Perfecting Sound Forever

[Ducatista47]

That is the title of a book, published in 2009 or so, that I obtained recently on the used market. I heard about it from an old NPR interview with the author (Greg Milner) I uncovered online. I have posted this on a new thread as I believe this is not a technical reference per se. It is a fascinating history of music reproduction, emphasis on recording. It is exhaustively researched with a great deal of primary source work. It reinforces some episodes and corrects others. That and its thoroughness are why I find it so useful. Most importantly, it always gets the big picture. It is, IMO, a great read too.

One thing I heard in the radio program I wanted to share (with a quote from the book) is about the fidelity of vinyl disks. I have, to repeat myself from other posts, an audio rig of unusual accuracy and like it that way. When I have heard apples to apples comparisons of vinyl and digital sources (CDs, downloads and streaming in 16/44.1 or higher), I have consistently noticed that the vinyl is softer sounding. Less detailed. Rounded edges. Missing some information that has nothing to do with artifacts and all that. It is easily verifiable that engineering has shown vinyl to be 13 or 14 bit equivalent capable at the most, and having lower equivalent sampling rates than CDs, for instance.

I prefer the digital myself. Many prefer the vinyl source. All fine and nothing needs any defense or argument. What I am tired of is vinyl being touted as being more accurate. Pleasurable, sure. That's personal and unscientific. But more accurate? Here is the quote.

To give it a little context, Bob Woods and others at Telarc were about to become the first commercial Soundstream adopters. Woods researched vinyl extensively.

"We learned one very clear thing about LPs," Woods says. "All you gotta do is take the blank lacquer. have no signal coming down, cut a series of silent grooves, put it on to a turntable and what do you get? You get" - he makes a soft hissing sound - "a nice, soft, round pink noise. Everything you're listening to on an LP is being heard through that filter of pink noise. And so it has the tendency to feather the edges of things. It gives the record a sense of a little warmth. Violins sound like really special violins. But if you stand in front of a real violin, it's got some grit. It's got a little edge to it."

The author goes on to say that digital tends to sound like real life but record buyers like the sound of records. In the radio interview, the author revealed that he loves the sound of vinyl and usually prefers it, so this is all coming from a believer in vinyl, not a skeptic.

I am relieved to know that I am not imagining things when I notice how "soft" vinyl sounds. Anyway, good book, for history as well as facts.

[BMWCCA]

I hadn't thought of what vinyl produces as a background and how it affects the sound quality but this makes perfectly good sense. It explains why vinyl-lovers love vinyl while explaining why I, too, prefer the digital source.

Not that I feel vindicated because I could care less. I own three turntables and several disc players but I always turn to the digital source. I'd like to think many hi-fi buffs my age have had it with cleaning LPs, but that's just not so. I'd rather drop in 80-minutes of music and listen than spend time preening and cleaning styli. I gave the inventor of the Discwasher a big "atta-boy" when we met prior to the introduction of his invention, because I was already fed up with the chore of preparing an LP for listening. Of course this was before the introduction of the CD. From that point I seldom looked back and now the mastering of CDs has overcome the failed early versions and even Jazz from the 50's and 60's sound fantastic remastered to digital and presented on CD.

[Mr. Widget]

It is easily verifiable that engineering has shown vinyl to be 13 or 14 bit equivalent capable at the most, and having lower equivalent sampling rates than CDs, for instance.Actually I would suggest that vinyl is closer to 11 Bit! The bit depth is directly related to signal to noise ratio... vinyl is typically in the 45-60dB range for signal to noise, CDs are about 90dB (Theoretically 96.33dB is possible) and 24 bit audio is typically around 124dB (Theoretically 144.49dB is possible).

While we can argue that bit depth is resolution, it is only one type of resolution. There are errors caused in the analog signal chain and different errors cased by the digital chain... take your pick. :banghead:

Widget

[fpitas]

I suspect the background noise of vinyl also tends to cover up any deficiencies in the recording, or in the playback equipment.

Francis

[SEAWOLF97]

. It is easily verifiable that engineering has shown vinyl to be 13 or 14 bit equivalent capable at the most, and having lower equivalent sampling rates than CDs, for instance.

How does that work ? , since vinyl actually has real world continual 100% sampling :dont-know:

[Mr. Widget]

How does that work ? , since vinyl actually has real world continual 100% sampling :dont-know:I must have read over the bit you're quoting to quickly the first time I read it. I think Clark is confusing bit depth and sampling frequency.

Ckark, can you clarify?


Widget

[Maron Horonzakz]

Using a heated cutting stylus reduces the background hiss quit a bit,,

[Ducatista47]

I must have read over the bit you're quoting to quickly the first time I read it. I think Clark is confusing bit depth and sampling frequency.

Ckark, can you clarify?

Widget
I'm no engineer, but I was speaking to limitations. The continuous process of recording analog electrical phenomenon has, like everything else, limitations every step of the way. Microphones have become very good, tape's limitations and distortions are well known. The processes involved in cutting disk masters, stamping, and all the other steps to produce a vinyl record, and the playback process all necessarily fall short of reality.

The sum of all this can be compared to any other system of producing the same intended result. What is the deviation, the distortion, of reality where the sound is reproduced for listeners? This can be compared. That is why I used the term EQUIVALENT. As bit depth can be compared to analog re: signal to noise, so can the distortion - the shortcomings - of analog recording ACCURACY be compared to sampling rate limitations. How much does the recorded and manufactured media's analog output differ from what was being recorded? This comparison also favors digital over analog capture, apples to apples. Reduce the examination to just the capture and it still favors digital for accuracy.

The information can be, and is, sampled so frequently it overwhelms the limitations of any analog process we have developed. As much as I love silver based photography I have to concede that digital can capture more information. The practical limits of present technology barely limit digital resolution at all. In music or images. Thank goodness Harry Nyquist was able to tell us how much is good enough, or we would be going nuts with this. Oh, right, audiophiles are. 24/192 downloads, anyone?

[fpitas]

FWIW, Analog-to-Digital converters and Digital-to-Analog converters are often specified for Effective Number of Bits, ENOB. ENOB is essentially the SINAD (signal to noise and distortion ratio) in digital terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_number_of_bits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINAD

http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/tutorials/MT-003.pdf

Francis

[Mr. Widget]

The sum of all this can be compared to any other system of producing the same intended result. What is the deviation, the distortion, of reality where the sound is reproduced for listeners? This can be compared....It isn't an easy comparison. Every remix be it different vinyl offerings of the same album or the SACD version, the CD version, the updated CD version, etc. all sound "different". I am not sure how to establish truth.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

I think the answer to that question lies up a realm or two above formats. Truth in sound will always be relative depending on choices that are being made, and have been since Thomas Edison. These choices, intentions really, are made by the listener as well as the purveyors and technicians. The most important of these choices are profound, not technical. Even listeners pursuing exact reproduction are each making assumptions that have more than one possible answer. At some point one encounters concepts like why we listen. Not ordinary topics of conversation, these concepts, but they inform everything downstream and always have. This is admirably laid out in the book I recommended.

To break down my long, rambling answer, digital can throw more detail and finess all night long but analogue, to spell it ostentatiously, has to run out of gas at some point. At least now and in the foreseeable future. Until a quantum leap in related technology appears, if it ever can, analogue is fighting a losing battle in this respect, and from behind. It certainly has its charms and may even be preferred by most, but it does not have a technical leg to stand on anymore. That said, at this point in time it is just not about that for most listeners, casual or involved. As you well know!

[Allanvh5150]

I think the main reason analogue is losing out to digital has nothing to do with the quality of sound. The main reason is cost. Digital processing can be made to sound good with a handful of cheap components. However, analogue costs quite a lot of money for a good system. As for what sounds better, everyones ears are different so one mans good is another mans crap. The debate will rage on until the end of time.

Allan.

[Mr. Widget]

I think the main reason analogue is losing out to digital has nothing to do with the quality of sound. The main reason is cost. Digital processing can be made to sound good with a handful of cheap components. However, analogue costs quite a lot of money for a good system. As for what sounds better, everyones ears are different so one mans good is another mans crap. The debate will rage on until the end of time.I think you nailed it on the head... that and convenience. Even spinning a CD is more convenient than playing a vinyl album as you can hear an entire album without getting up or if track 6 is a stinker, you just pop over it. Now with music servers you can create a playlist of your favorite songs, program an entire day's listening or what ever suits your fancy and never take your hand out of the Doritos bag.

