Analog: Still Better?

[fas42]

8 hours ago, March Audio said:

I'm curious about this as it leads to an obvious question.

 

How do you define "life like" sound?

 

Clearly you were not present at any of the recordings, so how do you know what it sounded like?

 

It's one of those things that once you experience it from playback, that from then on sets the standard - an example that I personally had, some years ago, was listening to a big band ensemble, who were inside an open air tent. Had the requisite PA feeding it out to the large area - and like all such devices, this sounded pretty awful. Now, replace that with the finest PA equipment you can muster - and it would still sound like, a PA. Would be obvious, no matter how low distortion, etc, it was - and that's what most stereo systems do.

 

What I did, was go around to behind the PA speakers, and stand literally a few feet away from the nearest musician - I was now hearing what was being fed into the mics that they each had ... and that's what I call "life like" sound, 🙂. Without the truly overwhelming SPLs that this was producing, for me at that moment, this is what I should experience from a system.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

On issue with this, when it comes to home audio reproduction, is that we don't know which life we are attempting to simulate. Which recording studio, which concert hall, which seating position, which microphone placement, which brand and model of microphone, which mixing engineer, etc...

 

Just take the phrase "attempting to simulate" out of the equation - what you get, when you play the recording, is the sound of the recording studio, the concert hall, the microphone placement, the recording equipment used - it no longer has anything to do with what was in the head of the people when making the recording ... it is what it is, as stored on the recording medium.

 

The simplest way to hear this is to play a compilation of, say, pop hits - as each track starts, you enter a new acoustic world, completely different from the previous one ... and none is right, or, wrong.

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's one of those things that once you experience it from playback, that from then on sets the standard - an example that I personally had, some years ago, was listening to a big band ensemble, who were inside an open air tent. Had the requisite PA feeding it out to the large area - and like all such devices, this sounded pretty awful. Now, replace that with the finest PA equipment you can muster - and it would still sound like, a PA. Would be obvious, no matter how low distortion, etc, it was - and that's what most stereo systems do.

 

What I did, was go around to behind the PA speakers, and stand literally a few feet away from the nearest musician - I was now hearing what was being fed into the mics that they each had ... and that's what I call "life like" sound, 🙂. Without the truly overwhelming SPLs that this was producing, for me at that moment, this is what I should experience from a system.

How could you hear the other side of the band?

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

How could you hear the other side of the band?

 

As said, they were in an open air tent, on a grassy area - there was a very low, temporary stage set up inside for the players; with the PA speakers set up well outside the tent, probably 20 feet away from the nearest musician. It was an informal affair, so it was easy to wander past the speakers, go between them and the stage - literally under the edge of the tent.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As said, they were in an open air tent, on a grassy area - there was a very low, temporary stage set up inside for the players; with the PA speakers set up well outside the tent, probably 20 feet away from the nearest musician. It was an informal affair, so it was easy to wander past the speakers, go between them and the stage - literally under the edge of the tent.

So you use that band sound to judge other band sounds in other venues, or you just have a recording of that band?

[fas42]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

So you use that band sound to judge other band sounds in other venues, or you just have a recording of that band?

 

No, no recordings of the band ... the point of my post was to distinguish the sense of whether one was listening to a PA being fed the sounds of the band; or to the band, "completely naked" - the latter has the quality of being "life like" - since it is, 😉 - and that's what I use as a reference when I'm listening to a recording of big bands, etc ... do I get the same sense of powerful sound energy flowing over me, when listening to a system - it's not an intellectual assessment, it's purely reacting to a gestalt experience.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

it's not an intellectual assessment, it's purely reacting to a gestalt experience.

Totally understandable. 

[EvilTed]

You guys are getting way too analytical over something that is more emotional.

It either sounds better or it does not.

 

We use the same judgement call when we buy any equipment, be they speakers, amps, cables, whatever.

 

I have an Lumin X1 and I have a great turntable.

The turntable sounds better.

I also do not care at all for LeedH or any form of straight digital into my amps.

It sounds flat, 2D and boring to me.
Yes, I've tried it straight for 2 weeks and went back to the preamp.

So to the original poster.

Does analog sound better?
It depends... :)

 

Which one moves you?
Which one do you use for serious listening?
Does it make you tap your foot and have a shit eating grin on your face?
If so, then that one is better.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, EvilTed said:

You guys are getting way too analytical over something that is more emotional.

It either sounds better or it does not.

 

We use the same judgement call when we buy any equipment, be they speakers, amps, cables, whatever.

