How good is vinyl's sound?

[Thad E Ginathom]

@Thad, despite we starting off on the wrong foot and have some difference of opinion, we are pretty much on the same boat. +1 to above.

No problem: my friends and I here often fall out, but, for the most part, we are still friends, and that's part of the reason I'm still here

In the 80s cds used to be mastered with minimal gimmicks. Mixing also used to be analogue. Only the mastering was done in digital. It used to be called AAD. Unfortunately in those days the da converters were not upto the mark. As a result musicality suffered. Separation was limited. Complex passages sounded confused. Vocals sounded dull, etc, etc

A lot of the later music that you are talking about is outside of my experience. Well, yes, that means that, since those days, a lot of stuff might have happened that I'm just not qualified to comment on .

The AAD thing extends back into the vinyl days too. I have told the story before, of the the expensive-to-me classical double album that was a huge disapointment to me because it sounded dead ... and I went on listening to the the anonymously-ripped cassette that introduced me to the piece.

Here is some food for thought from Paul Frindle, who seems to be the father of the digital mixing console, on audio history.

There are no 'dimensions' that do not make it into the digital domain. The digital domain is only a coding and processing method - it can only respond to what it receives - and how well it transmits what it receives is fully measurable and quantifiable in ALL possible respects.

There really is no magic - it's all just physics.

... ... ...

And what are we discussing here? The nuances of 'magic' that all 'analogue' stuff apparently had over all 'digital' stuff.. I know this sounds like a rant, but for people like me who have spent their entire careers trying to make things better, trying to make things right, trying to give you every conceivable artistic advantage and facility - this is truly heart breaking... :-(


The Post on Gearslutz

There's a heap of stuff between the beginning and end snippets. Recommended! In fact... it's a great thread

 

[Ambio]

@Ambio: the "we" refers to the crowd that fights over the superiority of analog playback versus digital playback. It wasn't meant to say "you" and "me". It's just a generic reference. Personally I believe in both. Both have their strengths, and both play beautifully. .

Same here. When I say "audiophiles" it wasn't meant to refer to people who may have taken 20 30 years to reach a certain recognition and acceptance. It is not about

share one common goal and that is to enhance our audio/visual and/or listening/viewing experience

It is an unofficial club or sect with leaders working very hard to attain there. They do not like new ideas challenging their long held belief. It got nothing to do with sound but more of human nature of acceptance and power. To show authority. They are not doing it knowingly.

Just look at my thread on Ambiophonics and why audiophiles resist change. Compare the names of contributors and compare them here and also the DBT thread. I was there in the group. The moment I started to doubt my XLO reference power cable the followers got smaller and the rest is history.

 

[Ambio]

AR Rahman also produced pure acoustics music and lets see how many know about it or have bought them. And those think that analogue is real find out how your ears works. You will be surprised that your analogue is broken down to 500Hz in each sector and the signal is send in pulses. So analogues lovers you may not want to argue that analogue sound is real because things get changed pretty dramatically once it reaches your ears.

 

[dheerajin]

@Thad..you are responsible for ruining my weekend...gearslutz huh..lengthy thread[emoji2]

 

[Ambio]

... I have in my modest collection a number of ffss and ffrr Decca records which predate current RIAA equalisation standard, meaning they were pressed in the early or mid 50s, and they still play real well.

..

They all got their own equalization and since 1954 the industry de facto standard is RIAA EQ. Ralph Glasgal of Ambiophonics designed for RIAA filters for RCA to be used in the recording. If you have a post 1954 records of RCA you are listening to his RIAA filter.

What's the relevance of RIAA in this thread. They are just an equalizer and of course it adds different flavor to the records especially after 1954.

 

[square_wave]

This is something really bothers me for a long time. I have heard very finest vinyl sound using ClearAudio Statement and it did definetly sounded different and likeable. However, I don't think the difference is night and day. I doubt anyone could honestly tell the difference.