Of course none of this speaks to today's music listener who doesn't even buy their music... it magically streams for free.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

To break down my long, rambling answer, digital can throw more detail and finess all night long but analogue, to spell it ostentatiously, has to run out of gas at some point. At least now and in the foreseeable future. Until a quantum leap in related technology appears, if it ever can, analogue is fighting a losing battle in this respect, and from behind. It certainly has its charms and may even be preferred by most, but it does not have a technical leg to stand on anymore. That said, at this point in time it is just not about that for most listeners, casual or involved. As you well know!This is a purely subjective conversation, but I feel subjective can also be valid.

I am not sure if your and my differing personal views on this are due to my having access to an exceptional analog playback chain or it is a matter of personal preference, but we are definitely on opposite sides on this one. Many months ago you made a thoughtful post along these lines and I meant to respond but never had the time. In gathering data for my response, I collected a number of SACDs, CDs, and vinyl albums of the same performances and carefully listened to them and took notes.

Since few here have the patience to read a lengthy posting of my experiences, I'll spare you all... but the essence of what I perceived was that CDs tended to have a more center focused "mono" vocal with instruments spread nicely across the sound stage, but far less stage depth and sense of space between the instruments or singers. Vinyl tended to have a bit of a fatter bottom more diffuse vocal placement and far more stage depth. (This stage depth and diffuse vocal placement was greatly reduced on vinyl records from the early to mid '80s that were originally digitally recorded.) SACD was generally between the Vinyl and CD but in my system where I don't have a stellar SACD player (I'm using an older Lexicon DVD/SACD player that I believe is a modified Marantz) SACD performance is closer to that of CD. When I borrowed a very high end SACD player ($15K Mark Levinson) the SACD performance was much closer to vinyl.

Those comments are a distillation of many careful listening sessions. I did find examples where the CD has a fatter more full bottom end than the vinyl album and many newer CDs and vinyl albums sound quite similar.


Widget

[Maron Horonzakz]

WIDGET... My experience was mostly classicle recording ,,The StLouis PHILHARMONIC and St LOUIS SYMPHONY ORCH..25 years.... You mention sound stage and sound depth image,, Our mics where hung from above,,,Plus I have many photos of other orchestras mic placements the same.....And you cant get SOUND STAGE OR IMAGE THAT WAY..,,Also multi micing destroyed that image and soudstage,,,,

[Mr. Widget]

WIDGET... My experience was mostly classicle recording ,,The StLouis PHILHARMONIC and St LOUIS SYMPHONY ORCH..25 years.... You mention sound stage and sound depth image,, Our mics where hung from above,,,Plus I have many photos of other orchestras mic placements the same.....And you cant get SOUND STAGE OR IMAGE THAT WAY..,,Also multi micing destroyed that image and soudstage,,,,I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but obviously if a recording isn't very good and doesn't capture certain information then no playback system will re-create something that isn't in that recording.


Widget

[Allanvh5150]

The only way to even get close to what you are hearing it to put microphones on your ears. When recording an orchestra the room must be mic'd as well.

Allan.

[Mr. Widget]

The only way to even get close to what you are hearing it to put microphones on your ears. When recording an orchestra the room must be mic'd as well.This is an entirely different subject… but one that merits discussion on it's own thread. A thread dealing with the reality of recordings, perception etc.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think you nailed it on the head... that and convenience. Even spinning a CD is more convenient than playing a vinyl album as you can hear an entire album without getting up or if track 6 is a stinker, you just pop over it. Now with music servers you can create a playlist of your favorite songs, program an entire day's listening or what ever suits your fancy and never take your hand out of the Doritos bag.

Of course none of this speaks to today's music listener who doesn't even buy their music... it magically streams for free.


Widget

While I dont disagree with the convenience aspect if your had access to industry sales figures CD sales are declining, itunes is on the up and there is a resurgence of vinyl in retail and online channels.

A local HiFi shop Klapp Electronics that has been around for 50 years has no less than 10 turntables on display and a stack of Mcintosh gear as well as JBL 9900, 4700s.

This suggests to me there is indeed a demand for vinyl and associated playback equipment and perhaps this supports the earlier posts on why people like listening to vinyl.

Edit. We went part the shop this afternoon and I askedthe sales rep hour many turntables he sells a week. Between 30-50 a week on units from $500 up

Apparently most of the sales are to the younger crowd who have never seen or heard vinyl and the older crowd who want to upgrade.

[BMWCCA]

While I dont disagree with the convenience aspect if your had access to industry sales figures CD sales are declining, itunes is on the up and there is a resurgence of vinyl in retail and online channels.

And the Ford F150 pickup is the Number One selling vehicle in the USA but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy driving it more than my (old) BMW! Popularity or sales have little to nothing to do with quality. Going by your references I'm sure low-res MP3 is the preferred format for nearly all genres of music purchases. The resurgence in vinyl sales is due mostly to if becoming hip to a younger generation. "Audiophiles" have a very small fractional influence on volume in either of these mediums.:dont-know:

[Mr. Widget]

While I dont disagree with the convenience aspect if your had access to industry sales figures CD sales are declining, itunes is on the up and there is a resurgence of vinyl in retail and online channels.The subject of this thread is about the comparison of the sound quality of Digital vs. Analog technologies. When I referred to CDs it was because I assume most Forum members still play CDs as their primary high quality digital source. That said I have several high quality digital sources and I seldom open a jewel box and place a CD into a CD player anymore.

Regarding the popularity of turntables and vinyl records, I do not know the industry numbers, but anecdotally I have sold only one CD player in the last couple of years. I have sold about a dozen turntables and hundreds of Sonos players, AppleTVs, and various other streaming devices.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

And the Ford F150 pickup is the Number One selling vehicle in the USA but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy driving it more than my (old) BMW! Popularity or sales have little to nothing to do with quality. Going by your references I'm sure low-res MP3 is the preferred format for nearly all genres of music purchases. The resurgence in vinyl sales is due mostly to if becoming hip to a younger generation. "Audiophiles" have a very small fractional influence on volume in either of these mediums.:dont-know:


Exactly and my edited post some confirms the point that you have made in that preferences have completely changed in recent times.

The reason I have commented on sales/popularity is I don't think you can have a one dimensional discussion on quality as a preference without looking at how music as a commodity is consumed and identifying the end users.

The argument of vinyl versus cd and Digital streaming has been talked to about before and I found Clarke's post authentic and refreshing.

My only comment on sn ratio is that in the digital domain while the an ratio might be claimed to be say 120db.

However, irresolution falls off sharply with a reduction in signal level and as a consequence distortion rises.

In this respect I prefer to lump noise with harmonic distortion as a percentage of the signal.

The digital guys conveniently don't tell you this in the marketing blurb.

This is a known problem and there is a great paper on the Lavry site. More recent developments in digital claim to have improved the situation.

Vinyl has the opposite problem with satutation at high amplitude levels (magnetic tape) but the resolution at low levels is excellent! Depending on the vinyl disk (180gram) and how quiet your phono stage is background noise can vary significantly.

The exception was of course the Sheffield Lab direct disk pressings that to this day had superior dynamis range to regular vinyl recording processes.

On some recodings of vinyl you can hear the tape hiss.

On the subject of hiss I don't find groove noise at all objectionable using a high quality phono stage like the Passlabs unit.

I still find digital sounding a bit bricks and mortar compared to a great vinyl play back system. This view is shared by the underground HiFi guru's in my team at work.

[Ian Mackenzie]

The subject of this thread is about the comparison of the sound quality of Digital vs. Analog technologies. When I referred to CDs it was because I assume most Forum members still play CDs as their primary high quality digital source. That said I have several high quality digital sources and I seldom open a jewel box and place a CD into a CD player anymore.

Regarding the popularity of turntables and vinyl records, I do not know the industry numbers, but anecdotally I have sold only one CD player in the last couple of years. I have sold about a dozen turntables and hundreds of Sonos players, AppleTVs, and various other streaming devices.


Widget

See my more recent post.

I have Sonos and I love it but I still like to put my head in the vice and listen to a very non audiophile experience from my vintage JBL.

