marco.
Rothchild
03-04-2016, 10:39
Err, a U87 is solid state, indeed it was part of the 'FET80' series
U47s are valve though, as are AKG C12s which would also likely have been available 'in the day'
Despite what you're saying about 'the best of valves' 47s and C12s would today be selected for their rather obvious character rather than because of their neutrality (there are plenty more neutral mics these days - check out the Earthworks range)
Err, a U87 is solid state, indeed it was part of the 'FET80' series
U47s are valve though..
Sorry, my error! I thought it didn't look right when I typed it... Will amend now :)
Marco.
StanleyB
03-04-2016, 11:09
Ditto, which is why there are no absolutes. But if I picked the creme de la creme of the all-analogue recordings I have from the late 50s, and compared them with my all-digital modern counterparts, the former undoubtedly are considerably better (achieve a greater sense of realism) in the areas I've mentioned.
Funnily enough, it is the apparent shortcoming of that greater sense of realism in digital reproduction that caused me to start carry out a bit of research quite recently. The biggest problem was how to offer the laboratory subjects ( some are in fact members on AoS) a method of selecting between the different set of results, but from the same music and equipment. And the conclusion so far is that the realism is there in digital, but the obstacles that clutter the path is what has the largest negative effect on the outcome.
. The biggest problem was how to offer the laboratory subjects ( some are in fact members on AoS) .
Did you partially shave their heads and attach electrodes to them?
I'm going to be disappointed if the answer is no ;)
StanleyB
03-04-2016, 12:17
Did you partially shave their heads and attach electrodes to them?
I'm going to be disappointed if the answer is no ;)
I let them choose their own weapon and source of electricity :D.
I have been interested in the properties of an audio signal, and the different types of speaker drivers and box configurations since a very young age. The same goes for amp designs, be it class A, B, AB, etc., or FET, transistor, hybrids, or valve. I got a FET power amp myself, because I prefer it over transistors or valves. But it has often intrigued me if realism is biased in favour of the amp/speaker combination. Quite often we see a thread asking about an amp, and if it is detailed and warm/analogue sounding. Or if a particular speaker is detailed and accurate. But more often than not, it is not asked of those items offer a sense of realism. Could it be because many us put more trust in the ability of the source (TT, DAC, etc.) to deliver that realism, whilst leaving the amp to deal with the level of warmth in the sound, and the speakers to deal with the frequency response and acceptable level of sound discolouration? That's one of the things that I am trying to find out.
Probably deserves a thread of its own, unless it is commercially sensitive, which would be understandable.
I'd imagine you are correct. With DACs and CD players it seems the question most asked is 'does it sound like analogue?' or some variation thereof.
It'd never work. Marco would be in their leccy cupboard before you could say 'knife', whipping out fuses and polishing the pins.
Just seen this! :lolsign:
Marco.
Haselsh1
03-04-2016, 16:45
OK so this is not really analogue versus digital but as far as valves are concerned, I have noticed in the past that the valve amplifiers I have owned, especially the EL34 ones, have this truly gorgeous, liquid purity in the midrange that all of the transistor amps I have owned do not. It is this totally clear, liquid sound that would easily change my mind back to valves in the future.
I let them choose their own weapon and source of electricity :D.
I have been interested in the properties of an audio signal, and the different types of speaker drivers and box configurations since a very young age. The same goes for amp designs, be it class A, B, AB, etc., or FET, transistor, hybrids, or valve. I got a FET power amp myself, because I prefer it over transistors or valves. But it has often intrigued me if realism is biased in favour of the amp/speaker combination. Quite often we see a thread asking about an amp, and if it is detailed and warm/analogue sounding. Or if a particular speaker is detailed and accurate. But more often than not, it is not asked of those items offer a sense of realism. Could it be because many us put more trust in the ability of the source (TT, DAC, etc.) to deliver that realism, whilst leaving the amp to deal with the level of warmth in the sound, and the speakers to deal with the frequency response and acceptable level of sound discolouration? That's one of the things that I am trying to find out.
a touch of champagne on the white is to me acceptable if its sounds better than without. True, some folk would rather listen to stark white, even if it is not especially enjoyable... dont quite understand that.:mental:
I Love analogue warmth.:)
a touch of champagne on the white is to me acceptable if its sounds better than without. True, some folk would rather listen to stark white, even if it is not especially enjoyable... dont quite understand that.:mental:
If a recording is not enjoyable then either you don't like the music or there is something up with the system
A recording does not have to sound euphonic to be enjoyed. If you wan t your system to paint in some extra colour that is fine but then nothing you listen to will sound as intended.
