Analog and Digital Audio

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>As with video, we are doing much to create a digital representation of an original analog recording. &nbsp;Yes, many studios are turning all digital now. &nbsp;But musicians still play through amplifiers and microphones, which create an analog signal which is then converted to digital. &nbsp;Are we trying to recreate an analog source digitally? &nbsp;If so, are we succeeding?</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

stevied4him : As with video, we are doing much to create a digital representation of an original analog recording.  Yes, many studios are turning all digital now.  But musicians still play through amplifiers and microphones, which create an analog signal which is then converted to digital.  Are we trying to recreate an analog source digitally?  If so, are we succeeding?

This reminds me of something my cousin, who is a guitarist, once told me. He knew another guitarist with racks of all digital equipment, who complained to him that no matter how hard he tried he couldn't get a sound like Hendrix. My cousin simply told him he should seek out vintage gear, Marshal tube amps and stuff, like Jimi used. The guy just looked at my cousin like he was crazy and started to fiddle with his digital equipment. He just didn't understand. Digital video is obviouly way better than analog, so you would think that digital sound would be too, and in many cases it's not. I've heard VHS tapes that had better sound than the DVD versions of the same film, and analog LD's are known to have better sound then their digital couterparts also. What I'd like to know is why some forms of analog are so much better than others? You'd never hear anyone defending cassette tapes or 8-tracks like they do LP's, because everyone knows they sound like crap, but then again reel to reel tape is the best sounding of all analog forms. This is a good example why you can't always fall back on scientific analysis for such things. It's all way over my head. I just know what sounds good when I hear it. I've heard SACD being touted as &quot;having a more analog like sound&quot;. What??? I thought CD was supposed to be the answer to all that? Were now finding out we really didn't come very far in sound quality after all, which some of us already knew. I believe some analog scources can and do sound better with the right set up (just ask anyone who's ever heard a master tape, or any musician worth his salt). The masses however, want practicality. Better sound is an after thought, and sometimes I don't blame them. I've had some of my most inspiring moments listening to music in my car, where Lp's can't go, and Lp's and tape are easily damaged and are a pain in the butt to deal with and worse of all, require some responsibility to care for (god forbid). That's the main reason we are trying to duplicate analog sources digitally, not to mention piracy problems. Analog is at it's maximum potential right now, it probably couldn't get any better, but digital continues to improve, and I have some faith that these new digital formats sound quality will be on par with their video quality in the not to distant future, and some already are now.  

</font>

 

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>It not a question of Analog vs Digital. We hear in analog, most studio equipment is analog,however, that is changing and some of the best sounding recordings were made on analog equipment and some on digital. The issue is we have never had a way to hear the full quality of the original analog or digital recording until now. LP was never as good as the original, neither was cassette, 8 track, or reel to reel. One very good analog device is now the outdated VHS hi-fi. You can make superb audio recordings with a good hifiVCR. Now we have SACD and DVD audio and DTS 96/24 and what they do is for the very first time is let the consumer experience more closely what the original recording sounds like. Also, some of the latest and best studio equipment is digital and is way better then the analog equipment that it has replaced and remember too that studio digital stuff far exceeds that of home equipment. &nbsp;Also, if I hear that BS about laser disk sounding better than DVD one more time I am going to scream. LD's did not sound better than DVD's. I owned several players and had a huge collection of movies. On a LD's so called analog tracks they were at best only prologic and no better than CD quality in fact there was a redbook stream on some movies. If there was a AC3 or DTS stream, they were the same bit-rates as DVD's are now. If you have a LD that sounds better then the same DVD, then the DVD was either taken from a inferior master and or it was just done by an idiot. Here is a link for clarification on LD's sound. &nbsp;

http://www.access-one.com/rjn/laser/legacy/ld96.html</font>

 

[Dan Banquer]

<font color='#000000'>I got my first CD player in the late 1980's, and I haven't looked back since then. I have never gotten the dynamic range from any analog source that I get from digital. Period.
                d.b.</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>Jeff &amp; Dan B: amen, amen. Truly excellent analog master tapes are a beauty and a joy to hear, sure, but digital masters properly done with careful and conservative setting of the 0dB level (thanks to Dan B and Chuck for some illuminating insights and articles shared privately on that subject) have, at the very least, nothing to apologize for. In fact, there is a legit question as to whether we really need anything more than 44kKz sampling in master recordings, contrary to what many claim (I don't really know enough about digital recording and the theory to take sides but it would make a good thread, huh?) It is reported that when Herbert von Karajan first heard digital he exclaimed, &quot;all else is gaslight!&quot;.