[Ducatista47]

I
This is a purely subjective conversation, but I feel subjective can also be valid.

I am not sure if your and my differing personal views on this are due to my having access to an exceptional analog playback chain or it is a matter of personal preference, but we are definitely on opposite sides on this one. Many months ago you made a thoughtful post along these lines and I meant to respond but never had the time. In gathering data for my response, I collected a number of SACDs, CDs, and vinyl albums of the same performances and carefully listened to them and took notes.

Since few here have the patience to read a lengthy posting of my experiences, I'll spare you all... but the essence of what I perceived was that CDs tended to have a more center focused "mono" vocal with instruments spread nicely across the sound stage, but far less stage depth and sense of space between the instruments or singers. Vinyl tended to have a bit of a fatter bottom more diffuse vocal placement and far more stage depth. (This stage depth and diffuse vocal placement was greatly reduced on vinyl records from the early to mid '80s that were originally digitally recorded.) SACD was generally between the Vinyl and CD but in my system where I don't have a stellar SACD player (I'm using an older Lexicon DVD/SACD player that I believe is a modified Marantz) SACD performance is closer to that of CD. When I borrowed a very high end SACD player ($15K Mark Levinson) the SACD performance was much closer to vinyl.

Those comments are a distillation of many careful listening sessions. I did find examples where the CD has a fatter more full bottom end than the vinyl album and many newer CDs and vinyl albums sound quite similar.


Widget
Ian, thank you. You are too kind. I agree that what analogue and digital are doing popularity wise is relevant because it sheds light on the perception in today's World of the choices. It harkens back to those higher, larger choices I alluded to. They may be fundamental but they are not made in a vacuum and what they mean in not independent of their context. Deep thinking, yes, but ultimately on topic.

Widget, your research is much appreciated by me and a full accounting, on another thread if you must, would be most welcome. Lacking that at present, if I may respond to your Cliff's Notes version.

I cannot disagree with anything you say but I can answer to the differing personal views angle. I am quoting the entire post because it is so informative, hope you don't mind. The short answer is, you and I are poles apart in some aspects about what is important to us in listening to music. We are two people who equally enjoy the experience and that is the only thing that matters.

So, where I am coming from. Yes, I am aware of and have recent experience with analogue playback systems of eye watering quality. When I had the chance to change just the source to digital, I was knocked back by the feathered edges and softened, idealized analogue presentation of reality disappearing into clarity with digital. I have also made the comparison with my own very capable system, Dynavector cart and phono preamp included. Resolution is obviously more important to me than it is to you.

To the larger issue of soundstage, imaging and depth, my answer is I ultimately place little importance in it and I have not for some time. Having heard a few or more terrific mono rigs in the 1950s and 1960s, and another about seven years ago, I have one of those (went to) old school brains that knows that a one mike mono recording has TONS of spacial information about placement and depth. In the last outstanding mono encounter I was able to move a chair to a spot close to the speaker, close my eyes, forget about soundstage and have it all "appear" virtually before me. Any brain with even modest experience moving through a space and hearing things could do this. Modern listeners seem to have lost the ability to stop thinking about soundstage and can't do this. Even with stereo or multichannel playback. Without fail, expectations precede the music.

What I am saying is that the difference between what one hears expecting to have the equipment do it for us versus letting the natural processing of information provide the experience is a matter of neither degree nor kind. I happen to have the second best imaging speakers I have ever heard (I do have the ability to drop into modern mode and listen to the equipment instead of the music) and it is not what I enjoy most about them. That said, of all the elements of music, I consider both personally and objectively imaging and soundstage collectively to be the weakest and least important contributor. I am actually amazed by the current fixation with soundstage and imaging. I can remember when people never talked about this at all. With my particular historical view, it seems a fad. That does make us very different in that respect.

It also may explain why I find absolutely no downside to headphone listening, and why it delivers a not equal but better experience for me. Firstly, my brain provides a breathtaking 3D world when I listen to my Stax, and no it does not appear to be inside my head between my ears. I explained the how and why two paragraphs up. Secondly, with that taken care of and considering that is is a (relatively) minor matter to my listening enjoyment anyway, detail, resolution, and all that take, pun intended, center stage. The more clearly the music comes through, the deeper the possible drinking in of it. Given this context, you can see that the fuzzy edges of vinyl source are a huge detriment to getting what I want out of music.

It becomes obvious why I have gravitated to high end Stax headphones. If it is not too off topic, let me explain how far this choice, we are talking about choices after all, has taken me in the relativity of today's available equipment. Headphones take the room out of the equation and that is not trivial. My listening room has been importantly improved with treatment, but nothing like removing it altogether. Top drawer Stax earspeakers, as they are called, have one of the lightest transducers in all of audio, stretched tightly. The result, as a practical matter (compared to other moving objects creating sound) it changes shape instead of moving back and forth. Insert weird sci-fi soundtrack here. Faster and more sonically transparent than any other system yet devised. Talk about speed, response, linearity, accuracy of pitch and dynamics, better than anything else.

There is one more trick up the electrostatic sleeve, possibly unique to it. The superlight and thin but oh so pistonic diaphragm is between two close electrodes. This is a push pull system. Instead of a driver being moved by a voice coil being pushed and pulled or pushed and rebounded, the entire moving mass is being directly acted on by electrical forces. When one side is attracting it the other is repelling it. It is moving in tight lockstep with the signal. Think demodromic valve action with no springs. This presents a unique opportunity for the musical coup de gras. Stax calls it Pure balance. If you use a true balanced source, and a dual differential DAC can provide this, to a fully balanced electrostatic amplifier, the sonic possibilities pass beyond what is even theoretically possible with other current systems. The balanced signal energizes the two electrodes on either side of the diaphragm. The accuracy and linearity of this system is simply not possible without it. This is not a minor difference. When I went from RCA to balanced amplifier input (nothing else being changed, just the cables) it was STARTLING. It even sorted out the only frequency anomaly the phones had. All of these technologies are much better realized with headphones than speakers, as is the case with single driver systems in general. This is also the best bass response I have ever heard. I hope that wasn't too long and boring.

With resolution and response like this and with no need for my equipment to generate spaces for me, why would I ever listen to speakers? For company, and that's about it. So yes, Widget, we are different that way. Horses for courses? How about two different realities? I could never disagree with yours, but I have my own. It's not about better or worse, that's for sure.

[Mr. Widget]

"We are two people who equally enjoy the experience and that is the only thing that matters."

Ultimately true, but I think it is also interesting and fun to learn about the "other" ways people enjoy this hobby.

"When I had the chance to change just the source to digital, I was knocked back by the feathered edges and softened, idealized analogue presentation of reality disappearing into clarity with digital. I have also made the comparison with my own very capable system, Dynavector cart and phono preamp included. Resolution is obviously more important to me than it is to you."

One man's feathered edges is another's escaping an artificially hard edged version of reality. As an example, take a look at a 4K demo reel of water lilies etc. I've heard people say things like it looks more "real" than being there... or take any of the current crop of 1080p LED backlit LCD TVs... playing a blue-ray disc of a California landscape, they do not look at all like looking out the window here in California. They are hyped up examples with the "clarity of digital"... I find it deplorable, but to be fair most people are ignorant of options or don't care, and then there are those who actually prefer the "crisp" presentation. I am not one of them.

Soundstage etc. I agree that much of the "head in the vice" locked in imaging like you can get from excellent mini-monitors is hi-fi trick or gimmick that is not found in reality... it can be an aural holography that is fun but for me at least not a goal.

"Having heard a few or more terrific mono rigs in the 1950s and 1960s, and another about seven years ago, I have one of those (went to) old school brains that knows that a one mike mono recording has TONS of spacial information about placement and depth. In the last outstanding mono encounter I was able to move a chair to a spot close to the speaker, close my eyes, forget about soundstage and have it all "appear" virtually before me."

I have heard amazing pre-stereo recordings (all analog naturally) that when played back on a great stereo system (preferably with a mono cartridge) can create an amazing sense of space. I have no idea how they did that!

"I am actually amazed by the current fixation with soundstage and imaging. I can remember when people never talked about this at all. With my particular historical view, it seems a fad."

