Re: The Limits of the LP


<soundhaspriority@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140632009.747316.248490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:zMydnSOZde4DGmbeRVn-vA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let's lay this one to rest, Arny. The vast majority of LP's were made
*without* every seeing a digital anything....they predated it.

Any new recordings available on LP are now done with digital tape instead
of
analog tape, because of the obvious advantages.

Its not black and white, son. There are advantages and disadvantages to
both analog and digital recording. I find that whatever one chooses is
often based on one's prejudices, than anything else.


What do you consider the advatages of analog recording to be?

What has that to do with the fact that digital recordings are vastly
more
accurate than analog recordings?

If you define "accurate" merely in terms of useable frequency response,
perhaps. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're wrong here, and clearly not
speaking from experience.

I define accurate as more accurate. More dynamic range, more accurate
reproduction, less noise, more linear response.


And the audiophile labels selling today wouldn't touch a digital master
with a ten foot pole.

Which is yet another example of why some people label those kinds of
people
as audiophools, they reject better, more accurate recording technolgy for
reasons that don't exist, except in the mind of some idiot audiophiles

I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and labels to people,
like "audiophools" and "idiot audiophiles". It certainly does not
convince anyone of your intelligence or wisdom, and there's nothing
more foolish on God's green earth than some ignorant fool, ranting
about how much of an ignorant fool the other is. The more educated you
are, the more you will realize how little you actually know. Try
engaging in some experience with what you rant about.


At 56 years old I've heard enough of both kinds of recorded material, analog
and digital to know that analog is vastly inferior to digital, in every
meaningful way.

During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels did a few
recordings
this way, and then a trickle of pop has been release since done this
way.
But find a warehouse full of records of all ages, and draw from random,
and my guess is you will be lucky to have two out of a hundred have
digital masters.

Still meaningless. Take an analog master and digitize it and you have a
copy that is as close as is possible to the original, and you can make
countless more exact copies of that.

:-) That's very funny, mate! If only reality were as simple as that,
recording would be a lot less complicated.... The "exact digital
copies" notion is a myth, just like the myth of "perfect sound forever"
that followed the introduction of the CD.

Then you should ahve no problem proving that to be so.


Then consider the fact that a digital
copy has so much more resolution that it allows one to hear things that
were
hidden before becuase of the fact that each analog copy is inferiror to
the
one that preceded it.

You're mistaking "detail" for "resolution". Yours is a gross
oversimplification of the entire process, which tells me, you're not a
recording engineer, and only speaking from theories you've read
somewhere. While analog copies do exhibit deterioriation artificats,
its a fact that digital copies do as well. You don't recognize it so
readily, because it doesn't come in the form of "tape hiss"


No offer of proof, noted.

I'm surprised that this myth about digital copies being perfect is
still prevalent today in some circles, what with any average person
being able to master his own cd's on an inexpensive cd-r unit hooked to
a PC, and being able to easily test any number of copies. Among other
things, I've done extensive testing on just this type of setup. Here
are only some of the variables involved in copying or creating cd's,
that can influence the final result, which anyone can reproduce:
Different burners produce different sound qualities (including dvd
burners burning cd's), different brands produce different qualities,
different software produces different qualities (as does different
settings configured within the software), so do different conditions of
your computer system, so can different cd-r's within the same batch of
cd's. Different digital recorders and DAC units produce different
qualities of sound. Now with all of these possible variables, which is
the "perfect copy" among all these different sounding copies?! The fact
is, I have tested a variety of software and equipment in order to
achieve the goal of producing an exact digital copy of a cd. In years
of trying, I've yet to achieve that goal.

To someone who can not tell the difference between an LP and the same
pressing on CD, I'm sure that there can be no difference between one cd
copy and another. To those with more discriminating ears to whom
fidelity to the music matters greatly, its no wonder many audiophiles
prefer the sound of the original LP to CD reissues, that don't even
come close to their original counterparts when played back on decent,
properly adjusted record decks and pick-ups.

Going back to the original master tapes and making CD's from them has
show
this time after time in th form of tape hiss and the ability to hear
edits
or noises in the studio that made their way onto the tape unnoticed until
they were redone for CD.

Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. It
is a defect that you learn to live with, as you learn to live with the
defects in teh digital medium. Many people who understand what music
reproduction is about, prefer the defects in the analog medium, because
what is important is not the medium, but how faithful the music sounds.


I'm sorry, I don't have time to educate you, so I don't wish to pursue
this any further. If you are sincerely interested in the subject of
analog and digital recording, I suggest you delve a lot deeper into the
research than you have, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to actual get
some field experience with the various pertinent materials and conduct
experiments on your own. You might learn a lot more that way, than
repeating outdated misconceptions about digital and analog formats.

That you make pronouncements with no offer of proof says it all.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Limits of the LP
    ... analog tape, ... both analog and digital recording. ... this time after time in th form of tape hiss and the ability to hear edits ... Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: The Limits of the LP
    ... analog tape, ... both analog and digital recording. ... this time after time in th form of tape hiss and the ability to hear edits ... Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: The Limits of the LP
    ... analog tape, ... both analog and digital recording. ... this time after time in th form of tape hiss and the ability to hear edits ... Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: iPod loses again...
    ... So, AGAIN, what sound quality battle did it lose? ... That's the Zen Nano. ... Analog is reality. ... professional analog tape recorders to record symphony orchestras and jazz ensembles back in the mid 1970's (I was the recording engineer for NPR's "Jazz Alive" series in those days, for instance) I know what 15 ips/half-track tape can do and I certainly know the specs. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: The Old Vinyl vs. CD Debate
    ... I never said vinyl was "better" than digital. ... One personal reason I think vinyl may sound superior to some people is ... audible result which is naturally defined by the original recording ... It's funny how some flaws in analog such distortion, tape grain, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
Loading