Well-done digital transfers of good analog masters can be a revealation, especially if you own the original LP for comparison. I've replaced several of my classical LPs from the 70s thus and, except for one or two botch jobs, the results have been better than new, with the lost dynamic range and added distortion caused by multiple analog reproduction steps to the typical LP being elimiated and the veils, as it were, being lifted from the original.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

jeffsg4mac : It not a question of Analog vs Digital. We hear in analog, most studio equipment is analog,however, that is changing and some of the best sounding recordings were made on analog equipment and some on digital. The issue is we have never had a way to hear the full quality of the original analog or digital recording until now. LP was never as good as the original, neither was cassette, 8 track, or reel to reel. One very good analog device is now the outdated VHS hi-fi. You can make superb audio recordings with a good hifiVCR. Now we have SACD and DVD audio and DTS 96/24 and what they do is for the very first time is let the consumer experience more closely what the original recording sounds like. Also, some of the latest and best studio equipment is digital and is way better then the analog equipment that it has replaced and remember too that studio digital stuff far exceeds that of home equipment.  Also, if I hear that BS about laser disk sounding better than DVD one more time I am going to scream. LD's did not sound better than DVD's. I owned several players and had a huge collection of movies. On a LD's so called analog tracks they were at best only prologic and no better than CD quality in fact there was a redbook stream on some movies. If there was a AC3 or DTS stream, they were the same bit-rates as DVD's are now. If you have a LD that sounds better then the same DVD, then the DVD was either taken from a inferior master and or it was just done by an idiot. Here is a link for clarification on LD's sound.  

http://www.access-one.com/rjn/laser/legacy/ld96.html

I'll admit I got a little side tracked and off topic, and it wasn't a stand for analog vs. digital. I was just asking the question why is it so obvious that digital video is so much better but there's room for argument about it's audio aspects? Even you hinted that VHS sound might possibly be better on some movies. Also, I think your aggresive, defensive comments &quot;hogwash&quot;, &quot;bulls--t&quot;, &quot;the next time someone tells me such n' such format sounds better I'm gonna scream&quot;, are the kind of remarks I get from analog 2-channel snobs when talking about digital. I guess audiophiles are all really the same, they just choose different sides. I had heard from many source's that some LD's (I repeat SOME) sounded better than some DVD's, and you're the only one I know who said they didn't, and your article showed me nothing about sound quality or sound comparisons for LD's vs. DVD's. Why do you think LD's sound worse than DVD's? Because you couldn't hear some LD's in true DD 5.1? What about 2-channel vs. 2-channel? When you made the comment &quot;getting closer to the original analog recording&quot; did you realize that a lot of older analog recordings are on reel to reel tape, which you said was never as good as the original? Have you ever heard an original master tape played in a studio on the appropriate equipment? Everyone who ever has has said it was an experience they'd never forget. I've admitted to you that I haven't heard or know anyone who has a truly great MC set up. Have you ever heard any audiophile grade 200 gram or Japanese import LP's played on a high end system?  I'm not an advocate for analog or LP's or anything, but I don't have any loyalties or limitations preventing me from enjoying all that audio has to offer, whether it be SACD or whatever. If there's a certain recording on LP/LD that was done better than the same recording on CD/DVD, I'd like to hear it, and I think it's sad that so many won't even accept the possiblity that there could be some exceptions to the rules, that is not good listening and it's not good science.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

Rip Van Woofer : Jeff &amp; Dan B: amen, amen. Truly excellent analog master tapes are a beauty and a joy to hear, sure, but digital masters properly done with careful and conservative setting of the 0dB level (thanks to Dan B and Chuck for some illuminating insights and articles shared privately on that subject) have, at the very least, nothing to apologize for. In fact, there is a legit question as to whether we really need anything more than 44kKz sampling in master recordings, contrary to what many claim (I don't really know enough about digital recording and the theory to take sides but it would make a good thread, huh?) It is reported that when Herbert von Karajan first heard digital he exclaimed, &quot;all else is gaslight!&quot;.

Well-done digital transfers of good analog masters can be a revealation, especially if you own the original LP for comparison. I've replaced several of my classical LPs from the 70s thus and, except for one or two botch jobs, the results have been better than new, with the lost dynamic range and added distortion caused by multiple analog reproduction steps to the typical LP being elimiated and the veils, as it were, being lifted from the original.