I remember talking about it with my audio nerd friends and trying to achieve it back in the '70s... I built a pair of mini-monitors and was happily surprised at how well they pulled that "effect" off. As far as how important that particular aspect is to me, I'll just say that the 1400 Arrays are among the best speakers I have heard in this regard and absolutely best the Everests in this area... I would much rather listen to the Everests as they sound much closer to "reality" to me. If I come home and listen to a symphony right after being at the symphony the disappointment I used to always feel has vanished. The scale, the impact and yes the imaging are all there. A live symphony from the 10th row dead center orchestra seat presents an image much like the softer "feather edged" one I get with these speakers.

"It also may explain why I find absolutely no downside to headphone listening, and why it delivers a not equal but better experience for me. Firstly, my brain provides a breathtaking 3D world when I listen to my Stax, and no it does not appear to be inside my head between my ears."

For me the headphone experience is simply un-fulfilling. All of the data is there, but without the excitation of our largest organ, the skin. I find it un-compelling and I lose interest rather quickly. I like feeling a kettle drum in my gut and feel immersed in a field of music. I don't disagree that Stax headphones are amazing in their ability to convey data, but to me they don't inspire me the way a live performance or a top flight in-room playback system can.

Yes Clark, while we may both listen to the same drummer we certainly march to a different beat of the drum. :D


Widget

[SEAWOLF97]

One man's feathered edges is another's escaping an artificially hard edged version of reality.
Widget

Tho not audio, my analogy is ... I've worn corrective lenses since HS. When I ride they won't fit under goggles, so I don't use them . Besides my eyes getting better w/o the correction, the world is softer and I enjoy the feathering. Many HD televisions are so sharp that the detail is distracting. Now I only wear the glasses to drive.
In fact I do a bit with Photoshop tuning up old pix. When over sharpened, they look terrible.



I have heard amazing pre-stereo recordings (all analog naturally) that when played back on a great stereo system (preferably with a mono cartridge) can create an amazing sense of space.I have no idea how they did that!. :D
Widget

In the 60's , when you bought a tape deck , they usually enclosed a demo tape. I remember a cassette that came with my Panasonic unit. Incredible sound, no hiss, great dynamics ..wow. could never duplicate it with my recordings and wondered how they did that ?

Re: vinyl : I bought a Eurythmics LP that is DMM'ed. It surpasses the CD of same album.

[Ducatista47]

Y

"Resolution is obviously more important to me than it is to you."

One man's feathered edges is another's escaping an artificially hard edged version of reality. As an example, take a look at a 4K demo reel of water lilies etc. I've heard people say things like it looks more "real" than being there... or take any of the current crop of 1080p LED backlit LCD TVs... playing a blue-ray disc of a California landscape, they do not look at all like looking out the window here in California. They are hyped up examples with the "clarity of digital"... I find it deplorable, but to be fair most people are ignorant of options or don't care, and then there are those who actually prefer the "crisp" presentation. I am not one of them.

Widget

Since my predilection to audio detail is not a universal trait, this has me thinking about why I feel this way. How did I arrive at this? My best guess is my history of close encounters with musicians playing music.

Back in the day a certain degree of euphonic presentation was perfectly acceptable to me, even after I knew the difference. I do know what everyone else is talking about. I have been through 180 gram vinyl, vacuum tubes, cassette tapes, bipolar transistor output stages, many, many speaker types. Every version of audio, it seems, that has its own obvious imprint slapped on what went into the mike. I enjoyed it all but always felt I was not 100% to what I wanted to hear.

Then, starting ten or fifteen years ago I became quite adept at spending quality time within ten feet or less of musicians playing. For someone who is not really a musician I have become uncommonly good at getting in their space while they are doing their thing. I'm not pushy, just appreciated as a knowledgeable fan of their music. You can go on about where your favorite seat is to hear musicians from. Mine is being among them when they rehearse facing each other. Lacking that, right in front of them.

This can give a listener a taste for hearing what went into the microphone. With large orchestras that would reinforce the tenth row center placement, but with smaller outfits, especially wholly or partially acoustic performances, the great seat is much, much closer. My favorite is hearing what the mike heard. At first blush the performer is performing to the audience, but of course that has not been true since the advent of the electric microphone. Ever since they have been performing for the microphone.

Interestingly to me, the in-the-band intimacy seems to be most successfully recorded when it is faked in the studio with isolated close miking of the participants. The detail of each source is fully revealed; carefully placed microphones at the group performance would not be as personal or defined. The recording process can't do what the brain does in the live circumstance, so recreating an analog of it in the studio better represents what we heard if we were there. You will not find me bemoaning the studio as an instrument.

Not that no one is doing it well. Neil Young seems to get acceptable quality recording in his barn/studio/whatever live with Crazy Horse. It is my understanding that only vocals go on separately. And then there is the From The Basement experience, brief and sadly long gone. Everything recorded live in a nice open basement studio. Sonic Youth and PJ Harvey never sounded better. I think the same place might be where Radiohead was captured so well.

The only thing better is to have the musician sitting cross legged on the floor of your off campus college room, playing and singing for you. I know this because that happened to me when Dan Fogelberg, pre fame, stopped by with a friend and stayed for hours playing lots of Stephen Stills material, his fixation at that point in time. Stylistically he hadn't softened up his edges yet. Just a steel string, a voice and some great music. And no mike. Let me repeat the experience of a seat five feet from the Chicago Symphony String Quartet in a purpose designed acoustically perfect tiny theater in the round. I can say with authority, screw tenth row center with smaller ensembles.

So. My preferences could perhaps be considered more informed and less bizarre than they might at first appear. When you hear a lot of reality close up and personal, it is not off-putting to hear all that detail in the reproduction. As close as you can possibly get, please.

When it comes to visual detail, I think the vastly smaller wavelengths involved play a different game. Acuity and information density are normally very, very high and it is difficult to come up with a fully convincing reproductive analog for it. The only mitigating circumstance it the very low refresh rate of the brain/optic nerve combo. Having been in photography and filmmaking, I noticed two things immediately when first confronted with a theater screen showing what a Christie system can do. 1) It looked digital, just like a still image. Not a bad thing for me, it's just that I spent so long making and viewing silver based images and films that I know the difference a little faster than no time at all. 2) The corners were perfectly sharp, in that they looked exactly like every other part of the screen. I appreciated that immensely.



I have heard amazing pre-stereo recordings (all analog naturally) that when played back on a great stereo system (preferably with a mono cartridge) can create an amazing sense of space. I have no idea how they did that!

You will find that good mono works the same with only one speaker. Better, if you ask me.



For me the headphone experience is simply un-fulfilling. All of the data is there, but without the excitation of our largest organ, the skin. I find it un-compelling and I lose interest rather quickly. I like feeling a kettle drum in my gut and feel immersed in a field of music. I don't disagree that Stax headphones are amazing in their ability to convey data, but to me they don't inspire me the way a live performance or a top flight in-room playback system can.


I have no ready explanation why I am immune from the seductive siren call of body slam. I enjoy it live with acoustic bass but I don't miss it at all at home. A possible reason, I personally find loud boring. Even and perhaps especially with large symphonic orchestras. Amplification has been invented and I find the 19th Century trick of massed instrumentation to the service of volume not even cute any more. Free bowing helps a little, but not much. I don't pretend to have common tastes and sensibilities, so please don't be offended. Not me, but I do know that a few hard core bass heads who otherwise love their headphones have considered a subwoofer for that slam. I expect that if a pair of Everest 2s landed here in a flying saucer I might well change my mind about this issue. :)

Will I wake up some morning, turn around and dig out my turntable and tube gear? Stay tuned but don't hold your breath. My mind is open, but be warned that my really unpopular opinions I keep to myself. ;)

[Mr. Widget]

Interesting and enlightening... In my college days among other things I studied music recording and spent a fair amount if time in the studio and on stage... a very different experience from being an audience member. I find it interesting how there are so few musicians who are also "audiophiles ". There are notable exceptions, but for the most part musicians seem to derive their pleasure in an entirely different way than most of us obsessed with "accurate" reproduction.

Now while we may not be talking about pickup trucks or Italian sports cars we have left the topic of Perfect Sound Forever too. ;)


Widget

[Ducatista47]

Now while we may not be talking about pickup trucks or Italian sports cars we have left the topic of Perfect Sound Forever too. ;)

Widget
I can fix that. Great book. I can't promise you will enjoy it, but chances are you won't be able to put it down.