I am not talking about small changes to the sound here. Amongst my CD players I have a Marantz CD67 that makes everything sound glittery and golden. Which is fine with some recordings, really enhances them beyond what they are - but with others it ruins them. So if that is your player you end up having the player/system dictate what music you can listen to.
I don't think it crazy to not want that. I'll take the unenhanced version and if I don't like it then I just won't play it again.
Audio Advent
03-04-2016, 19:38
So why then automatically attribute analogue with "warmth", without also acknowledging what you've just said? All that does, IMO, is bolster the misguided perception of many that it's only analogue that contains any inherent distortions.
It's this rather absolutist 'analogue is warm', 'digital is accurate' thing that isn't useful, and which I feel completely distorts the reality when analogue is at its best, and panders to the biases of those who believe that digital is somehow 'perfect'.
Marco.
It is simply very very common terminology within groups of musicians, within home-studio, home-recording enthusiasts etc etc and by some audio engineers too because they've been discussing "sound" with bands and musicians, what they want their music to sound like.
The article is from a magazine dedicated to the home-studio enthusiast or amateur / semi pro musican. Read interviews with big artists about how their records were recorded and see the same phrase over and over again "analogue warmth" whether they're talking about gear they use or about sounds they aim for.
The author has then written the article for that audience who most likely send in questions asking "how do I get analogue warmth". And so ... low and behold... the article talks about "analogue warmth", using the very language of the audience and the target audience of the magazine. Why would you set out to alienate your audeince by refusing to use their terminology when it's the very language they've used in letters pages and requests for articles? He could have called it "what made the recordings of yesteryear sound as they do, in general?" or something like that instead.
I like your phrase "rips my knitting" and I'd like to know what knitwear you wear that gets ripped. If it's knitted knickers then I don't see why they should be getting in a twist about the phrase. Seems to me that you've taken it the wrong way. All that was expressed was a throw-away comment about HIS personal experience and opinion based on that extensive experience.
Audio Advent
03-04-2016, 20:02
In my experience, the best analogue equipment is capable of competing with digital in the musical accuracy stakes, regardless of whether it's in the recording or playback domain.
Does that imply that there are criteria other than "musical accuracy" that digital is better at? I really don't know what musical accuracy is. I'd guess that musical accuracy is distinctly different from sonic accuracy and therefore something musically accurate may capture the human element of music (sound created by humans to be pleasing to other humans) but actually may be quite innaccurate with sound in general, especially non-musical sounds?
So perhaps a human playing the triangle: somthing musically accurate will demonstrate the stoping and starting of the triangle/muted triangle and give a real sense of it being hit by a human (timing?) but perhaps falls down on the accurate portrayal of all the harmonic structure of the sound of a triangle itself? Perhaps moves away from a 3-dimensional sense of the soundstage but instead gives a flat layout of the band in front of you so that you can discern each musician in a 2D curved space?
Just trying to work out what musically accurate means as opposed to other kinds of accuracy. If we both as listeners are listening for completely different things in terms of "accuracy" then that could explain a massive amount and puts everything into context completely. It would mean that both of us have been talking at cross-purposes because we define the word as different things. That may well be the case with the studio engineer too in the article.
Audio Advent
03-04-2016, 20:11
Essentially, the author's position is pretty black or white: use analogue equipment to create a 'nice warm sound', or use digital to create an 'accurate' one. That's a pragmatic and objective position to adopt, rather than an artistic one.