I wouldn't call an LP to CD recording on home equipment  a &quot;well done transfer of a good analog master&quot; if that's what you did. I've recorded some rock LP's on to minidisc a few years back, and there was improved clarity, but the bottom end was diminished somewhat, and I have a little more respect for Maestro Karajans analog recordings then his digital ones, but I mostly agree with you about the sound of classical LP's, especially from the mid to late 70's, which are rather dull sounding. This is due to the fact of CD's superiority in the high frequencys and dynamic range, where classical shows it's strength, and the fact that classical recordings in the mid to late 70's generally sucked. Being a mostly classical listener I don't blame you for not liking them, but have you heard the newer 180/200 gram rock/pop LP's played on a great system? You might be surprised. LP's seem to have a better bottom end, where redbook CD justs cut's off at certain frequency. I suspect that the many dance/techno/rap LP's that are still being released today is because of this reason. Many people are easily attracted to the highs and clarity aspects of sound which CD is clearly superior, but is this always desirable? Is this the only way we should judge sound? What about the low end? Lately, for the first time in my life, I've been attending some classical concerts and recitals, and I've been really listening to the way they sound. None of the performances I heard were harsh or bright sounding in the slightest and I can't say they sounded like an LP, but they certainly didn't sound like a CD either. I was only a few feet away from a master violinist playing Bach's Chaconne and the sound of his violin was sweet and pure, there was no harshness or scratching sounds like I hear on some CD's. Choral vocals sound particularly harsh on some classical CD's, I got none of that when hearing them live, but I've found that solo piano and harpsichords certainly sound better on CD than LP though the live recordings I heard. How do I know when something sounds true to life? When certain high frequencies don't pierce and rattle my sensitive ears, which classical CD does all too often often. I'm hoping and praying that SACD or DVD-A gives me the best of all the worlds that I'm craving, Live, CD and LP, and all then all these arguments about sound will be moot. Just some food for thought.</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>Heavens no! I bought the CD reissues! (will read your whole post after coffee kicks in...)</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>I haven't heard those rock/pop/techno LPs you mention but have heard of them. I'll have to ask some young'uns to loan me some.

Funny you should mention the &quot;live vs...&quot; aspect. Just went to a symphony concert last night. They sound almost as good as my speakers! But seriously...yes, there is a bit of somewhat artificial brightness on CD's. But: is it an inherent characteristic of CD's? Or are CD's exposing the flaws of our systems in the high end? Or does the fault lie farther back down the chain to the recording and engineering? Microphones? Knob twiddling by the engineer? (I'm leaving pop &amp; rock CDs out of the discussion, BTW, since they're so artifical to begin with). Is the high end on most LPs rolled off a bit by comparison -- if not on the vinyl itself then by the cartridge -- or by the sloppy RIAA equalization in most built-in phono stages?

Do you remember some of the &quot;direct to disk&quot; analog LPs that were made for audiophiles back in the 70s and even 80's? I have a few and they seemed to have a lot of, let's say &quot;sparkle&quot; on the high end too.

You mentioned strings and choral as especially problematic. I agree. But part of the problem might be that we simply have the volume knob up too high! There's a fine line between just right and too much volume where those sounds are concerned, and a realistic, pleasing high end can turn harsh and screechy with just a little too much clockwise rotation on the knob. And of course it can vary with time of day or even mood, etc.

Well, bottom line is: we ain't got 100% realism yet and maybe never will.

Oh, by the way: the concert was pretty good. The Brahms Double Concerto was the featured piece but the scheduled violinist cancelled due to illness (a 21 year old German prodigy named Julia Fischer...don't know of her). Luckily our Concertmistress was able to fill in, and quite well, too. And we in Detroit are lucky not only to have Neeme Jarvi and a fine, restored gem of a concert hall but a concertmistress who is pretty easy on the eyes!</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>You must have a stout system indeed if it can extract bass info below the 5 hz cutoff for CD!

</font>

 

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>Vivaldi, It is late and I am tired so I will keep this brief. First, I never said bulls$it, only hogwash and BS in a friendly way. Second I said LD audio is no better than CD quality and some LD have a PCM redbook stream. I owned over 200 movies on LD and not one them sounded any better then the DVD I replaced it with, not one. &nbsp;Third, I have heard reel to reel and also very high end systems with fancy schmancy turn tables playing high quailty LP's , and I was not impressed considering how much the system cost. Did it sound good, YES, but not as good as DVD audio or SACD. Home reel to reel decks are also not the same quality as studio ones. I am not saying at all that analog is no good, but rather until the advent of SACD, DVD Audio and DTS 96/24, the home user never got to hear the full quality of a studio recording either digital or analog or a mix of both. We now have access to the highest quality playback in the home since the beginning of home stereo, and it is due to digital not analog play back devices and media. That is the point I was trying to make. OK I am going to bed.  

