Popular Post firedog Posted January 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 17, 2020 Read full comments here: Quote To help answer that question for myself, I have done the following trick: I make a DAT recording of the surface noise of the particular pressing I'm comparing, perhaps from the 3 to 10 seconds of silence between movements. With a digital editor I make a long loop of that noise. Then I play back the loop of the surface noise and mix it through my console with the sound from the original tape. Presto! The CD master sounds nearly identical to the pressing. It is brighter and more spacious, and the echo seems longer! Take away the record noise from the CD and it again seems drier and more closed-in than the pressing. There are certainly some interesting psychoacoustic phenomena here! So potentially, in some areas, the LP can offer greater musicality than the CD. It is not more accurate, but in my opinion it is sometimes more musical. Bob likes digital, but talks about how sometimes an LP can sound better than the CD made from the same master, and even better than the master tape itself. In short, a form of euphonic distortion introduced by vinyl. Ralf11, tmtomh, Matias and 3 others 3 1 2 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
John Dyson Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, firedog said: Read full comments here: Bob likes digital, but talks about how sometimes an LP can sound better than the CD made from the same master, and even better than the master tape itself. In short, a form of euphonic distortion introduced by vinyl. I agree with the possibility about situations where impairments normally thought of as distortion or unintended signal modifications/defects can sometimes result in better sound. Sometimes unintentional compression can improve recordings, sometimes the 'softening' of vinyl can sound better. Sometimes vinyl sound 'improvement' might actually result from cartridge behavior or a reassuring low level rumble. I have decoded some digital recordings that are just too hot sounding, but not by mutliple dB, but sometimes just at the single dB level or lower. A small cut that rolls off (or increases) perhaps 0.25dB at 10kHz, 1dB at 20kHz can possibly sound better. Maybe even the dynamics of the vinyl record producing apparatus might impart enough of a change that could slightly improve the sound. John Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted January 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 17, 2020 Yes, I agree as well. I play mainly digital sources and generally find them superior, but I have zero trouble believing in the euphonics of vinyl (and analogue more generally). Tape his and/or vinyl surface noise definitely can add a perception of air or ambience. People complain about noise reduction making the sound dead or artificial, and it can indeed do that when overused. But I am convinced that even lightly applied, well-implemented noise reduction can produce this same perception of deadening, even if one shows that the "difference file" - the sound of just the hiss or noise that was removed - contains zero musical information. Likewise, it has been shown that narrowing the L-R channel separation of bass frequencies, as is often done for cutting vinyl, tends to increase DR Meter readings and can increase the perception of dynamics (because low frequencies have such disproportionate energy levels). And then there's what I believe is the most significant contributor to the euphonics of vinyl: L-R channel crosstalk. Vinyl crosstalk is notably worse than digital, and it's also much more variable - it increase more, and more unpredictably from LP to LP and playback system to playback system, as you go up in frequency. The result is that vinyl playback has more crosstalk, and more unpredictable crosstalk, and probably a level of crosstalk that has strong correlation with the musical material in the grooves, than digital - and this upper-frequency crosstalk greatly impacts perception of the treble tone and the soundstage/air of the upper mids and treble. I have no systematic evidence for this, but I am convinced it plays a major role in the perceived sound of vinyl that many people like so much. Myself, I have found that "digital harshness" in the midrange and treble has more or less vanished (except with intrinsically awful masterings of course) as I have improved my system - upgraded my components yes, but just as much or even moreso as I have optimized speaker placement and applied some acoustic treatments. (Bass traps are really important of course, but recently I have been surprised at how much just a single 2" thick acoustic panel placed on the front wall between the speakers can do to improve imaging in the mids and highs, presumably because it damps reflections between the speakers.) For this reason, and with this experience, I find myself getting bored or tired of the softness of most vinyl playback, including very good digital rips of vinyl, and preferring more of a straight digital experience in my system. YMMV of course - I'm discussing my own preference for digital mainly just to make it clear that when I discuss vinyl's euphonics I am not trying to backhandedly justify the superiority of vinyl. IMHO vinyl clearly has nonlinearities that can in some cases, for some people, contribute to euphonic listening. Speedskater, Josh Mound, marce and 2 others 5 Link to comment
Axial Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 What are the long term effects of digital music listening versus analog music listening on the human brain? * As an aside, there is another thread on "forum decorum", locked, and I was wondering what the fuss was about? I was going to comment on couple points but what is the purpose of a thread in a forum if you can't comment? Sound Matters Link to comment
asdf1000 Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Bob's comments there are from 1989... Things MAY be different 3 decades later... Or maybe still the same. Link to comment