In cheaper TT it may be easily identifiable with the clicks and pops but there wasnt any in the Statement TT. Despite that, it was possible to tell the difference. It could be due the cd player ( Boulder). I don't know.

But with the finest TT and digital playback, I don't think the distinction is clear unless you are familiar with the recording.mcorrect?

I have done this comparison couple of times..it is darn close for details and such..but you can't get the soul and enjoyment factor that some fine releases on lp offer..on cd

 

[Ambio]

I have done this comparison couple of times..it is darn close for details and such..but you can't get the soul and enjoyment factor that some fine releases on lp offer..on cd

Thanks. I do not have a TT to do the experience myself. What I am more interested is to rip of the analogue signal after the phone stage and do a ADC. The digital copy then goes thru, preferably , the same DAC and compared. They should be identical. Or maybe not. If they are then it is possible to make the exact replicas of digital vinyl.

But as you mentioned here, even though they are darn close the digital lacks soul. What could be missing? Was the mystery solved long ago but it was swept under the carpet?

 

[square_wave]

Thanks. I do not have a TT to do the experience myself. What I am more interested is to rip of the analogue signal after the phone stage and do a ADC. The digital copy then goes thru, preferably , the same DAC and compared. They should be identical. Or maybe not. If they are then it is possible to make the exact replicas of digital vinyl.

But as you mentioned here, even though they are darn close the digital lacks soul. What could be missing? Was the mystery solved long ago but it was swept under the carpet?

Never tried the ADC thlng..I know someone who downloads such converted files and he likes them better than the CDs especially for certain types of music..
You should try it yourself. Maybe you will like it.

 

[Ambio]

Never tried the ADC thlng..I know someone who downloads such converted files and he likes them better than the CDs especially for certain types of music..
You should try it yourself. Maybe you will like it.

It is possible because they sound identical to vinyl. But of course the opinions may differ since some would argue the conversion would take away the soul for the music.

Maybe, I should move on and bring this thread to a conclusion.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

@Thad..you are responsible for ruining my weekend...gearslutz huh..lengthy thread[emoji2]

:lol:

Gearslutz is huge, and some of those threads just run and run and run. That one was a gem, and one that I have read all the way through. A fascinating insight into the history of analogue/digital in the music industry, with stuff from someone who was creating that history.

I dip into Gearslutz occasionally. I could not possibly follow it daily: I'd have to give up the rest of the internet! One could get the impression that there are more people making music than listening to it!

One might expect the pros to all be series objectivists. No, there are the same sort of arguments about stuff like cables as elsewhere in the audio world. As for the sample-rate tamasha, you should see the Pono thread! But I got introduced to the posts of JJ Johston, another granddaddy of digital, and I have to thank him for any understanding that I've gathered.

Whilst totally offtopic, and nothing at all to do with vinyl, let me suggest another thread on Gearslutz that, if you have any interest in active speaker, you might enjoy... High end nearfield test.

And now back home to HiFiVision. And vinyl...

 

[Ambio]

Ahhh....too many distractions today. I was trying to do a Google translation for Romanized Hindi and taking up so much of time. And now how to read the slutz..errrrr

Ok. Now back to vinyl. And this message is intended for newcomers only. Those who know better may say it is the usual rant or troll.

Before I bring this thread to a closure, I would like to introduce Prof.Stanley P. Lipshitz. (Speciality field - Audio and electro-acoustics; Digital signal processing for audio; Diffraction and radiation of sound by loudspeakers; Electro-acoustic measurement techniques, You can go to his website to find out more info about him. In 1984, he came across an article of a famous TT manufacturer criticizing digital recordings for its awful sound.

This man's livelihood depends on research and he depended on digital recordings. If what the famous TT manufacturer said was true then all the research his teaching becomes a lie. He decided to issue a direct challenge to the anti-digital community,( I presume in English and not Hindi ). After two challenges the famous TT manufacturer who said digital sounded awful agreed to take up the challenge.

This challenge was not conducted in a lab but at a home where the TT manufacturer would feel comfortable and using his equipment.

To be continued in a new thread....