 

I have an Lumin X1 and I have a great turntable.

The turntable sounds better.

I also do not care at all for LeedH or any form of straight digital into my amps.

It sounds flat, 2D and boring to me.
Yes, I've tried it straight for 2 weeks and went back to the preamp.

So to the original poster.

Does analog sound better?
It depends... :)

 

Which one moves you?
Which one do you use for serious listening?
Does it make you tap your foot and have a shit eating grin on your face?
If so, then that one is better.

For the most part I agree 100%
 

Whatever moves you is a good thing. 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, EvilTed said:

I also do not care at all for LeedH or any form of straight digital into my amps.

It sounds flat, 2D and boring to me.
Yes, I've tried it straight for 2 weeks and went back to the preamp.

 

Note that "flat, 2D and boring" is standard issue digital distortion artifacts - it's a perfect parallel to people not liking vinyl, because of "pops, crackles, tracking error, vinyl roar" ... very different, but come as part of the package for the medium - unless one goes to the effort of doing enough tweaking to remove the audible symptoms of each type of misbehaviour.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

It's one of those things that once you experience it from playback, that from then on sets the standard - an example that I personally had, some years ago, was listening to a big band ensemble, who were inside an open air tent. Had the requisite PA feeding it out to the large area - and like all such devices, this sounded pretty awful. Now, replace that with the finest PA equipment you can muster - and it would still sound like, a PA. Would be obvious, no matter how low distortion, etc, it was - and that's what most stereo systems do.

 

What I did, was go around to behind the PA speakers, and stand literally a few feet away from the nearest musician - I was now hearing what was being fed into the mics that they each had ... and that's what I call "life like" sound, 🙂. Without the truly overwhelming SPLs that this was producing, for me at that moment, this is what I should experience from a system.

 

I understand your point but thats not what we are really talking about.

 

The sound that is recorded is not what you hear when you are right in front of a band.  Microphones simply dont "hear" in the same way your ears/brain do.  It will only ever be a facsimile.  Its "broken" before it gets onto any recording medium, be that digital or analogue.  So how is replay on a turntable going to rescue it?

 

Also considering that99.9% of recordings are digital and have been for some years now, if digital is inherently bad, again how does a turntable rescue it?

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Also considering that99.9% of recordings are digital and have been for some years now

Even the rare birds that are recorded to tape are usually transferred to digital before creating the LP. 

[charlesphoto]

Best sound I ever heard live: Spiritualized at a medium size club here in Seattle, 1995. I'd never really heard a high end stereo at that point, and this show was exactly what I would imagine one to sound like. Truly amazing and set a baseline for all sound to  come for me in the future.

 

Worst: Lily Allen at the Paramount Theater. I swear the sandman must have been near deaf, on something, didn't care, or all three. Spent the whole show with my fingers in my ears. 

[March Audio]

31 minutes ago, EvilTed said:

You guys are getting way too analytical over something that is more emotional.

It either sounds better or it does not.

 

We use the same judgement call when we buy any equipment, be they speakers, amps, cables, whatever.

 

I have an Lumin X1 and I have a great turntable.

The turntable sounds better.

I also do not care at all for LeedH or any form of straight digital into my amps.

It sounds flat, 2D and boring to me.
Yes, I've tried it straight for 2 weeks and went back to the preamp.

So to the original poster.

Does analog sound better?
It depends... :)

 

Which one moves you?
Which one do you use for serious listening?
Does it make you tap your foot and have a shit eating grin on your face?
If so, then that one is better.

 

I agree with the intent but not the terminology of your statement. 😀

 

An individuals emotional response is theirs and theirs alone.  It cannot be applied to anyone else, or translated into terms describing the quality of the equipment. I can get moved by music listening to it on a cheap transistor radio, fundamentally poor quality playback but it still floats my boat.

 

So there are two different things here.  Accuracy of the equipment and your personal individual response.

 

[March Audio]

A few years ago I was involved in some gigs an amateur big band were performing.  These were live mixed for the PA system and recorded, (about 15 mics IIRC).

 

Which of the two tracks below sounds more "live" to you?  Which do you like more?

 

1.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRNbYMA3jco3WOPf?e=w2xKcl

 

2.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRLwGMmGkepGjqf1?e=x9VQ4O

 

I will post the original straight off the mics later.

 

 

[Rexp]

8 hours ago, davide256 said:

Do you think a Pontus would solve steely massed strings in Tchaikovsky? The Iris DDC has helped a lot in my setup but analog still wins out for being soothing

vs edgy on massed strings.