Axial Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 I'd say so, both analog and digital audio have improved since then. In 1989 music recordings use different audio gear and mic techniques. Everything was different in 1989. Going back in time and comparing with today everything has changed; most of the audio past and preferences are mostly irrelative with today. We should ask Bob what he thinks today, with his older ears behind all those years. Sound Matters Link to comment
Miska Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Not sure what was used to record Pink Floyd's Meddle album. But it still sounds good today. The newest "remaster" however, is not any better in my opinion than the old CD release, maybe a little worse (and for that I have a theory why). OTOH, we don't know how it would sound like if recorded today. But if one wants to compare something, David Gilmour's recent solo albums in hires certainly don't sound bad either. Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Popular Post marce Posted January 20, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 20, 2020 On 1/19/2020 at 4:14 AM, Axial said: What are the long term effects of digital music listening versus analog music listening on the human brain? * As an aside, there is another thread on "forum decorum", locked, and I was wondering what the fuss was about? I was going to comment on couple points but what is the purpose of a thread in a forum if you can't comment? The music we listen to is all analogue... And so much depends on the mastering... I find this sort of comment strange, would you go back to watching analogue TV? tmtomh and lucretius 2 Link to comment
Axial Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 Film on pellicules from reel-to-reel tapes, yes I would enjoy watching them, very much so. They fuel better in my brain, more natural filmic, smoother for my inner chords. It's the same for music listening...long term. I feel my brain more relaxed, less stressed. This is my own personal disposition on music and films for the long run. In the short runs, blips, I'm ok with hires ultra high def audio and picture. In the year 2020 I watch films 100% digitally, but what I do with the film evolution doesn't automatically mean that I prefer it all the time. It's an adaptation with the tech we live in. The ones watching movies in the analog form are the vintage niche people. I have the greatest respect towards them and they are among my best friends. Analog and digital music I can easily alternate between them and I do; it comes in periods when my brain tells me. It's a personal thing, not a generalised one. I was asking genuinely on a scientific medical neuroscientific way about the side effects between the two. And you are 100% correct, we ear music in analog. Also correct that it is very important how it was engineerly recorded and mastered. Main thing is I believe it's worth discussing to explore further, discover and a higher learning. Sound Matters Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 I only watch the zoetrope Link to comment
GregWormald Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 On 1/19/2020 at 2:44 PM, Axial said: What are the long term effects of digital music listening versus analog music listening on the human brain? <snip> I have no data on this, but one thing I've noticed for myself. Due to 're-listening' to my newly cleaned LP collection, I haven't listened to digital for a few months--and my tinnitus has markedly decreased. Link to comment
semente Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Just as a higher performance vinyl player will better dscriminate between signal and noise, a better system will highlight the deficiences of vinyl which in my view and experience detract from the realism of the reproduction. This matters to me because I listen to classical music and illusion of listening to sound made by instruments and vocals in a naturally reverberant place is paramount. Stereophile's glossary has this to say about "musicality": musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant. QED "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Le Concombre Masqué Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 On 1/20/2020 at 12:26 AM, Miska said: Not sure what was used to record Pink Floyd's Meddle album. But it still sounds good today. The newest "remaster" however, is not any better in my opinion than the old CD release, maybe a little worse (and for that I have a theory why). OTOH, we don't know how it would sound like if recorded today. But if one wants to compare something, David Gilmour's recent solo albums in hires certainly don't sound bad either. The track echoes is available MCH and it's the best sounding (even played ST) Link to comment
fas42 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 A simple way of looking at what is going on is this: Digital allows the correct reproduction of types of recorded sound which vinyl may struggle with, purely because of the intrinsic limitations of that medium ... in fact, the vinyl, in an effort to convey the essence of the sound, will "round the edges" a bit, just to make sure that the message gets through. Digital doesn't need to do this - which is why people perceive there to be so many "bad recordings" 😜 out there ... you're getting the full measure of what the mastering came up with.The big trouble has been all along that many, many playback rigs haven't "got the balls" to handle what is encoded - so the easy solution is to blame what can't be easily fixed ... the recording. Which means, that digital will always do the better job - on a level playing field. The downside is that the engineering of the digital playback has to be of a higher standard, to accurately reproduce what was recorded, with no audible anomalies caused by the playback chain not being up to the task. The more powerful the engine in a car, the more capable the tyres, the better the brakes have to be sorted, the more the suspension has to be finessed ... otherwise, any imbalance in capability of the parts only means uncomfortable, dangerous or even disastrous travelling ... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now