Lies about vinyl vs digital

[MetalNuts]

2 hours ago, 4est said:

If your vinyl rig was worse than digital in the 80s, it must have been pretty bad.

Yes, it was and much expensive than CDP and as a compensation it gave you static sound free of charge.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

I recently was very dissatisfied with a SACD in comparison to the original vinyl. Turned out the SACD was made from dubious source, the original tapes being lost : and that bothered me tremendously, far more than the advantage digital has in my system thanks to eQ etc. As much as I take the vinyl revival as marketing BS, I'll stick to and keep most of my vinyl collection for, right or wrong, they bear the original sound. Take Soultrane, I regret selling my LP ; maybe (obviously) the various audiophile editions are closer to the actual performance but they miss the tubey mastering ; not to mention the sped up side 1 of Kind of Blue... Though twisted, the sound that made history is in the grooves

[semente]

This looks like the perfect time to link the Sound On Sound piece about Analogue Warmth ?

 

Analogue Warmth
The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers

Published February 2010
By Hugh Robjohns

 

Analogue warmth seems to be the Holy Grail in these digital days. But what is it, why does it hold such appeal, and how can you use it to enhance your recordings?

Get a group of recording engineers together, and sooner or later the conversation will turn to a discussion (probably quickly escalating to an argument) about 'analogue warmth' and how things sounded so much better 'BD' (Before Digital) — and even engineers and musicians who've never worked in earnest with all‑analogue systems (digital having become mainstream as far back as the 1980s) seem keen to bring this perceived 'warmth' into their productions.

 

What Is Analogue Warmth?
Not everyone has had first‑hand experience of magnetic tape recording and other analogue recording technology, of course, but we've all heard and admired the vast back catalogue of classic records made using this technology from the 1950s onwards.

There are many factors that combine to create character in recordings, ranging from instruments, musicians and performances, through the rooms and mics used, to the preamps, processors and effects (and the way in which they're used), but when we talk about analogue warmth, we're usually referring to the character that the analogue processing/recording equipment and the recording medium add to the sound.

In this article, I'll look at some of the key analogue technologies often associated with 'analogue warmth', and explain why they create the sound they do. Hopefully, this will enable you to make more informed gear choices and create mixes with an analogue feel, if that's what you're after. Some of 'the science' may seem daunting, but the alphabetical 'Technical Terms Explained' boxes should help with that.

 

Analogue Versus Digital
I cut my professional teeth on analogue equipment, but I think modern digital recording is a significant step up from the best of analogue in many practical ways. A lot of the early digital gear certainly didn't live up to the hype that surrounded it, but understanding and technology have come on in leaps and bounds since then, and to my mind digital recording systems can now deliver pretty much all that was once promised: a near‑perfect recording medium that gives back exactly what was recorded.

That's great in some circumstances, but it's not always what we want: in many cases, the technical limitations and imperfections of analogue systems have become an integral part of the quality of the recorded sounds that we all grew up with — and the end result is perceived by many people as being more pleasing than we can easily achieve today with all‑digital recording chains. Further than that, some of the sounds resulting from 'abuse' of analogue gear have become recognised effects in their own right (tube overdrive and tape saturation being obvious examples).

Interestingly, sound recording isn't the only industry that has found this. Digital cameras and imaging software usually provide a range of 'picture‑style image processing' options. My own camera offers Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful, Monochrome, and three user‑defined modes, for example, each changing the tonal balance, colour saturation, sharpness, and contrast in different ways, to enhance the subject

In short, enjoyment of an artistic product (be it a sound recording, a photograph, a film or whatever) isn't necessarily about precision and accuracy: more often, it's about mood, character and subtle enhancements that make the end result more vivid and interesting than real life.

When it comes to audio, some aspects of analogue technology introduce artifacts and distortions that are perceived as pleasant, and are often musically enhancing — and this is something that lies at the heart of the idea of 'analogue warmth'. Of course, mechanical equipment can be expensive or impossible to acquire, and a hassle to maintain or use. Small wonder, then, that so many people seek (and so many manufacturers now provide) software and hardware tools that aim to reintroduce some 'analogue character' into digital production chains. Some of it works well, some of it not so well — but what is it actually trying to emulate?

 

continues here -> https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

[audiobomber]

IME, most of the people who complain loudly about noise in vinyl playback have or had crappy gear, which exaggerates noise due to tonearm and turntable mechanical resonances, peaky moving magnet frequency response, incorrect cartridge loading,  and/or poor stylus quality.  