I think you mis-read the article. I read it as him simply advising to use any analogue gear that gives that particular flavour of sound called "analogue warmth"! Not just any old analogue gear because all analogue gear makes things sound warm...
He even recommends also using digital plug-ins which kind of disproves your reading of it.
You having a one way conversation there Sam?
Audio Advent
03-04-2016, 20:53
Ok, so on one hand, the author's stance, according to you, is that "digital today captures the sound at the mic more accurately", and on the other, he's stating that he prefers the sound of analogue because it is 'warmer'.
Therefore, which process/format does he choose to produce his recordings: the one which results in "that great analogue sound that people desire and that he himself expresses does sound great", or the one which "captures the sound at the mic more accurately"?
The inference here, for me, is that the author seeks to tailor the sound in a way that deviates from reality, based on the (IMO, erroneous) notion that analogue automatically makes things sound 'warmer', when what he should be doing is seeking to faithfully reproduce the original sound, 'warts and all', via whichever method best achieves that goal.
This is a primary example of why many of the truly great recordings, produced in a now bygone era, sound so much better than those made today, simply because they weren't 'fucked about with' like that, i.e. governed by a recording engineer's notion of what he considers as a 'warm' sound!
Instead, back then, they kept it simple and merely sought to achieve maximum fidelity, via the use of the best equipment that they had to hand at the time - and that's why the finest examples of those recordings sound utterly stunning (read as extremely realistic and lifelike)....
Why? If that's your goal with playback, then it's not hi-fi. Others and I, who've very carefully assembled our systems to achieve maximum fidelity with recordings, certainly don't seek to make things sound "nice". We want the recordings of voices and instruments we've been given to sound as realistic and LIFELIKE as possible (within the boundaries of the sound that left the studio), which brings me onto this:
So what you're saying is that you'd seek to achieve a false, dynamically compressed sound, simply to create your notion of 'nice'? That's fine, if that's what you want, but count me out. And I'm sure that many others with similar proclivities towards audio, would agree.
Not me, because I'd want the trumpet to sound like a trumpet ["ear-splitting dynamics" and all], and not a euphonically tailored/'niceified' version of such, based on some recording engineer's notion of what he defines as "analogue warmth"! ;)
Marco.
As Macca is saying too. Nothing to do with recording engineers and what they want.
In my world, sometimes I imagine a sound or feeling to some music and I want to get that sound into reality . That sound may not be a natural sound of a traditional instrument - most likely is NEVER the sound of a traditional instrument. My references are studio-created sounds, plate reverbs, compression, filters, EQ, spectal delays, resonant filters etc etc etc etc etc etc None of that is real. None of that can be called accurate.
Sometimes I want to make a sound that is unnaturaly rich in the midrange and is compressed, or sometimes is resonating in the treble and rich in the treble like a kind of fine soft smoke that you can almost touch. None of that is real, none of that is "accurate". When I'm creating music I don't want to create exactly what musicians sound like in a room - mostly, depending on where you're standing in the room, it can sound pretty poor..
When you go to a gig then this is a completely different situation and the venue is involved in creating an inaccurate sound of those musicians by adding reverb and the accoustics of the hall on top of the sound of the instruments.
Think about analogue synths. A player may pick a sawtooth wave as a source. It will sound open and bright and harsh- that's the sound of an unfiltered sawtooth. But the musican doesn't want a harsh sound so they choose to put it through a low pass filter. Is this now "wrong" to you? They've doctored the sound of a sawtooth wave in order to make it sound more palatable! Now they added some resonance on that low pass filter and it's making a squelch sound - how can they ruin the pure sound of a sawtooth you must be saying! Pulling your hair out...
In the very same way a musician - let's say a trumpeter - wants to change the sound of their instrument to fit their personal music needs. They could try with mutes or different techniques of playing.. OR they could get what they want via the recording method, deliberately introducing tape compression or transformer compression or recording through a Neve desk to soften up the sound and emphasis the midrange depth that they want. This is THEIR choice and THEIR musical expression. Listen to all the different tones Miles Davis chooses over the years in his recordings. Mic choice, mic positioning is all part of the same process too.
