Exclusively for Analog Lovers

[Decibel]

Dr. Bass and Doors, I am not saying that there are no analog recording at all. What I am saying is that companies such as Tacel are few and far between. Most of the popular artists are not even bothered about recording and such. They want their albums released and leave all the technicalities to the studios, editor, etc.

Consider these: Evgeni Koroliov, Auryn Quartet, Abegg Trio, Hartmut Lindemann, Markus Schirmer, Erika Haase, Polish Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra, Daniel Gaede, Gaede Trio, Schsisches Vocalensemble, Welte Mignon Mystery Series

Frankly, wow may of us have even heard of these artists?

I know a few members here have worked with EMI, RPG, etc. Can you tell us what is that is used both for recording and storage?

Cheers

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Music is analog, you can always convert it to digital. why would you want to convert to digital as your first saved data when you can easily save it as analog. specially when tomorrow's technologies can do a far superior extraction? I dont know what different bands use, but it just defies common sense to use digital as master.

As I see it, your premises are:

• music is analogue, therefore an analogue capture of music, eg on tape, captures all the available musical information.
• digital is limited, according to today's technology, therefore a digital recording does not capture all the information.

These are assumptions that are very easy to make, but I have my doubts as to whether or not they are true? If they are are not, then common sense does not point to analogue archiving.

Further, although there must be risks and disadvantages associated with any physical storage medium, tape is really particularly fragile. Not only does its magnetism die off, but it also bleeds to adjacent layers on the spool, making future use a massive restoration task (bring on the digital tools?).

Back in my working days, I was given to understand that data tapes (made for the specific purpose of archiving) should not be relied to be readable after a mere two years! In reality, I always suspected this was a conservative estimate, but, where vital data, or music, is concerned, one has to be conservative.

I don't argue that technology will grow and improve, and that methods of archiving should take this into account. I suspect that, at today's level of achievement, digital can capture at least as much information, if not more, than analogue. An engineer is needed to answer this question one way or the other.

 

[moktan]

am quoting extracts from a review of Herbbie Hancock's Empyrean Isles (Herbie Hancock: Empyrean Isles (2012) )which i feel is quite relevant to the discussion here....

"Empyrean Isles is best know for the hit "Cantaloupe Island," which alone is worth hearing on this vinyl edition. The sound is large and smooth, and the pianowhich can sometimes sound boxed in on Van Gelder recordingsis almost full-sized. Most importantly the weight of the piano chords come through loud and clear. What is most startling is the amount of additional information revealed through this true analog pressing. Freddie Hubbard's trumpet is brassy and rich, and Ron Carter's bass, which can often lack tone and depth on CD, is plump and three-dimensional. Cantaloupe Island has become one of the most ubiquitous jazz songs ever, especially after being sampled by Us3 for their hit "Cantaloop (Flip Fantasia). A pressing like this will make people question whether they've ever really heard it at all."
source:
Herbie Hancock | Empyrean Isles

 

[Dr.Bass]

Whether 24/192 can store as much information as a high quality analog tape or not is something that can be debated and in the absence of a studio specialist can remain inconclusive. However I would like to state one thing without meaning any offence at all to anyone that most members out here who are debating seriously have heard great digital but not great analogue rigs (as has been confessed by them directly or indirectly). That totally limits this discussion to theories, articles and such.

I am not saying analog is worth pursuing only if one goes high end in the analog domain, not at all, analog is not something that needs to be pursued in search for highest resolution but for the most "natural" resolution for the money. In that quest one may have to sacrifice quantity for quality because even a very low end digital gets the "quantity" thing pretty high. But now that we are talking about which medium can store more information worth playing, it is very important that one hears both the mediums in its near maximum glory to even make a subjective opinion. I myself got exposed to real high end analog setups only few months back, after I entered Singapore. What I heard is just mind boggling. One has not even heard 50% of what is actually embedded in those vinyls in a typical vinyl setup we come across in India (in audiophile homes). I am not exaggerating the 50% thing. In analog unlike digital the improvement when one goes from a $500 cartridge to a $1000 cartridge is massive and this continues all the way to $5000.