As for the first part, working creative musicians might just tend to feel about music like I feel about sports. It is something to do, not watch. Not a passive activity to obsess about. And also perhaps when they are the audience they relate the details with muscle memory and direct relation to their own experience.

My take on your experience is that you and the other musicians were crafting a presentation and the one question, the entire point really, was how it sounds to the audience. So instead of listening to it for enjoyment you were monitoring the music. FOH may be the best place to monitor sound reinforcement, but it is usually no where near, literally and figuratively, the best seat in the house.

[LowPhreak]

Having sat in the drummer's chair for years when I played in bands, I never got the jones for headphones at home. I gave it a fair shot with some very good AKG's, Sennheiser's, Beyer's and decent 'phone amps (also heard several Stax models), but no matter how good they were I always missed the tactile feel and enveloping sound of loudspeakers.

I may not be like other musicians that Duc describes, since I think music listening is an activity to obsess over, even if I can't be involved playing it. I'm fairly maniacal about speaker placement, resonance control, finding well-recorded music, amp-speaker matching, and so on.

Digital vs. analog is a bottomless can of worms IMO, a discussion that I've usually refrained from after having many. ;) I can say that I've had some very capable analog rigs (VPI, Well Tempered, Dynavector, Van den Hul, Sumiko, etc.) and digital (Pass, Krell, CEC, Theta, Denon, Marantz), heard quite a few others, and the short answer for me is I like an analog presentation more often than digital...in general but not always. Analog seems closer tonally and spatially to what I've heard playing live, especially on instruments like cymbals and acoustic guitars. I also like the sound of a Mesa Bass 400 through a Sunn 200S cab more than any SS or hybrid rig I've yet heard but eh, just preference.

[hsosdrum]

I totally understand the preference for tube instrument amplifiers among guitarists and bass players, but remember that those are sound creators, not sound reproducers, making them part of the musical instrument. As such they are not bound by the requirements for accuracy to which good hi-fi audio gear should adhere.

My experience with analog vs. digital reproduction is 180-degrees out-of-phase from LowPhreak's: I've spent more than 50 years on a drum stool, and I've never heard an analog system that didn't render cymbals with more "politeness" than they sound to me in real life. The same goes for violins, brass instruments or anything else that has grit and edge in its live sound. To my ears analog always softens and warms-up these components of these sounds, rendering them more pleasantly, but less realistically. And forget about trying to stuff a real drumset's 80dB+ dynamic range onto a vinyl disk without compression - ain't gonna happen. Of coure, YMMV.

P.S. I loved the book. Should be required reading for all participants in the analog vs.digital debate.

[LowPhreak]

Well, I was born out of phase. :jester:


Edit: I've had decent tube audio gear, and I'm well aware of its limitations and foibles. I finally switched to all SS after getting tired of the care & feeding, and somewhat rolled off top end.

As I said, I like analog but not always over digital, mainly because of the better spatial presentation of good analog along the gist of what Widget said. Also, I don't get the fatigue with analog as I have with many digital components and recordings, though that has gotten much better.

[Mr. Widget]

...system that didn't render cymbals with more "politeness" than they sound to me in real life. The same goes for violins, brass instruments or anything else that has grit and edge in its live sound.I agree that most popular speakers and popular tube electronics are "too" polite to reveal the "edge" of live instruments. In my experience this isn't a digital vs. analog issue though. That said I do agree that to truly capture a rock drum kit getting a good workout is not something that I believe I've ever heard convincingly played back via a vinyl album. For that matter I've only heard four or five speaker systems capable of pulling it off... JBL 4350/55 and the Everests DD66000 are on that short list. Most speakers regardless of their many other wonderful traits just can't reproduce the explosive dynamics, scale, and SPLs of a real kit.

Luckily for most of us this isn't a chief determining factor is loudspeaker selection.


FWIW: I guess I'll have to pick up the book. :bouncy:


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

...system that didn't render cymbals with more "politeness" than they sound to me in real life. The same goes for violins, brass instruments or anything else that has grit and edge in its live sound.I agree that most popular speakers and popular tube electronics are "too" polite to reveal the "edge" of live instruments. In my experience this isn't a digital vs. analog issue though. That said I do agree that capturing a rock drum kit getting a good workout is not something that I believe I've ever heard convincingly played back via a vinyl album. For that matter I've only heard four or five speaker systems capable of pulling it off... JBL 4350/55 and the Everest DD66000s are on that short list. Most speakers regardless of their many other wonderful traits just can't reproduce the explosive dynamics, scale, and SPLs of a real kit.

Luckily for most of us this isn't a chief determining factor in loudspeaker selection... nor is it typically an important qualifier for source material.


FWIW: I guess I'll have to pick up the book. :bouncy:


Widget

[Ducatista47]

... That said I do agree that to truly capture a rock drum kit getting a good workout is not something that I believe I've ever heard convincingly played back via a vinyl album. For that matter I've only heard four or five speaker systems capable of pulling it off... JBL 4350/55 and the Everests DD66000 are on that short list. Most speakers regardless of their many other wonderful traits just can't reproduce the explosive dynamics, scale, and SPLs of a real kit.

FWIW: I guess I'll have to pick up the book. :bouncy:

Widget
Regarding vinyl, a big clue that there is limited capability there - in the 180 gram I am familiar with, the 45s do drums much better than the 33s. Cartridges versus laser/DACs, electro optical systems are a great deal less speed limited than electro mechanical systems. By several orders of magnitude. Round (pick a number) of chose your audio compromise. :) Microphones, thank goodness, are not nearly under the constraints that carts are. They are the Keck to cartridges' binoculars.

I have heard a speaker system that did this superbly. The Kingsound III system I heard at AXPONA last year was, in my and some higher profile observations, the best in show. Not surprisingly a large electrostatic panel. The breakthrough is great bass without a helper speaker. I don't know how they do it. Electrostatics remain the only non high efficiency transducer capable of top flight sound that I am aware of. The only reason these exist is because the company was put together with improving audio the main goal, not profit. The main owners already had enough money.

Widget, you will be way more knowledgeable than most about what is discussed in the book. I think it might still be a fun read, hope so.

[Radley]

I have to say it depends. The product put out for the public is a compromise. Is it the 1960's and Top 40 radio is king and you mix with the midrange and a lot of limiting? Is it from a multi-track tape that has been overdubbed and mixed to death so the low frequency is thin and the high frequency is just about all gone? Every time you play back that tape it is loosing fidelity. Is it a SACD that was mixed from a 96k recorder?

I think we all know that early CD's were direct transfers from tape masters that were mastered for vinyl. All of the mastering houses I worked with used to start rolling off the low end at 50Hz because LF was such a problem for turntables to playback. That's not say there wasn't anything below 50Hz, but there were compromises.

Vinyl mastering is all about compromises. The length of time per side, the volume level, the amount of bass, the stereo separation, dynamic range, the phase of the tracks to each other, ect...

I think maybe the music we really like were a result of a golden moment where the tape wasn't rewound over and over and the mastering engineer really knew what they were doing and magic happened.

[fpitas]

Something to keep in mind too, is that the typical album is mixed and mastered with listener acceptance and enjoyment in mind, not necessarily realism. Anyone who has heard an actual drum kit being played enthusiastically knows that it can be sonically fatiguing. Few recordings will even try to achieve that level of reality.

Francis

[LowPhreak]

Are you saying you don't want to hear my drum solos? :thnkfast:



:D

[fpitas]

Are you saying you don't want to hear my drum solos? :thnkfast:



:D

Not me...it's those darn mixing and mastering engineers ;)

Francis

[LowPhreak]

I hear ya. I hate having my cymbals or snare gated and effed with too much on the EQ. I've been known to threaten going 'Keith Moon' on control rooms, sound boards, and engineers.

:hate-pc::duel:



Sometimes violence is the ONLY answer! :applaud:

[Ducatista47]

At this point my basic thought concerning recording is that maximum detail and minimum noise makes the most sense, and preserving that down through at least some of the process. I am finding the television camera analogy the most useful. After the initial image capture there is degradation almost every step of the way. It is better now than in the completely analogue era, but it is still so.