The author, as an engineer, will want to create a "sound" for the recording. Sometimes the recording tone and sound will lack anything particularly beautiful about it and therefore sound a bit bland even if the musicians play perfectly well and together. It's impossible for the mic and recording set-up to be perfectly as desired each time - sometimes a guitarist will insist on using an amp that sounds strident and out of place with the rest of the band and yet will be very pleased with the result after the engineer has worked very very hard to process his guitar part to warm it up and get rid of it's strident, clinical nature.
And so the author is specifically talking about the "musical" process of creating a finished product. He is NOT talking about how to make an accurate recording from the outset - that's about mic technique and a lot more - and not even talking about making an accurate recording at all. Sometimes I'm sure he will set out to do so but that is specifically NOT what this article is about.
I really think you need to understand about the musical process to get the article. Are you musical yourself, ever get the urge to create music (even if you don't follow it up?). In reality not that many people really are, no matter how much they love music itself. To me, making music and listening to music are part of the same thing and I am sure from talking to people about it I must therefore have a different relationship and perception of music to those who just listen.
You having a one way conversation there Sam?
Probably undertaking endurance/wear testing of keyboards?
Audio Advent
03-04-2016, 20:58
You having a one way conversation there Sam?
I'm not on Whatsapp or old Yahoo messenger - so no, I'm not having a conversation with anyone. I'm on a forum, replying to posts (working my way backwards). Then people can come back to read the thread in an hour, a few days, a few weeks - whenever they want, or not want!
Welcome to the world of the forum James! Time to mull and digest everything, no pressure for instant, quick responses. That's what's great about them - time to live your life and pop in and out when you please.
Audio Advent
03-04-2016, 21:02
Probably undertaking endurance/wear testing of keyboards?
I used to be in a dead-end job but thanks to the internet, I make £400/day working from home! You can too! Phone +81 100 784884 to get your keyboard testing starter pack TODAY!
:)
(was going to edit that and take out the letter t or something and say the key was broken - I've said the joke now so I don't have to act it out).
I must therefore have a different relationship and perception of music to those who just listen.
There will be lots of differing perspectives. I had an interesting time recently when a loudspeaker driver designer came to visit. It was very educational. Some sounds I previously enjoyed I found our were due to poor driver design. The designer hated them but I had liked them and probably still do. Who's right? We both are. It does however depend on what the question is.
Audio Advent
05-04-2016, 05:04
There will be lots of differing perspectives. I had an interesting time recently when a loudspeaker driver designer came to visit. It was very educational. Some sounds I previously enjoyed I found our were due to poor driver design. The designer hated them but I had liked them and probably still do. Who's right? We both are. It does however depend on what the question is.
Previously enjoyed... hope that bit wears off and you get back to as before. Being interested in the music production side I certainly do listen out for that kind of thing in particular and so, yeah, you begin to pick things out a little and apart. Must be the same if you're trained to listen to the aspects of the kit your designing too.
Definately there is no right or wrong. Although extrapolating an absolute meaning from that perspective is going to conflict with others' absolute interpretations without ever realising they are both describing the same thing.
I must be crazy because I actually read this thread in full, or at least most of it...
So much things to say but so little willingness to actually go through the trouble to try to type it all out and see if it all still would make sense at that point, so I'll just say the idea someone brought up about doing a visit to a recording studio is honestly a great one :)
Audio Advent
09-04-2016, 00:01
Haha - well done! Concentration of a chess master you must have.
I don't blame you for then not wanting to go through the trouble of posting..
Personally I think the outing would be fun and a nice social occassion but people wouldn't learn that much I don't think and probably quickly forgotten. Instead you can find out a lot already oneself online! Read hundreds of interviews with studio engineers, bands etc about the making of their records, watch youtube interviews etc etc etc thousands upon thousands of hours of information out there and available to take in when and where you want. There are whole forums dedicated to the subject with some big names contributing and giving their opinions.
Thing is, many people won't be interested anyway else they would have already been reading and watching it all... Some just want to listen and enjoy the music without having to know anything more! I say that's fair enough.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.