In digital, detail and transparency is a given, we only strive to get it more and more natural and realistic as we go higher end. It is exactly opposite in analog, natural and realistic presentation is a given, we try to gain more and more detail and transparency as we go higher end. So upto a certain price point analog will play catch up with digital in terms of transparency and detail but once analog crosses a certain threshold in transparency, digital doesnt have any more cards left in the pocket, it can never match analog for natualness (with the technology we have today) so it has nothing more to compete. By this time analog is actually in a different plane in every way.

But to experience this transition one needs to witness multiple grades of analog rigs, this is the bottleneck. If one has not experienced this level of analogue, even a subjective analysis on his part comparing 24/192 vs LP (let alone master tapes) seems very vague to me.

I would love to witness the day when digital can really dethrone analog in every way because it is so easy to live in the digital world but till date it has not happened AFAIK.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

But now that we are talking about which medium can store more information worth playing...

Doors666 was touching on which medium might be best for archiving, in the hope that master copies of great music recorded today might be available to whatever greater technology is available in the future. That is a different question to the ones about which might be the best to listen to now. It wouldn't be surprising if the studios/artists/record companies themselves do not pay enough attention to this.

 

[Dr.Bass]

Doors666 was touching on which medium might be best for archiving, in the hope that master copies of great music recorded today might be available to whatever greater technology is available in the future. That is a different question to the ones about which might be the best to listen to now. It wouldn't be surprising if the studios/artists/record companies themselves do not pay enough attention to this.

Sorry, I was only responding to this statement of yours:

I don't argue that technology will grow and improve, and that methods of archiving should take this into account. I suspect that, at today's level of achievement, digital can capture at least as much information, if not more, than analogue.

If it is all about safety and maintanance of data then digital wins hands down.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I suppose so --- but I am full of supposes and suspects: I have no idea of the real answer given the importance of preserving music.

(if it is actually treated with importance before it is too late: even the record companies, who have an interest in selling us yet more and more formats of the same thing, as the years go by, only see it as so much cash in the bank: they'd probably save it as dynamic-compressed MP3s! :sad: )

 

[square_wave]

Slightly off topic but I wanted to share something which I noticed.

If you see this thread,

- How many folks who have extensive experience with analogue or really high end digital setups in the two channel domain are participating?

Just a couple of them. And the rest are crawling all over them with their theories for whatever reasons. What will be the outcome of the argument? Nothing apart from some bruised egos !

I have very less experience with high end analogue so I will abstain from participating in that discussion. I will be essentially talking rubbish and will insult the sensibilities of folks who have such experience if I do so.

Yesterday I visited a very high end custom 2 channel setup with a three way active speaker with out-board active crossovers. This was a design on the anvil for 2 years by a very knowledgeable individual. One of the best I have ever heard in my life. With high definition digital tracks, I heard music in a way I have never heard before. I am wondering the expenses involved if one were to convert that setup into multichannel ! Most serious audiophiles will not even venture into such an endeavor unless they can risk a second mortage

I wonder what a statistical study on multi-channel music demographic will reveal if the focus of the study is how much they have pushed the envelope in 2-channel before they took the plunge

This is a very OT post but throws into perspective the need for actual experience and effort before one participates in discussions on such specialized endeavors. I will keep my mouth shut about what is better (analog or digital) till I hear an equivalent endeavor on analogue. Extensively experiencing and hearing an equivalent endeavor is the key to opening my mouth.

 

[malvai]

personally, I find all analogue vs digital debates to be pointless...

both are good in their own way. none of them are better than the other. each comes with their own share of compromises.

at the very highest-end, both formats are near perfect. with analogue having an edge. but one needs to hear this for their own-selves. till then the debates will be pointless. and one hearing it, there will be no cause for debate! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

coming to two-channel vs multi-channel.... most of us have not even refined our 2-channels set ups, imagine the cost of putting up a refined multi-channel set up???? weather it is going to be worth it or not, is a question that comes much much later.... IMHO...

