| Quote (archimedes @ Jan. 11 2005,16:30) |
| I better put some blank tape in cold storage... |
Indeed. I suppose you heard about Quantegy closing shop?
TG
Indeed. I suppose you heard about Quantegy closing shop?
TG
Right, Archimedes. rsolinski seemed to be making the point that 7/1 IPS tape was a better medium than vinyl, and I disagree. His examples showed that some factory-recorded tapes were better than factory produced vinyl disks for the same album, and this could easily be true – but it could also be false, mostly depending on where in the run the LPs were made. Depends on a lot of factors involved in the manufacturing process, including the quality of the vinyl, how many sub-masters had been pressed from the master disk, and how many copies had been made from the sub-master. Other stuff, too, no doubt!
It also might be the case that the factory tapes were remastered. That’s one of the reasons why the Mobile Fidelity Laps versions are so great. They’re mastered to sound good on good media and played on good gear, and ghettoblasters be dammed. The same might be true of the 7 1/2 IPS tapes (never bought any myself).
I guess for me the question is, will digital ever really get to the point where it sounds as good as a great analog recording? I’ll never be able to afford good analog stuff, but it sure was a wake up call to here how smooth a good LP can sound even when compared to a very well mastered CD. It was like the difference between a really good coffee with heavy cream and folgers instant with some of that fake powered cream stuff. 
i dont think ludwig is that good anymore. ive heard cds mastered by no-bodies that sound better.
Quite honestly, I don’t necessarily think LP’s sound per se “better” than CDs. Todays CD’s are mastered so hot, they all sound shitty. On the other hand, the older digital recordings in the 80’s do not sound that much better or worse than LP’s of that period either which shows that the process from recording to mastering plays a significant role in how a recording sounds.
The ones who keep insisting that technology is the only reason why things sound better are the ones who cling on to the past and insist it was the best days of their lives much like saying that the 50’s and the 60’s were the “Golden Age” when in fact it was one of the violent eras of history between world wars and civil riots.
Peter Gabriel - Security
Has anyone compared playing the same CDs on different players, or more specifically, different D/A converters and maybe more important, filtering of the final analog signal? How the steps of digital are converted to the smooth (or not) slops of analog goes a long ways to how the music sounds, no matter what it sounded like before getting put on the CD. Does all of the small voltage steps get filtered or do some squeak through? This doesn’t cause bad sound because it’s digital, but because most players are just cheap. It’s all in the interpolation and filtering.
I mention Peter Gabriel and Security (album with Shock The Monkey) because most sounds were done on a 8-bit Fairlight. Gabriel said in an interview that he used the graininess and artifacts of the 8-bit recording to add air to many of the sounds. These artifacts add upper harmonics. He used them in a good and specific way.
I have the vinyl and CD versions of this and there is some difference in the sound. It’s hard to say what the differences are, but the vinyl does sound smoother, but it also has less high end and a much more pronounced bump in the lows, which is obviously not anything close to flat. The CD is obviously brighter and has flatter lows. Without re-EQing them to have the same playback response it’s hard to say the sound difference is caused by digital or analog or (this is very important in my opinion) the recording was mixed and mastered for vinyl and not CDs. When it was released on CD nothing was done to compensate for the boosted brightness that may have been done during mastering for vinyl, nor to the lows to sound like what vinyl sounds like. The mastered mix was simply released on CD, boosted highs and all.
That said, other CDs that are remastered for CD from the original mixes may have been remastered with the current louder is better, crammed at the top, thought process. They would in no way sound better and it’s not because it’s digital. If they were remastered to duplicate the experience of the original vinyl they might sound just as good…might…go back to the “DA converter and filtering of the player” thoughts.
There’s LOT’S of reasons vinyl sounds better and a lot of it isn’t because it’s not digital.
Heh, these things always crack me up. It seems it always comes down to what you are used to. Personally, I hear some of those recordings from the 70’s on analog and cringe. I find them almost muddy and clausterphobic. Drums sound boxy, vocals sound thin, bass sounds thuddy. (Though, this can be from micing and tuning too) On the other hand, I find digital to be more crisp which I prefer. Some of you older guys grew up with syrupy analog on everything, I grew up where digital was starting to reign supreme. I can still appreciate an old Dean Martin track where the upright bass is absolute syrup, but I also like the crispness of a modern Sting CD. I dunno, which is better? It’s all subjective. Plus, let’s think about the processes used now as Phoo hinted at. BBE and the Aphex exciters of today didn’t exist 30 years ago. Subharmonic generators didn’t exist. Waves L2 and the like didn’t exist. There are so many differences it is hard to make a real apples to apples comparison. You can say you like or dislike tape compression/saturation, but does that make one better than the other. No, it is just an effect in my mind caused by the properties of tape. An interesting discussion, but nothing I would lose too much sleep over.
I’ve heard a lot of digital that sounds way better than the analog, and vice versa. I think we tend to overgeneralize when comparing the two.