 

I can sometimes hear noise between tracks, but rarely once the music starts. A few of my albums from the 1970's are damaged, courtesy of a springy AR suspension, bouncy floors and improper isolation. Second-hand records I purchased are much more likely to have surface noise and damaged grooves, but I'm still glad I bought them.

 

I'm enjoying noisy records a LOT more now that I have transitioned to computer audio. I'm currently ripping my vinyl at 96/24 on a Korg DS-DAC-10R using VinylStudio. The click and pop reduction is an awesome feature for cleaning up a noisy record. Once I finish ripping, I will sell the turntable system, because the rips are close enough, and because I'd rather buy hi-rez recordings than vinyl going forward. 

 

CD is quite acceptable to me, too. A well recorded 44/16 CD is better than a mediocre hi-rez recording, but the main thing is the music. A technically great recording of music I don't care for, doesn't float my boat. 

[4est]

31 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

I recently was very dissatisfied with a SACD in comparison to the original vinyl. Turned out the SACD was made from dubious source, the original tapes being lost : and that bothered me tremendously, far more than the advantage digital has in my system thanks to eQ etc. As much as I take the vinyl revival as marketing BS, I'll stick to and keep most of my vinyl collection for, right or wrong, they bear the original sound. Take Soultrane, I regret selling my LP ; maybe (obviously) the various audiophile editions are closer to the actual performance but they miss the tubey mastering ; not to mention the sped up side 1 of Kind of Blue... Though twisted, the sound that made history is in the grooves

I feel this approach is completely spot on. It's based on subjectivity over technical merit of course, but pleasure is subjective in the end. I retain my interest in vinyl for just such reasons. I have little interest in modern vinyl unless it is a purely analog venture. That's despite the possibility that some digitally recorded vinyl is very good. I want to maintain the vinyl experience as I pursue newer music on digital. I wouldn't start into vinyl these days unless I simply had play money to add to my fun. Vinyl is more difficult and expensive than digital. I also find it entirely more rewarding at times. I suppose I play around making DACs and such as it is akin to tweaking a turntable...

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

The digital recording will playback with all those "special", supposedly unique to vinyl qualities you say you prefer, and it's unlikely you will be able to consistently pick out the vinyl playback vs. the digital. If you can, it will be with extreme difficulty. 

 

You're referring to comparing the vinyl playback with the playback of the digital recording of it, right ?

(and that it is now indistinguishable)

[firedog]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

You're referring to comparing the vinyl playback with the playback of the digital recording of it, right ?

(and that it is now indistinguishable)

Yes, exactly. As John Atkinson said when he compared rips made using the Ayre QA-9 ADC to the LPs he used for the rips:

Quote

but there was no doubt that with a 192kHz sample rate I could not distinguish between the LP and the digital rip. And believe me, I tried. I A/B'd the two versions until blood came out of my ears and I was heartily sick of this music I hadn't heard for, in some cases, decades. 

 

[firedog]

25 minutes ago, 4est said:

I feel this approach is completely spot on. It's based on subjectivity over technical merit of course, but pleasure is subjective in the end. I retain my interest in vinyl for just such reasons. I have little interest in modern vinyl unless it is a purely analog venture. That's despite the possibility that some digitally recorded vinyl is very good. I want to maintain the vinyl experience as I pursue newer music on digital. I wouldn't start into vinyl these days unless I simply had play money to add to my fun. Vinyl is more difficult and expensive than digital. I also find it entirely more rewarding at times. I suppose I play around making DACs and such as it is akin to tweaking a turntable...

 

With modern DSP, I can get those same vinyl effects in digital if I feel like listening that way. Or I can just run everything through some tube equipment and it has much the same result.  I sometimes do it with analog era recordings (even digital versions) as that sometimes sounds "authentic" to me -not better, just more like what I think the recordings "should" sound like. 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You're referring to comparing the vinyl playback with the playback of the digital recording of it, right ?

(and that it is now indistinguishable)

Yes, exactly.

 

OK, I can confirm that (ADC Pacific Microsonics Model Two).

 

For those who like to know : Of the 2000 or so Hires Vinyl rips I have (mostly ripped by others), none of them is really listenable mostly because of the lack of dynamics.

So if we combine these two experiences, I can well say that everybody who listens happily to those same rips or the very LP's *and* is claiming the better sound and no loss in dynamics and what not, is not really on par.

To put it mildly.

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I can well say that everybody who listens happily to those same rips or the very LP's *and* is claiming the better sound and no loss in dynamics and what not, is not really on par.

Okay, now I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying your rips on the Pacific Microsonics ADC are equal to the LP (indistinguishable), but rips made by others on other equipment aren't, because they lack the dynamics of the LP? 