 

[hemantwaghe]

Just to add fuel in fire ( or liquor in fire as this might look like druken rant) has anyone experienced a true high quality 5 channel or 5.1 channel SACD or DVD A and compared with analogue?

Such system existed where 5 (or 6) channels of SACD output was given to 5- 6 channel amps or monoblocks and fed to speakers. The recordings were too made in surround mode ( not re mastered) .

Now how is this system vis- a vis analougue in similar domain?

 

[square_wave]

Just to add fuel in fire ( or liquor in fire as this might look like druken rant) has anyone experienced a true high quality 5 channel or 5.1 channel SACD or DVD A and compared with analogue?

Such system existed where 5 (or 6) channels of SACD output was given to 5- 6 channel amps or monoblocks and fed to speakers. The recordings were too made in surround mode ( not re mastered) .

Now how is this system vis- a vis analougue in similar domain?

In this case, one will be measuring how real the event is.

The result may have some academic value.

As far as I know, no analogue guy worth his salt will ever move from analogue to multi channel digital and vice versa. We are talking about completely different demographics whose musical attitudes are oceans apart

 

[Gerry_the_Merry]

If one were to indeed do such a high stakes comparison, one would need to do a classical A/B. I have seen/heard very high end set ups, but never come across digital and analog at the same time in the same set-up. Would love to know if anyone has done it. Usually people who have taken it to a very high level choose one over the other.

 

[Sunderpalanivel]

Until few months back I have not even thought about record players, but I did know that it existed and I assumed that it belonged to pre-casset players era. so, the only modern option I have known was CD players, which I always enjoyed listening to. Then when I started traveling to different countries I kept seeing more and more records players in HiFI shops and One of the shop guy told me that in UK last year record players outsold CD players (I am not sure how true it is), Then I started doing some research on why so many people must like records and I always read conflicting opinions about the superiority of the records over CDs or vise versa. So, I went to a Hi Fi shop and the guy was very friendly, I spoke to him about my wish to step in to the Vinyl world. So he asked me to come back after one hour so that he could arrange some demo.

I went back after an hour and boy he has arranged a demo to show me all the possible combinations. Audio from high end blue ray player (Cambridge Audio) VS similarly priced CD Player (Rega Appolo) vs Rega RP1 Turntable VS Rega RP3 Turntble (With and without external power supply)

Despite being a high end Bluray Player , Cambridge Audio faded away almost immediately, Rega Dedicated CD player sounded much better and came at 3rd, Rega RP1 (All hell broke loose ) My god, I could not believe Vinyls are so much better than CD, it sounded louder , fuller, smother , much better controlled , much better imaging , what not, Vinyl won it hands down, and then finally higher end RP3, that definitely sounded much better than the entry level Vinyl. Despite the crackle sound at times, Vinyl is much more lively , real and soulful. I have read contradicting opinion about the CD and Vinyl SQ, but for the first time I saw it for myself and I must admin, regardless of whether Vinyl sounds better, it definitely sounds different , so I think its just the matter of taste (If one like the way CD sounds or the Vinyl) I definitely liked Vinyl. Also one important thing to note is all the above were played through same amp and speakers.

 

[hemantwaghe]

As far as I know, no analogue guy worth his salt will ever move from analogue to multi channel digital and vice versa. We are talking about completely different demographics whose musical attitudes are oceans apart

In 70's even vinyl tried to be "surround" it was 4 channel

Quadraphonic sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check CD-4 ( Not compact disk)

CD-4 (Compatible Discrete 4) / Quadradisc
Compatible Discrete 4 (CD-4) logo
Quadradisc logo
An RCA Quadradisc recording. The color fringes around the reflections are caused by the ultrasonic signal that contains the difference information used to separate the four channels.