Asking the recording process to capture less detail or more than the minimum possible noise is like asking the manufacturers of lenses to soften them up a bit so the end result is easier for some viewers to take. Anywhere before the later stages of audio reproduction is too early to introduce deliberately euphonic results. Throw things out or add distortion later. Don't sully the initial capture with throwback analogue techniques like tape or with microphones and boards that have a sound of their own. If you want vinyl, speakers and playback electronics with euphonic characters, fine. If you want to master it to remind yourself of a particular recording from a studio in 1978 Jamaica, or lord forbid a disco hit or a Hannah Montana release, feel free. Write a new algorithm. But don't introduce distortion from the get go because you like the way things used to sound. You can't go back and recover lost information. Someday newer technology might allow for a new way to interpret reality, so don't ruin it for the future us.

Alexander Skip Spence recorded Oar on an old three track machine and it sounds spooky and totally awesome. We have means now to do such things without precluding future possibilities yet unknown.

Once a musician gets the sound they want from their instrument - and that includes a tube amp for electric instruments and a Green Bullet for harmonica, those are basic sonic choices like whether to play a bassoon or a piano, just get every possible nuance preserved. Then tailor it to your Worldview. If this all seems too abstract, listen to a CD from MA Records. Recorded directly, and as perfectly as currently possible, in magnificent acoustic spaces.

I feel a good sense of perspective about these conclusions since reading Perfecting Sound Forever. It imparts a great deal of knowledge about how recording's march to the present happened, not just what happened. It even shines a light on why it happened the way it did.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think the other consideration here is that the digital process has moved closer to vinyl in terms of the warmth and tonal density of vinyl in recent years.

This is happening in production and with contemporay DAC design.

So the argument of the vinyl versus digital sound not such a big issue except for die hard vinyl addicts.

Some HiFi equipment manufacturers offer valve buffers that can be switched in or out to add warmth to the sound (Peachtree )

Does this suggest that listeners have a preference for a warmer and more romantic sound that is closer to vinyl back in the day?

I think mainstream digital recordings are more listenable than they were 5 or 10 years ago in that the hot sound of prior digital has been replaced with resolution and more warmth.

But I also think the production values and the types of technology utilised with vinyl in its hey day are a significant factor in characterising reproduction qualities of vinyl recording as it was versus digital sound of today.

[SEAWOLF97]

I think the other consideration here is that the digital process has moved closer to vinyl in terms of the warmth and tonal density of vinyl in recent years.

This is happening in production and with contemporay DAC design.

So the argument of the vinyl versus digital sound not such a big issue except for die hard vinyl addicts.

Some HiFi equipment manufacturers offer valve buffers that can be switched in or out to add warmth to the sound (Peachtree )

Does this suggest that listeners have a preference for a warmer and more romantic sound that is closer to vinyl back in the day?

I think mainstream digital recordings are more listenable than they were 5 or 10 years ago in that the hot sound of prior digital has been replaced with resolution and more warmth.

But I also think the production values and the types of technology utilised with vinyl in its hey day are a significant factor in characterising reproduction qualities of vinyl recording as it was versus digital sound of today.

interesting post ,Ian.

I replaced my CD players with 24/192 DAC'ed DVD players that sound very good and detailed. The sound is tempered out a bit using a tube buffer. (Van Alsteen) ..result is quite good.

[Ducatista47]

So the argument of the vinyl versus digital sound not such a big issue except for die hard vinyl addicts.

But I also think the production values and the types of technology utilised with vinyl in its hey day are a significant factor in characterising reproduction qualities of vinyl recording as it was versus digital sound of today.
I am in complete agreement with your entire post. This last bit is so obviously true. Care was lavished on recording, mixing and mastering in those days and there was a lot more money in the Record Label business back then. Vinyl's limitations required the attention in any case.

Reading this book showed me that what happened when digital came along was unexpected. It's flexibility enabled easy access to distorted sound. It wasn't anything about digital that made it sound that way, it was all choices made by musicians, producers and engineers. Digital also made formerly labor intensive tape tricks quick and easy. I can't recommend this book enough. It really sets the record straight, no pun intended.

Another sad revelation was recording engineers and radio engineers taking turns driving the loudness wars. As soon as one abandoned it or at least called a truce, the other would regain interest and drive it forward. It was the dynamic from hell.

One of the last things covered in the book is Auto-Tune. It is interesting to me that the engineers who use it, voluntarily or otherwise, all go on about how fake it sounds. Harmony singing done with it "sounds like a car horn." Cher's "Believe" was done by simply using Auto-Tune's most aggressive setting. The recording engineers tried to keep it a trade secret.

[hjames]

One of the last things covered in the book is Autotune. It is interesting to me that the engineers who use it, voluntarily or otherwise, all go on about how fake it sounds. Harmony singing done with it "sounds like a car horn."

All you have to do is air a copy of Glee -
I TIVOed an episode recently based on a suggestion from a friend (we usually avoid that show)
had to fast forward through it - the Autotune is so thick you can cut it with a knife on that show!

I firmly believe some people are more sensitive to it than others - but that kind of "Harmony"
sounds like a synthesizer to me ... beop beop beop!

[Ducatista47]

I thought I would mention that Kim Ryrie, who posted on the board on the DEQX thread, gets some space in and was probably interviewed for Perfecting Sound Forever. His role in inventing the Fairlight CMI easily qualifies him as an audio pioneer. The tale told of the road to Pro Tools reveals how there were at least two near misses. It could have been Fairlight Tools or Synclavier Tools (New England Digital), or even Linn Tools, if the direction had been pursued. As it happened, the pair in the bay area that started E-MU, Dave Rossum and Scott Wedge, ended up connecting the dots. Almost. They were partnered with Digidesign, two guys named Brooks and Gotcher. E-MU decided to concentrate on something else and Digidesign doggedly pursued the idea and ended up with the brass ring. All of them spent time waiting for the price of digital memory to catch up with their advanced ideas.

I have not spent much time the last few years on the hardware sections of the forum and I am belatedly devastated by the news of Ken's and his dear companion's deaths. My heart goes out to the families and friends. Es tut mir leid, if World traveler Ken happened to know what the literal translation of that is. It is much more profound and deeply felt than I'm sorry.

Heather, I figured out another way to avoid Glee. A couple of years ago I quit watching TV. My daughter and my late wife used to be fans, but I never hung around when they were partaking.

[hjames]

Heather, I figured out another way to avoid Glee. A couple of years ago I quit watching TV.
My daughter and my late wife used to be fans, but I never hung around when they were partaking.

I have a TIVO tied to FIOS - we can program it to grab stuff for us and FFwd through the chaff.
I do enjoy some things on PBS and a few on the cable channels ( I don't do pays like HBO/Showtime etc) ...
But mostly our use of the TV is for movies and video storytelling ... and some concert videos

BTW - ordered a copy of the book from Amazon & eagerly awaiting its arrival.

[Ducatista47]

Far be it from me to call entertainment TV a brain sucking, mind tranquilizing destructive waste of time. ;) I watched a ton of it and don't want to be hypocritical. It is a personal choice. I now watch one show on free Hulu. PBS offers a great deal of content online and Netflix does too. I won't get on a high horse about it but I highly encourage retirement age people to get rid of their cable, if not the TV set. The alternative is to die in front of it, prematurely.

I hope you like the book. Recording being the cornerstone of sound reproduction, I imagine almost everyone in this hobby (I prefer pursuit) will be interested in this.

[Wornears]

Fortunately, my evaluation of recorded and reproduced sound does not rotate on digital or analog sources. It's anchored in American Bandstand's exquisite Rate-A-Record theorem: "It's got a good beat and I can dance to it!" That seems to still hold up for me even as I just passed 60 years.

I do prefer vinyl records in some cases because the cover art of the jackets seduces me. I can say with assurance no CD case art has ever seduced me. Now, if someone could package a compact digital disc in a full-sized vinyl record jacket -- I'm there!

[hjames]

Far be it from me to call entertainment TV a brain sucking, mind tranquilizing destructive waste of time. ;) I watched a ton of it and don't want to be hypocritical. It is a personal choice. I now watch one show on free Hulu. PBS offers a great deal of content online and Netflix does too. I won't get on a high horse about it but I highly encourage retirement age people to get rid of their cable, if not the TV set. The alternative is to die in front of it, prematurely.