[Dr Tone]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

Okay, now I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying your rips on the Pacific Microsonics ADC are equal to the LP (indistinguishable), but rips made by others on other equipment aren't, because they lack the dynamics of the LP? 

 

I think he meant because they were sourced from Vinyl they all sounded inferior in dynamics.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

Okay, now I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying your rips on the Pacific Microsonics ADC are equal to the LP (indistinguishable), but rips made by others on other equipment aren't, because they lack the dynamics of the LP? 

 

I think he meant because they were sourced from Vinyl they all sounded inferior in dynamics.

 

That.

So first I used my own recordings to test/check whether my music reproduction system could show differences between the LP itself and the rip of it (and used a PMII coincidentally) to next find/think/"know" that all LP sounds equally "lousy" because whatever random cartridge and TT used where-ever in the world *), it sounds the same (on the dynamics part, including the lack of highs).

 

*) the 2000 rips I am talking about come from everywhere.

 

In the end I base this on the proven fact that my system is sufficiently OK to show all the attributes "LP" as such puts forward and thus I listen to the LP's + rips of "everyone". Well, it ain't nothing much. 

 

Let me add that one of the more difficult exhibits of the LP to put forward equally well, is the needle ticks. Don't try this with all the nice (upsampling) filters you find around because it will be washed out (that's how filters work). Not so in my case, using my own filtering blabla.

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, GUTB said:

Lie: vinyl has less resolution

 

Try 20Hz.

And I don't mean the rumble. 

[4est]

20 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

With modern DSP, I can get those same vinyl effects in digital if I feel like listening that way. Or I can just run everything through some tube equipment and it has much the same result.  I sometimes do it with analog era recordings (even digital versions) as that sometimes sounds "authentic" to me -not better, just more like what I think the recordings "should" sound like. 

Seriously? This would have to be one of the more outlandish things you have said IMO then. I prefer to listen to analog recorded and mastered for analog and digital recorded and mastered for digital. If I get you, you are suggesting that your DSP can not only make up for the A>D conversion(which typically includes a remastering process of sorts as I understand it), but replicate specific tube gear AND do room correction.

 

Gosh, forgive me, but I call bullshit on that one. Even if the hardware could somehow do this, you are suggesting that there is some sort of universal EQ that you could apply or that you have the time and talent to reverse engineer the works of people such as Barry D who have made the CDs from the tapes.

[semente]

18 minutes ago, 4est said:

Seriously? This would have to be one of the more outlandish things you have said IMO then. I prefer to listen to analog recorded and mastered for analog and digital recorded and mastered for digital. If I get you, you are suggesting that your DSP can not only make up for the A>D conversion(which typically includes a remastering process of sorts as I understand it), but replicate specific tube gear AND do room correction.

 

Gosh, forgive me, but I call bullshit on that one. Even if the hardware could somehow do this, you are suggesting that there is some sort of universal EQ that you could apply or that you have the time and talent to reverse engineer the works of people such as Barry D who have made the CDs from the tapes.

 

You may find these two videos interesting:

 

 

 

 

[4est]

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That..... blabla.

Starting from rips, this seems more plausible than what firedog suggests, but has its own issues as you suggest. I haven't put the effort into ripping what I have or pursuing other's rips.

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, 4est said:

Seriously? This would have to be one of the more outlandish things you have said IMO then. I prefer to listen to analog recorded and mastered for analog and digital recorded and mastered for digital. If I get you, you are suggesting that your DSP can not only make up for the A>D conversion(which typically includes a remastering process of sorts as I understand it), but replicate specific tube gear AND do room correction.

 

Gosh, forgive me, but I call bullshit on that one. Even if the hardware could somehow do this, you are suggesting that there is some sort of universal EQ that you could apply or that you have the time and talent to reverse engineer the works of people such as Barry D who have made the CDs from the tapes.

No, wasn’t saying that. Why such an extreme interpretation? Was simply saying with DSP you can add analog or vinyl type effects to digital playback that makes digital sound more analog like to most people. Just adding a little upper bass or midrange boost or rolloff of the high end is very appealing to many listeners and mimics what some people like about analog. 

 

And yes, there are plugins designed to mimic specific tubes or specific analog devices. Do they sound just like the real thing? Of course not. But they do sound similar. 

[semente]

Another tape-emulation plug-in:

 

 

[4est]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

You may find these two videos interesting:

 

 

 

 

Please, you are suggesting that I am saying something I am not. I am not saying that analog or digital recording OR playback is better. I am saying that I try to pursue how/what the original was initially recorded and mastered for. I am pretty agnostic on analog vs digital, PCM vs DSD, tube transistor, speaker vs HP et all. I put effort into and use all of them.