Phoo, a good converter shouldn’t produce a “jagged” output. However, I bet that when using a good 24-bit converter in 16-bit mode, you do get discernable steps. In any case, it’s not the resolution way down in the 24th bit that matters – our so-called “24-bit” cards really don’t produce 24-bit accuracy, as a loopback test will easily show. (The super expensive ones might.) Have you tried Rightmark audio analyzer with your soundcard? Very illuminating!
Speaking of Rightmark…I will say that the claims made by EMU about th 1212M and 1820M with the supposed “superior” quality converters are right on the money. I just had to test my 1820M to see if it was true. The published specs for those cards are indeed accurate. The EMU guy on the unofficial EMU forum posted links to the tests they ran in-house with RAA. My results are so close to identical it’s not even funny. So, yes the converters make a difference. Perhaps more importantly, the CLOCK makes a difference and the EMU card seems to have a great reference clock. I think EMU is gonna make a mint off this line of cards.
TG
PS I just thought about this… I should run RAA on the onbaord card to see what it look likes in comparison. I KNOW it SOUNDS awful compared to the EMU…hmmm… I need to run it on my sons Tascam US-122 too. Who needs to record music when there’s all this geeking to do? Er…ME, I need to work on some projects!
I agree with alot of the statement made, and as usual I’m learning.
It’s nice to hear the actual facts about why analog sometimes sounds better to the more trained ear, and what the digital realm is doing to improve it’s frequency responces.
I think it was here that I learned of a plug called Vinyl isotope or something like that, it adds warmth and depth just as it promise’s.
But it will be nice when you can get the same effect during the recording process.
Keep teachin’ guy’s,
your humble student…
jerm
Hey Guys
I can’t tell you how many CD’s I destroyed! It was 1983 and the stylus just kept eating all the way through the clear coat 
But seriously I prefer the clarity of really good ad/da conversion for vocals and guitfiddles. Tape for drums and bass. I have been pegging my clip indicators on the analog board for some time with great results.(great compression) One thing to be thankful for is the fact that digital has really made analog boards drop in price and has made recording at home a possibility.
phoo, I thought the fairlights were 12 bit. 
I’m gonna go look it up.
Ere ya’ go…
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| The Fairlight CMI was the first commercially available digital sampling instrument, instead of generating sounds from mathematical wave data, the sampler digitises sounds from an external audio source via an analogue to digital convertor for re-synthesis or processing. The original Fairlight models used two standard 8 bit 6800 processors, updated to the more powerfull 16 bit 68000 chips in later versions. |
TG
The older AKAI samplers were 12-bit…
Analog open reel has AMAZINGLY better specs than vinyl (as Tom found out)…vinyl rolls off drastically above 15k and below 150 (for the precise reason I told you, one cannot put bass of vinyl because the stylus will jump the groove, literally), vinyl has a 50-60 db maximum dynamic range while 7.5 ips on a good machine is 70db + WITHOUT noise reduction…with it, it approaches 85…Flat frequency response from 30-25,000…My goodness even crappy cassettes at 1 7/8 ips get to 13,000 htz…All that said I still prefer my cd’s for the same reason Bubba said…I like a more realistic representation (well, for jazz and classical)…what you put in is what you get out…no hiss, no mid bass bump…
Ray
As Bubba has pointed out, digital is more clear and picking out individual instruments are easier. Analog tape recordings I have done in the past on a Fostex 16 track reel seam muddy and “boomy” to the point of losing particular instruments in mixdown. I used to mix down to VCR first before going to cassettes. I for one don’t miss the hassles of tape. Maintenence on a reel is very critical to keep the machine in tip top shape. Cleaning heads, pinch rollers, etc etc, de magnetizing and such, takes up alot of time. Not to mention “SPLICING”, the one thing I hated the most. Now I just hit defragg and walk away. Have re-recorded songs I did with reel in digital and there is no comparison.
But as the wife tells me so often
"Shut up an play yer guitar"
Yaz:D
gtr4him, the bit-width of the CPU’s data bus has nothing to do with the bit-width of the samples.
On either 6800 (8-bit processor) or 68000 (16-bit processor) you can do 16-bit math and use 12-bit ADs.
I believe the fairlights used 12-bit ADs. Commercial 12-bit ADs were commonly available at that time, although they weren’t specifically designed for audio use. Fairlight would have had to add the nyquist filters, etc., outboard.
http://www.synthmuseum.com/fair/index.html
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| …8 bit (10khz) resolution at 20kb per sample, which was broken down as 16kbs for the sound and 4kbs for paramater information. Series II raised the sample rate’s high end to 16khz… |
Peter Gabriel used the first version on Security.
| Quote (learjeff @ Jan. 13 2005,09:38) |
| gtr4him, the bit-width of the CPU's data bus has nothing to do with the bit-width of the samples. On either 6800 (8-bit processor) or 68000 (16-bit processor) you can do 16-bit math and use 12-bit ADs. I believe the fairlights used 12-bit ADs. Commercial 12-bit ADs were commonly available at that time, although they weren't specifically designed for audio use. Fairlight would have had to add the nyquist filters, etc., outboard. |
Misunderstood the Q. Sorry. Thanks for the clarification!
TG
But Phoo has the poop: 8 bits it is.