</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

Rip Van Woofer : Heavens no! I bought the CD reissues! (will read your whole post after coffee kicks in...)

I was gonna say... C'mon now!

</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

Rob Babcock : You must have a stout system indeed if it can extract bass info below the 5 hz cutoff for CD!

Really! Is that how low CD goes? I guess I was told some ill-informed info. All I know is when I compared a few heavy metal LPs and some 12' singles at 45 RPM to their CDs, they seemed to have more of a bottom end to them. I don't know why, but it's obvious that there were/are a lot of recording engineers and transfers that were not utilizing that 5 hz cut off capability to it's full potential, but this was back in the early 90's. Do you know what an LP's low end cut off is?</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>The problem with analog reproduction is that there is a degradation of the signal every time it is copied. With digital the signal is perfectly copied to the limit of the receiving medium.

IMO, CD is not better than LP. A good LP with a top turntable (Linn Sondek, JA Mitchell, etc.) is more musical than any CD. CD has no noise and a better dynamic (with top notch DAC and top notch electronic) than LP.

Now with SACD and DVD-A there is enough information to get to the level (or higher) of top of the line turntables (at a much cheaper price for the player). Combine same sound quality with no noise and more dynamic and you can now say that this technology is better.

About recording, Pro-Tools 192/24 (and all similar systems) recording modules are now the de facto tool used to record (actually some are still with 48/24 or 96/24). Analogic recording are fading away at warp speed.

In five years you can expect to have all recordings done on these platforms. They can record more information than any tape system.
Pro audio equipement supplier like Nagra (look at what products are on the top/bottom of the page) and Studer recognized that digital was the future in 2001. Nothing in the analog world can compare to 64 or 128 channels 192/24.

The artist can still use analog but digital is best suited to reproduce it. Of course, nothing compares to the real thing live.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Funny you should mention the &quot;live vs...&quot; aspect. Just went to a symphony concert last night. They sound almost as good as my speakers! But seriously...yes, there is a bit of somewhat artificial brightness on CD's. But: is it an inherent characteristic of CD's? Or are CD's exposing the flaws of our systems in the high end? Or does the fault lie farther back down the chain to the recording and engineering? Microphones? Knob twiddling by the engineer? (I'm leaving pop &amp; rock CDs out of the discussion, BTW, since they're so artifical to begin with). Is the high end on most LPs rolled off a bit by comparison -- if not on the vinyl itself then by the cartridge -- or by the sloppy RIAA equalization in most built-in phono stages?
</td></tr></table> I think it's a little of everything, but the biggest contributing factor are the recording engineers, techs, and producers. I made up the &quot;Burgundy&quot; theory about this. There are 200 some wine makers who own a piece of the great vinyard Clos Vougeot in France's Burgundy region. A handful of these wine makers produce some very complex, age worthy, excellent wines, but most turn out mediocre wines at best and thin, watery, pleasureless wines at worst, and yet their all intitled to charge the same high prices! There's nothing wrong with the vinyard, or the grapes, they are full of potential, just as I believe there's nothing inherently wrong with the CD format.  The man at the end (or beginning) plays a vital role, even SACD couldn't do much for a lousy recording or transfer. Average CD's are like average wines, they all have a similar CD sound and are designed to be consistantly good, not doing anything to offend anybody, while the enthusiast seeks out those CD's LP's SACD's or whatever, that have a special personality. Not everyone may like that personality, but at least they have one! As for CD revealing limitations in our system, I've read about that and thought it might be possible, but then if SACD can sound so much better than CD on any given system, then how can CD be revealing it's limitations? As far as LP's or rolling off the high end, I'm sure it's either that or the highs simply wern't there in the first place. I've heard that acetates (metal LP like discs) are supposed to sound way better than vinyl, so mabye it's inherent in the actual vinyl disc itself? My recording of Mozart's Great Mass In C Minor on period instruments by John Elliot Gardiner, an early digital recording on Phillips CD, is my favorite performance of this work but it's so hard to listen to! Period instruments need to be recorded right and this one wasn't, ear bleedingly harsh and bright, and it's hard to find a good volume level, it either gets to loud or to quiet. This is one of those classical recordings that could actually benefit from having it's highs and dynamic range diminished! It came out in 1984 so I'm sure there's a digital LP version of it somewhere, I'd like to hear it. I don't know if SACD could do anything for this one. Most people don't listen to classical, and it's so different. A lot of the rules of sound that they know can be thrown out the window with some classical, that's why some may not get it why I may like some LP's, it's not necessarily a better sound, but it is different, like tubes.<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you remember some of the &quot;direct to disk&quot; analog LPs that were made for audiophiles back in the 70s and even 80's? I have a few and they seemed to have a lot of, let's say &quot;sparkle&quot; on the high end too.
</td></tr></table> Yes, I had a copy of Prokofiev's Romeo &amp; Juliet on Sheffield Labs direct to disc LP I found at a thrift store for $1.00! It was one of the few classical LP's that sounded better than the CD versions of this work that I heard. I found out it was a somewhat desirable title to have and I sold it to a record dealer for $15.00 (I regret it now, you know how these things go). <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, bottom line is: we ain't got 100% realism yet and maybe never will.
</td></tr></table>  I just hope that SACD dosen't become a cookie cutter style like a lot of classical CD's are.