I hope you like the book. Recording being the cornerstone of sound reproduction, I imagine almost everyone in this hobby (I prefer pursuit) will be interested in this.

That's fine - we each take different things from the tube ... its a personal choice.
I suspect I'll have a struggle getting the wife weaned off off cable ...
got other things to worry with in life!

[SEAWOLF97]

.

I do prefer vinyl records in some cases because the cover art of the jackets seduces me. I can say with assurance no CD case art has ever seduced me. Now, if someone could package a compact digital disc in a full-sized vinyl record jacket -- I'm there!

these sets get pretty close.

[Ducatista47]

Ditto. I recently purchased a Mescaleros CD with a 9.5 by 14 inch double sided glossy insert.

As I recall it went on American Bandstand : "It has a good beat, you can understand the lyrics and you can dance to it. I give it a Ninety-five." They said some version of that every time, I swear.

To further entice readers to this book, I will mention that it destroys the idea of the existence of Golden Ears in a manner having nothing to do with the usual measurements or speculation. In the exposition of this lesson a possible future is revealed. Yet, immediately after, it ends with its take on the development of recording being so close to where it started that it invites one to rethink - well, everything.

Add to that the book reading like a Simon Winchester title and it should be irresistible. Required reading has never been so much fun.

[Ducatista47]

With resolution and response like this and with no need for my equipment to generate spaces for me, why would I ever listen to speakers? For company, and that's about it.
Widget, let me give a little back to speakers. I have been evaluating a triode amplifier for a fellow member. Before and after extensive listening to the visiting amp, I listened to my own to establish a baseline and something well known known to me as a comparison.

The triode amp is excellent for its type and intentions, but my speaker/amplifier combo are specialists. Together they do things, the things I like, better than most rigs can do.

To cut to the chase, I had forgotten how kick ass this rig is and I will be sure to enjoy it from time to time. Yes, the imaging and soundstage are really, really good, but it is the sonics that thrill me the most. By comparing my stuff to a system that resembles what I used to consider ideal, I realize how close to my goal I am now. As far as I can tell, my equipment combination is unique; my intentions somewhat less so, supposedly popular or even dominant, but when the rubber meets the road most who claim realism as a goal really want their own version of euphonic bliss.

[hjames]

Just getting back to you about your Jan 2015 original post on this book. It sounded interesting, so when I found a copy on Amazon back when you first started talking about the book, I ordered it - and waited. Took forever - my copy was an ex-library book that came slow-mail from Glasgow - and I started reading about 3 weeks ago. Some of the early sections were interesting but the history of over-compression in Radio, then in CD releases has been fascinating (aka, the Loudness wars) Its a wealth of interesting information, and very well told.
... I'm not quite done yet, but its definitely an intriguing read - I just wanted to be sure I thanked you again for the book review.




That is the title of a book, published in 2009 or so, that I obtained recently on the used market. I heard about it from an old NPR interview with the author (Greg Milner) I uncovered online. I have posted this on a new thread as I believe this is not a technical reference per se. It is a fascinating history of music reproduction, emphasis on recording. It is exhaustively researched with a great deal of primary source work. It reinforces some episodes and corrects others. That and its thoroughness are why I find it so useful. Most importantly, it always gets the big picture. It is, IMO, a great read too.

One thing I heard in the radio program I wanted to share (with a quote from the book) is about the fidelity of vinyl disks. I have, to repeat myself from other posts, an audio rig of unusual accuracy and like it that way. When I have heard apples to apples comparisons of vinyl and digital sources (CDs, downloads and streaming in 16/44.1 or higher), I have consistently noticed that the vinyl is softer sounding. Less detailed. Rounded edges. Missing some information that has nothing to do with artifacts and all that. It is easily verifiable that engineering has shown vinyl to be 13 or 14 bit equivalent capable at the most, and having lower equivalent sampling rates than CDs, for instance.

I prefer the digital myself. Many prefer the vinyl source. All fine and nothing needs any defense or argument. What I am tired of is vinyl being touted as being more accurate. Pleasurable, sure. That's personal and unscientific. But more accurate? Here is the quote.

To give it a little context, Bob Woods and others at Telarc were about to become the first commercial Soundstream adopters. Woods researched vinyl extensively.

"We learned one very clear thing about LPs," Woods says. "All you gotta do is take the blank lacquer. have no signal coming down, cut a series of silent grooves, put it on to a turntable and what do you get? You get" - he makes a soft hissing sound - "a nice, soft, round pink noise. Everything you're listening to on an LP is being heard through that filter of pink noise. And so it has the tendency to feather the edges of things. It gives the record a sense of a little warmth. Violins sound like really special violins. But if you stand in front of a real violin, it's got some grit. It's got a little edge to it."

The author goes on to say that digital tends to sound like real life but record buyers like the sound of records. In the radio interview, the author revealed that he loves the sound of vinyl and usually prefers it, so this is all coming from a believer in vinyl, not a skeptic.

I am relieved to know that I am not imagining things when I notice how "soft" vinyl sounds. Anyway, good book, for history as well as facts.

[Radley]

I did sit in on a lot of vinyl mastering sessions. You loose a lot of little things going to vinyl. Reverb "tails" seem less pronounced. To get the right amount of reverb I wanted on the record I would put a little extra reverb on the mix to tape. It has something to do with phase. Vinyl mastering is very specific about phasing. Reverb by definition has both "in phase" and "out of phase" components. I am not a mastering engineer by any means. I worked some good ones and some mediocre ones.

Digital doesn't matter too much about phasing. You can put bass drum extreme left and bass guitar extreme right and the disc cutter doesn't freak out (there isn't one). I'm not smart enough to be able to explain about the complexities of mastering but I have two examples of things I learned. One was a live show with a live FM radio (mono) broadcast. The band had two electric guitars. First song the band is raging, the crowd going crazy so I pop on my headphones and listen to the radio. Big problem, there's only one guitar! I flip the "phase" switch on the second guitars' input channel and all is good, both guitars present.

The second was another live recording I did and the group asked if they could release it on a record? Of course, no problem. A couple of months later I listen to the record and there's no bass guitar. I ask the group what happened and they said they didn't like the live bass so they overdubbed a new bass in the studio. It was "out of phase" with the original thus canceling each other out.

The mastering engineers I thought were good did another thing. They would take the blank lacquer platter and inspect it very closely under a microscope (most of the vinyl lathes I've seen have an swivel arm with a microscope). They would check the raw lacquer for any imperfections. I have seen them throw away a finished master and do it again with a fresh lacquer because they didn't like how that particular blank sounded. This always got my attention because mastering was very expensive and blank lacquers were too (I think maybe $15 - $20 each) and I was far from wealthy. Also don't forget one needed to pay for two lacquers, side one and side two.

So with digital it is far more forgiving about the technical aspects of a recording. I think that the move to CD was driven by the classical music side of the business. You didn't have to turn the record over in the middle of a movement.

You know this is a good thread when someone mentions Skippy Spense. He was always hitting on my sister and she knew nothing good was going to come from it.

I think my wife would like to "auto-tune" me...

[Mr. Widget]

Very interesting.... I assume your comparisons above were all between analog tape and vinyl records. Have you made any similar comparisons between analog tape and 16 bit 44.1KHz digital audio?


Widget

[DavidF]

I did sit in on a lot of vinyl mastering sessions. You loose a lot of little things going to vinyl. Reverb "tails" seem less pronounced. To get the right amount of reverb I wanted on the record I would put a little extra reverb on the mix to tape. It has something to do with phase. Vinyl mastering is very specific about phasing. Reverb by definition has both "in phase" and "out of phase" components. I am not a mastering engineer by any means. I worked some good ones and some mediocre ones.

Digital doesn't matter too much about phasing. You can put bass drum extreme left and bass guitar extreme right and the disc cutter doesn't freak out (there isn't one). I'm not smart enough to be able to explain about the complexities of mastering but I have two examples of things I learned. One was a live show with a live FM radio (mono) broadcast. The band had two electric guitars. First song the band is raging, the crowd going crazy so I pop on my headphones and listen to the radio. Big problem, there's only one guitar! I flip the "phase" switch on the second guitars' input channel and all is good, both guitars present.