Compatible Discrete 4 (CD-4) or Quadradisc (not to be confused with compact disc) was introduced in May 1972 as a discrete quadraphonic system created by JVC and RCA. Record companies who adopted this format include Arista, Atlantic, Capricorn, Elektra, Fantasy, JVC, Nonesuch, A & M, Reprise and Warner.

This was the only fully discrete quadraphonic phonograph record system to gain major industry acceptance.


BTW I have 1 or 2 such vinyls , never heard,also have one massike akai quad receiver hyeah:hyeah:

 

[Dr.Bass]

I really did not want (though I dont mind) this to be an yet another analog vs digital thread. Lets try to keep this thread more than just another debate.

Sunderpalanivel, your experience put a smile on my face

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

How many folks who have extensive experience with analogue or really high end digital setups in the two channel domain are participating?

Just a couple of them. And the rest are crawling all over them with their theories for whatever reasons. What will be the outcome of the argument? Nothing apart from some bruised egos !

No, that is not the aim, nor is it the point. Experience is experience, yes of course --- but there is also the exchange and discussion of ideas. I have been listening to music for more than fifty years, and hifi of one sort or another for around thirty (wasn't lucky enough to grow up with it --- but I still squeezed the best mono gramaphone I could manage out of my parents (Ahhh, my Dynatron ).

Stereo came only after I left home, and was, for a long time (apart from a few weeks of working in a hifi shop!) a case of living with other peoples'.

Having my own system came much later, and I did some extra freelance job to pay for it. Digital came even later: I had my records and a deck: I wasn't really interested in buying the music all over again. The next step was being able to invest in some modestly serious amplification and speakers. Then, around a decade or so ago, I started my interest in PC audio.

The whole point of this personal history is this: I have learnt more about audio, hifi and stereo, in the time since I joined Hifivision than I did over all those years . Not only from fellow members, but also from the many web surfing journeys that begin here.

Some of these conversations are as good as listening to music. Those that don't enjoy tossing around the concepts, conceptions and misconceptions, along with a little mythbusting (and sometimes the myths win and turn out to be true) will probably be, err... listening to music instead

 

[square_wave]

Exchange of ideas and having fun with this great hobby is certainly the reason why folks are on the forum. Having Fun is the most important thing ! This is definitely happening on this forum

concepts, conceptions and misconceptions, along with a little mythbusting

This is a great idea. In this particular thread, since we are discussing digital and analogue at the highest level possible ( in 2 channel), for anything meaningful to materialize, the folks who are participating need extensive experience at those levels in both

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

for anything meaningful to materialize, the folks who are participating need extensive experience at those levels in both

Ideas are available to all. Also, much of learning has come about by taking assertions, heading off for the net, and seeing what is there. Of course, regularly, we come across instances of highly qualified, technical, experienced people --- with opposing views . So we are still left to make our own decisions and judgements, or even just plain opinions if that's the best we can do at the time.

When something is a matter of fact, eg, what formats and methods of archiving musical material and why, then, sure, only people in the business can tell us, and if they are not here to do so, or we can't find that information --- we'll just have to wait until we can.

 

[Gerry_the_Merry]

I find this "most folks have not really listened at the highest level" to be a useless and pretentious argument. Will you take a Metronome Callista vs Continuum Calibrun. Why not the way Sundarpalanivel describes? In the same shop, in the same set-up, in the same price range, with the same music? Many people can do it and post fairly authentic and relevant opinions.

 

[jls001]

I have read somewhere that at rarified levels, analog and digital sounds converge and tend to sound quite similar. One is not better than the other - just different presentations of the same truth.

The choice then is more of personal preference. I guess it is a bit like top end tube and solid state amplifications sounding similar than different.

Having only had the opportunity to listen to a few top end digital, I would love to be able hear a top end analog rig, but alas it is nowhere in sight.