</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, by the way: the concert was pretty good. The Brahms Double Concerto was the featured piece but the scheduled violinist cancelled due to illness (a 21 year old German prodigy named Julia Fischer...don't know of her). Luckily our Concertmistress was able to fill in, and quite well, too. And we in Detroit are lucky not only to have Neeme Jarvi and a fine, restored gem of a concert hall but a concertmistress who is pretty easy on the eye</td></tr></table> I saw my very first symphony a few weeks ago, Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique conducted by Charles Dutoit here in Dallas. It was great. The drums were better than any classical drums I've heard in any recording. Then I saw three of Bach's Harpsichord Concerto's by the Dallas Bach Society. They were good but they messed up on one of the movements! I don't know what happened, but they just completely stopped playing! It took me by surprise. Towards the end of the performance it sounded like something was jangling inside the Harpsichord, like a coin or something, and I heard weird squeeking noises come from string section I think. This was my first experience with a lack luster performance. I was used to always hearing everything played perfectly on recordings! I also saw the professer of the violin at SMU give a little recital at this cool church (Catholics have all the good stuff!). He was awesome. He's a younger guy named Vesselin Demirev, a Bulgarian. He gave some solo performances and had an Italian pianist named Valeria Vetruccio with him for a few others. As I said before none of these performances I've heard were even slightly harsh or bright sounding, and they were in three totally different rooms. There's this classical website I've found recently called The Classical Music Guide. It's a independent site that does a few reviews and has a messege board. It's the largest classical forum that I could find, and I'm simply known as &quot;Chris&quot; there. They're more of a demanding bunch so I thought if I told them my true identity, (A. Vivaldi) they'd never believe me.

 It took me a little while to get on the board because they never sent me a stupid conformation email! I had to write to them a couple of times, but it may have just been a glitch. There pretty nice over there. When I asked if anyone could help me find an elusive recording on guy said he tape it for me on hi-fi VHS! Although he wouldn't sell me any of his half dozen different versions!  

Then there's this weird guy who go's on and on philosiphizing about the meaning of a composition, and uses a bunch of weird words and stuff (kinda like me), and there's this other guy named mahlerfan who always talks about Mahler, kinda like the Yamaha people here forgive me if that's you). I'll give you the link below.http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'>Sorry about that last post to Rip, I ment it as a private message. Lay off the wine Vivaldi!

</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

jeffsg4mac : <font color='#000000'>Vivaldi, It is late and I am tired so I will keep this brief. I am going to bed.  

</font>

<font color='#000000'>Hey Jeff, I'm sorry, and I love ya man! Get some sleep.

</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>I hear you have an excellent orchestra and a really great hall in Dallas. Except, maybe, for the longhorn steer horns on the front of the box seats.

And recording engineer John Eargle, I have read, has recorded some kicka$$ CDs there. Gotta look those up.

Good point about SACD/DVD-A vs. CD's as far as &quot;revealing&quot; flaws in our system. When I get out of the dark ages &amp; get a universal player &amp; some hi-rez discs I'll find out first hand. Dang crappy economy...</font>

 

[Dan Banquer]

<font color='#000000'>After reading through most of the posts on this thread I would like to ask all of you a question.
Do any of you think that we now have equipment that is capable of reproducing the information on recorded on a CD?
  d.b.</font>