Are you 100% sure its not the recording? 

[EvilTed]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Even the rare birds that are recorded to tape are usually transferred to digital before creating the LP. 

Not true. Coldplay's first album had a whole side that was taken from analog tape direct. That was 2002.

I buy first pressing from the days when digital wasn't even in the studio.
You need to compare apples to apples.
Maybe some of you have never heard good analog and that's the problem :)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, EvilTed said:

Not true. Coldplay's first album had a whole side that was taken from analog tape direct. That was 2002.

I buy first pressing from the days when digital wasn't even in the studio.
You need to compare apples to apples.
Maybe some of you have never heard good analog and that's the problem :)

That’s why I used the word “usually” Ted. I knew someone would pull out the one in a million “wait but this one...”

[EvilTed]

41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Note that "flat, 2D and boring" is standard issue digital distortion artifacts - it's a perfect parallel to people not liking vinyl, because of "pops, crackles, tracking error, vinyl roar" ... very different, but come as part of the package for the medium - unless one goes to the effort of doing enough tweaking to remove the audible symptoms of each type of misbehaviour.

Surprisingly, when you use a good high end turntable + arm + cartridge + cable + phono stage + preamp + mint condition records, there are no pops, crackles, tracking error, vinyl roar or anything else. Just inky black silence...

[March Audio]

2 minutes ago, EvilTed said:

Not true. Coldplay's first album had a whole side that was taken from analog tape direct. That was 2002.

I buy first pressing from the days when digital wasn't even in the studio.
You need to compare apples to apples.
Maybe some of you have never heard good analog and that's the problem :)

So what did the analogue master tape sound like?

[EvilTed]

27 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

Best sound I ever heard live: Spiritualized at a medium size club here in Seattle, 1995. I'd never really heard a high end stereo at that point, and this show was exactly what I would imagine one to sound like. Truly amazing and set a baseline for all sound to  come for me in the future.

 

Worst: Lily Allen at the Paramount Theater. I swear the sandman must have been near deaf, on something, didn't care, or all three. Spent the whole show with my fingers in my ears. 

Someone just gave me a new mastered pressing of Spiritualized's "Ladies and Gentlemen we are floating in Space" and it is breathtaking. A real journey! Fabulous vinyl.

 

https://www.vinylmeplease.com/products/spiritualized-ladies-and-gentlemen-we-are-floating-in-space

 

Lacquers Cut From Original Tapes By Barry Grint At Alchemy Mastering

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

The sound that is recorded is not what you hear when you are right in front of a band.  Microphones simply dont "hear" in the same way your ears/brain do.  It will only ever be a facsimile.  Its "broken" before it gets onto any recording medium, be that digital or analogue.  So how is replay on a turntable going to rescue it?

 

Agree that microphones don't "hear" - in the ideal, they are part of the conduit that transfers the sound that is happening elsewhere, in time or space, to me - a classic experiment comes to mind: musicians in one room, sound proofed from the next room. Speakers in the latter, connected via a recording and playback chain to microphones placed in the speaker positions, in the adjoining, music room - how close is the experience in the listening room to that of the situation of a couple of doors being opened to the music room, in similar places to where the speakers are?

 

Quote

 

Also considering that99.9% of recordings are digital and have been for some years now, if digital is inherently bad, again how does a turntable rescue it?

 

 

 

The nature of distortions in below par digital playback is different from that of non perfect vinyl - for many people, the latter is easier to digest, subjectively.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, March Audio said:

A few years ago I was involved in some gigs an amateur big band were performing.  These were live mixed for the PA system and recorded, (about 15 mics IIRC).

 

Which of the two tracks below sounds more "live" to you?

 

1.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRNbYMA3jco3WOPf?e=w2xKcl

 

2.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRLwGMmGkepGjqf1?e=x9VQ4O

 

I will post the original straight off the mics later.

 

 

 

Thanks for that ...

 

2. is superior, to my ears - by a big margin. 1. sounds, "produced", and distortion is far more obvious.

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Are you 100% sure its not the recording? 

 

The recording chain does affect the SQ - but a decently competent playback chain resolves those issues. My current active speakers even at this stage of tweaking have no issues with massed strings, even at realistic levels - a first goal is to get rid of obvious ugliness; and further refinement is always possible.

[Rexp]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

The recording chain does affect the SQ - but a decently competent playback chain resolves those issues. My current active speakers even at this stage of tweaking have no issues with massed strings, even at realistic levels - a first goal is to get rid of obvious ugliness; and further refinement is always possible.

No it doesn't