Re: The Old Vinyl vs. CD Debate


Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio wrote:
> In message <1124647330.664765.86410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "alanwatkinsuk@xxxxxxx" <alanwatkinsuk@xxxxxxx> writes
> >
> >In recent years many of these recordings have been transferred to CD
> >and sold "remastered". I suspect the majority of them are just
> >produced off good copies of the 78s rather than the original master
> >tapes but cannot say this for sure. A two CD set supervised by the
> >Victor Silvester Appreciation Society is truly outstanding - all the
> >music without the 78 noise but no loss in depth, ambience, balance. It
> >can be done therefore!
> >
> In many cases there will have been no master tapes - the recordings
> would have been cut straight to 78rpm disc.
>
>
> >What I do know is that these CDs are remarkably faithful to the
> >original issue in a way that the Furtwangler CD was not. Obviously
> >other members will know of other genre transfers, such as jazz perhaps,
> >and I just wondered whether my disappointment with the Furtwangler CD
> >is symbolic of a problem particularly affecting classical?
>
> The greatest difficulty with classical 78s is the dynamic range
> requirements. Something like your Victor Silvester will have a very
> limited dynamic range, and thus a much better signal to noise ratio.
> With 78s one can achieve perhaps a 50dB S/N ratio after processing (I'm
> getting this with some 1942 Debussy I'm currently working on), but if
> the music itself has a 45dB dynamic range you're going to hear some of
> that noise. With the dance band stuff you might only have a 10-15dB
> dynamic range - with perhaps 35-40dB between the quietest musical signal
> and the residual noise level you shouldn't hear that noise, especially
> if the music's constant, good fades have been applied at the start and
> finish, and the original discs were in good shape.
>
> As such it's a much trickier proposition to turn classical 78s into good
> CDs just about any other genre...
>
Thank you. That's very interesting. I suspected it might have
something to do with forces and dynamics. I probably did not express
myself as well as I might have done but I mentioned the lack of surface
noise on this particularly issue only as an aside really: surface noise
doesn't bother me as long as the "instrument" seems real and that is
what has struck me particularly in these transfers.

The two CD set I referred to is Start Entertainments Ltd, London,
called "The Platinum Collection, Victor Silvester". The remastering
is attributed to Peter J. Reynolds.

It contains a Quickstep called Daydreaming (don't laugh, from something
called Gay Imposters which I think was probably "read" differently in
1939)recorded on January 4 of that year. In it there is a brief brush
drum break and that's as close to the sound I would hear if I were
playing it myself, I think.

Just easier to record/reproduce I guess! Thank goodness for that:):)

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why does analog sound so good?
    ... > of what makes analog so appealing is the inherent noise ... The fallacy here is that digital recordings of a given event ... having the same dynamic range as the event, ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: phonograph to usp adapter
    ... mic impedance to get a flatter frequency response from the mic. ... faint electrical hum from my turntable is really mechanical noise. ... there is still the matter of lack of RIAA response curve. ... reaches 16 bits broadband dynamic range. ...
    (rec.audio.tech)
  • Re: Low Frequency Mains Noise
    ... The only pro gear from the 50s with regulated power supplies that comes quickly to mind were Ampex tape recorders, where controlling parameters like bias despite variations in power line voltage was almost mandatory. ... that use unregulated supplies. ... recordings that still sound good, but in general, it ... The big change was multi-tracking and noise reduction. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • Re: To RAW or not to RAW?
    ... >> obviously visible in the lower brightness areas, ... Clearly noise (read noise, as well ... the dynamic range of the quantizer). ... >> the design teams for the 6 cameras you say would benefit from ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: To RAW or not to RAW?
    ... http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise shows sensor dynamic range and indeed some sensors do have more then 12 bits of dynamic range. ... out of 4 of the DSLR sensors have a sensor dynamic range above ... under table 5 it also says: "Signal-to-noise assumes photon noise limited. ... It has a read noise at ISO 100 of about 16 electrons, and a full well of about 44,200 electrons. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)