The second was another live recording I did and the group asked if they could release it on a record? Of course, no problem. A couple of months later I listen to the record and there's no bass guitar. I ask the group what happened and they said they didn't like the live bass so they overdubbed a new bass in the studio. It was "out of phase" with the original thus canceling each other out.

The mastering engineers I thought were good did another thing. They would take the blank lacquer platter and inspect it very closely under a microscope (most of the vinyl lathes I've seen have an swivel arm with a microscope). They would check the raw lacquer for any imperfections. I have seen them throw away a finished master and do it again with a fresh lacquer because they didn't like how that particular blank sounded. This always got my attention because mastering was very expensive and blank lacquers were too (I think maybe $15 - $20 each) and I was far from wealthy. Also don't forget one needed to pay for two lacquers, side one and side two.

So with digital it is far more forgiving about the technical aspects of a recording. I think that the move to CD was driven by the classical music side of the business. You didn't have to turn the record over in the middle of a movement.

You know this is a good thread when someone mentions Skippy Spense. He was always hitting on my sister and she knew nothing good was going to come from it.

I think my wife would like to "auto-tune" me...

There was always a lot of art and time consuming effort in the tangible process of vinyl record making that a lot in the industry wanted to get away from. I believe it was inevitable that the production companies said goodbye to analog and vainly ignored the deficiencies of early digital so to avoid this whole slice of production cost.

Skip Spence's name popped up on occasion around the San Jose and coast side areas. Never met him at all but it seems so easy to compare his life/career history with that of Syd Barrett.

[Ducatista47]

64930http://www.bitrebels.com/geek/making-the-mgm-logo-the-shooting-of-a-roar/

[BMWCCA]

I ordered my copy of the book off Amazon. It was a new hardback edition, came from England, took about two weeks, but even including shipping it was only about ten-bucks. I'm enjoying it. At first his admitted prejudice against digital had me expecting a biased presentation but, as Duc Man said, it wasn't the medium or the technology that caused issues with digital recording, it was the way the technology got mis-used and abused.

I'm a little over half-way through and I'm learning quite a bit about the history of recording, how digital works, and why some of my favorite recordings sound so good even on CD. I found the author's discussion of why vinyl sounds "warmer" interesting as he seems to imply that the base-level surface noise inherent in that medium "softens" the entire presentation somehow. It's not that vinyl is better, or more faithful to the original performance, but it does help to explain why some prefer it and why others think digital is more accurate and cleaner. Neither is "right" and none is "wrong". But I will agree that CDs are quite capable of capturing the performance with fidelity, and that they are improving as the technology matures and that the Redbook format is not the devil some have made it out to be.

Just my take! :dont-know:

Thanks for the recommendation!

[DavidF]

Far be it from me to call entertainment TV a brain sucking, mind tranquilizing destructive waste of time. ;) I watched a ton of it and don't want to be hypocritical. It is a personal choice. I now watch one show on free Hulu. PBS offers a great deal of content online and Netflix does too. I won't get on a high horse about it but I highly encourage retirement age people to get rid of their cable, if not the TV set. The alternative is to die in front of it, prematurely.

I hope you like the book. Recording being the cornerstone of sound reproduction, I imagine almost everyone in this hobby (I prefer pursuit) will be interested in this.

Good video production is a lot like good audio production. Good material, good artists, and producers willing to spend a little more on the production process are in the minority. Hell, today's cable operators are like the record clubs of the olden days. You have buy a lot of oyster to get a little pearl.

[mixsit]

Hi, long time lurker' here. I've really enjoyed this thread. And it made me revisit something I've wondered for a long time. Might groove echo be a subtle part of the sound of vinyl?
I've done some searches but not found anything as far as what might be typical relative levels of this on disks?
We've all heard it likely and sometimes it's quite prominent between tracks, but I can't help but wonder if it might have an effect during the music as well.

Wayne Smith

[Ducatista47]

I want to post that I do follow the comments and observations in this thread with great interest, even though I started it! ;)

I wish to especially thank those of you who have aquired the book for doing so and responding with your feedback. I look forward to hearing from all who are reading the book. Naysayers are as welcome as fans, but your collective rewarding experiences are gratifying for me read. I wrote about the book here because I feel it has extraordinary and lasting importance to members of the audio community who care about sound. Where would we be without recording?

I am next going to test these waters with a book that chronicles the effects owning phonographs had on American society from their inception through 1945. The 78rpm era pretty much. According to the synopsis the effects were fundamental, profound, far reaching and largely unexpected. I expect to find the tale of access to these technologies to be as fascinating as their development. Bearing in mind that radio had much more effect on society and history than television, this should be of major importance as well.

Should I review it in this thread or start another? Or should I just STFU and keep my boring life to myself? I have the feeling a little of me goes a long way.

Clark

[Mr. Widget]

Should I review it in this thread or start another? Or should I just STFU and keep my boring life to myself? I have the feeling a little of me goes a long way.
I'd like to see it with its own thread.

FWIW: I only recently ordered the book and am waiting for it to arrive.


Widget

[1audiohack]

Should I review it in this thread or start another? Or should I just STFU and keep my boring life to myself? I have the feeling a little of me goes a long way.Clark

I don't see it that way at all Clark. I am glad you are an active member here. You often have a take that I never considered or had the expeience that even got me thinking. Don't shut up my friend. :)

I wish I had the time to engage in all the converstaions here that interest me. Silence doesn't mean disinterest on my part, although there is no way to know that.

All the best,
Barry.

[Ducatista47]

Well, now we're for it. I ordered the book last night. Hope your encouragement works out for us. ;)

A Century of Recorded Music; Listening to Musical History Timothy Day, second edition, 2002.

[Ducatista47]

Well, now we're for it. I ordered the book last night. Hope your encouragement works out for us. ;)

A Century of Recorded Music; Listening to Musical History Timothy Day, second edition, 2002.

OK, senior moment; I listed the wrong book. That one is a history of recording "Western Art Music" and is the polar opposite of the title I was writing about. The new thread will be about Recorded Music In American Life, The Phonograph and Popular Memory, 1890-1945.

[Ducatista47]

Here is a very well done video titled "Why does vinyl sound better than MP3?" Its real intention is to present reasons why many musicians and listeners prefer vinyl to CDs, not mp3s. One vinyl lover after another gives reasons having nothing to do with science and nearly all have nothing to do with fidelity. It's all about various incarnations of nostalga. Weller admits he has always felt the packaging is of equal importance to the music. That's pretty British, by the way. When Culture Club came to tour the USA, Boy George was amazed how discriminating the music fans here were. He noted that the record had to sound interesting here, while all it took in the UK for a good turnout at the gigs was a good album cover or event poster.

The engineer cutting the master (ironically from digital) noted that his list of necessary compromises to get it on the grooves was only hinting at the ocean of such distortions the process introduced. Preferred sound over fidelity was the only sonic reason for the process. It all came back to having the big sleeve, holding the record, the ritual of playing it, liking hanging around record stores, remembering your first album, and so on. And, of course that warm, "human" sound.

It all lapsed occasionally into complete BS. The ownership and tactile experience of 12" is valid but that of 5.25" is not, apparently. Weller trotted out the chestnut that because digital is on/off it can not possibly accurately render music; it doesn't work on any real level. Flood, the producer, starting at 3:25, unleashed an epic flood of BS that any scientist or audio engineer would wince at. The "fact" that humans can hear 50 KHZ even made an appearance. Next time I watch this I will need bib waders. But this is the stuff I hear almost every time I listen to a vinyl fan. In my experience, while many of us digital users gladly give Vinyl its due - if it is the sound you prefer, that is all that really matters - vinyl users usually feel the need to put down digital as inferior, I presume as a defense mechanism from the tone of their positions. That is so unnecessary. Plus, lacking in facts as it usually is, it perverts the dialogue down to parroting fabrications like it is a religion.

Has anyone else read the book?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKDt3JmELAM

By the way, Widget, I just bucked the trend. I purchased a new non high end but high quality single tray CD player. An Onkyo C-7030. IF I ever use it natively instead of coaxial digital out, attention has been paid in its design to mechanical quietness and electronics quality. Definitely not in the Home Theater family of products. The high end does not service the CDP market well. Its answer to the need is to charge thousands of dollars for "transports," the result of applying the separates idea to the player, possibly yielding inaudible improvement. Charging a whole lot more for a whole lot less. Why am I reminded of wire?