[4est]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, wasn’t saying that. Why such an extreme interpretation? Was simply saying with DSP you can add analog or vinyl type effects to digital playback that makes digital sound more analog like to most people. Just adding a little upper bass or midrange boost or rolloff of the high end is very appealing to many listeners and mimics what some people like about analog. 

 

And yes, there are plugins designed to mimic specific tubes or specific analog devices. Do they sound just like the real thing? Of course not. But they do sound similar. 

I do not think my interpretation is extreme at all. I agreed with about listening to how the recording was originally recorded and not a conversion. You stated that you could have all of that with some DSP. There can be and are some big differences in the different analog and digital recordings of the same album.

[firedog]

3 minutes ago, 4est said:

I do not think my interpretation is extreme at all. I agreed with about listening to how the recording was originally recorded and not a conversion. You stated that you could have all of that with some DSP.

No, you just understood something I didn’t say. People like certain aspects of analog playback. You can mimic many of those characteristics in digital, so that for many people the digital then sounds the way they like things to sound, and that they assume they need vinyl for. I do it often for digital playback with specific recordings that I think need it (usually 80’s digital).

In some cases it only takes a little boost here or reduction there to add  the “warmth” and reduce “harshness” to make digital sound analog like for them. In other cases, you can run digital playback through a tube component and it will make them happy. Or you can do other types of digital manipulations that will please them. I didn’t say the end result would sound exactly like some great analog system. I was trying to say you can get what for many people is what they think they prefer about the sound of vinyl - without the vinyl. 

You apparently have never done it, but are willing to tell me how outlandish my suggestion is anyway. 

[4est]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, you just understood something I didn’t say. People like certain aspects of analog playback. You can mimic many of those characteristics in digital, so that for many people the digital then sounds the way they like things to sound, and that they assume they need vinyl for. I do it often for digital playback with specific recordings that I think need it (usually 80’s digital).

In some cases it only takes a little boost here or reduction there to add  the “warmth” and reduce “harshness” to make digital sound analog like for them. In other cases, you can run digital playback through a tube component and it will make them happy. Or you can do other types of digital manipulations that will please them. I didn’t say the end result would sound exactly like some great analog system. I was trying to say you can get what for many people is what they think they prefer about the sound of vinyl - without the vinyl. 

You apparently have never done it, but are willing to tell me how outlandish my suggestion is anyway. 

I never said you couldn't add tube warmth or EQ and make is seem like something. I said you couldn't make it sound like something specific. I am no stranger to DSP, but have never heard your Kiis and cannot comment on them. What I do believe to be true is that your DSP is not transparent enough to make up for all of those conversions and approximations. I felt it is outlandish to suggest that the only difference between analog and digital of the same recording was a little EQ and tube mimicry.

[firedog]

30 minutes ago, 4est said:

 I felt it is outlandish to suggest that the only difference between analog and digital of the same recording was a little EQ and tube mimicry.

I never suggested that, It’s an understanding of what I wrote that exists only in your mind. Please show me where I wrote that “the only differece..”. In fact I never wrote anything here where I was talking about comparing the analog and digital versions of the same recording. You simply projected some concepts of yours onto something i wrote that was entirely different. 

[4est]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

I never suggested that, It’s an understanding of what I wrote that exists only in your mind. Please show me where I wrote that “the only differece..”. In fact I never wrote anything here where I was talking about comparing the analog and digital versions of the same recording. You simply projected some concepts of yours onto something i wrote that was entirely different. 

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but I felt that was an implied assumption from your quotation of me when I stating I wanted availability to the original format.

[firedog]

32 minutes ago, 4est said:

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but I felt that was an implied assumption from your quotation of me when I stating I wanted availability to the original format.

We started talking about lies about vinyl - and as it compares to digital. I’ve tried to make 2 points: a) you can make a digital transcription of an analog medium  (LP) that is indistinguishable from that LP when both are played back on the same system. That shows that what people like about analog playback is not something inherently “analog”, but something in the production and reproduction chain of analog playback. If it was inherent only to analog recordings then a digital transcription couldn’t mimic it so perfectly;

 

b) that some or much of what people think they prefer about analog and that is inherent to analog can be successfully added to a digital file thru use of DSP so that many people would say they are satisfied with the sound as “analog like” and that they are happy with the result - as if they were listening to analog. 

None of that means analog and digital recordings sound the same. Or that such use of DSP makes a digital recording  sound exactly like an analog recording. (Although that could probably be done also if someone was willing to put enough time, money, and skill into attempting it).