advertisement


Which one is most accurate digital or vinyl?

TPA said:
My point entirely, as you say, "you simply compare the two" - but on what criteria? Some distortions measure well but sound awful, and vice versa. I completely agree about differing masters etc, and that is not the point.
Click to expand...

You have to choose the criteria to fit the question being asked.

If the quested is concerned with creating the most accurate representation of the master tape, you compare the two under controlled conditions, preferably with several pairs of ears and see what if any differences are detected. A situation where the listeners cannot tell the master from the same thing on the chosen carrier means perfect accuracy has been achieved.
You could also do null tests to establish how closely the two cancel if you wanted to attempt expressing these things in numbers.

If the question is concerned with likeability, feet tapping and enjoyment then all notions of strict accuracy go out of the window.
Now there are some who say that accuracy (as in identical to the source) is the absolute goal and all systems should aim for this standard. To which I would say, bollox!

If something is accurate but leaves you emotionally unmoved, while a different rendering gives you pleasure, the latter wins without question.
 
The thing is Rob, that Steve Hoffman observation about comparing the analogue master in studio to the various formats.

That, coming from a well known and respected mastering engineer, has to make people raise questions surely?
 
For every mastering engineer there is an equal and opposite mastering engineer
 
I like the convenience of the digitals but hanker after the tactiles of the vinyl. I don't like getting out m' chair every twenty minutes though.
 
Mike,

The thing is Rob, that Steve Hoffman observation about comparing the analogue master in studio to the various formats.
Click to expand...
Do you think digital misses something that good analogue doesn't, or that analogue distortions help the ear and brain recreate the recording in a way that is perceived to be more real?

I keep flip-flopping on this, but I'm currently leaning toward the second possibility. I know the über objectivistas will counter with a but, but, but... and go to great lengths to show that more distortion can't be better, but I think they are ignoring the way human perception works.

If we're taking about squiggles on a silly scope, no question. Digital wins. But we're talking about messy things here -- humans and their flawed ears and the virtual reality–creating software system between them. My system is not kit for the laboratory, it's kit for the living room -- well, basement in my case, but whatever.

Joe
 
Robert said:
Now there are some who say that accuracy (as in identical to the source) is the absolute goal and all systems should aim for this standard. To which I would say, bollox!

If something is accurate but leaves you emotionally unmoved, while a different rendering gives you pleasure, the latter wins without question.
Click to expand...

+1 when it comes to the home environment.
 
Joe P said:
Mike,


Do you think digital misses something that good analogue doesn't, or that analogue distortions help the ear and brain recreate the recording in a way that is perceived to be more real?

I keep flip-flopping on this, but I'm currently leaning toward the second possibility. I know the über objectivistas will counter with a but, but, but... and go to great lengths to show that more distortion can't be better, but I think they are ignoring the way human perception works.

If we're taking about squiggles on a silly scope, no question. Digital wins. But we're talking about messy things here -- humans and their flawed ears and the virtual reality–creating software system between them. My system is not kit for the laboratory, it's kit for the living room -- well, basement in my case, but whatever.

Joe
Click to expand...

''Flawed ears''...?we humans have ears, neither 'flawed' or 'perfect'...just ears. They aren't test equipment: instruments don't have ears and thus can't 'hear' anything at all. That's the central problem with the objectivists, they cease to question at the 'test measurement' stage. Which is before anything is 'heard' .
How measurements relate to what we hear is the interesting question, and that involves investigating human beings not gauges and oscilloscopes. In that sense, questions about accuracy become very tricky indeed. 'Accurate' to what?
 
Opinion: Mastering ought to be subtle and exist only to enable that which is recorded to be presented with as little deviation from the tape as possible, which we as consumers and customers all take on blind faith, unless we hear the mastering ourselves and even then the judgements made are aesthetic ones based on pragmatism, the carrier technology and state of the master used. I worry that some mastering warm-up jobs for necrophiles do not have enough time considered in their assembly process. Mastering is rarely a superstar thing, something an engineer will insinuate themselves within, rather than stand between the master -- to leave as small a footprint as possible to be invisible and indivisible from what you are hearing.

I don't hear that a lot of subtlety these days. Not in a lot of recent lauded audiophile reissues, very wow, very crisp quite hot and clean as we diligently pursue a current prevailing aesthetic of clean and deep and wide. I hope it will subside.

opinion end:
 
Joe P said:
Do you think digital misses something that good analogue doesn't, or that analogue distortions help the ear and brain recreate the recording in a way that is perceived to be more real?
Click to expand...

I'm like you Joe. I flip. I have some amazing sounding recordings on CD.

I know that they very rarely make me personally dance, sing or cry spontaneously though.

I think PCM encoding changes the sound. Clearly most people don't care.
 
Peter,

''Flawed ears''...?we humans have ears, neither 'flawed' or 'perfect'...just ears. They aren't test equipment: instruments don't have ears and thus can't 'hear' anything at all. That's the central problem with the objectivists, they cease to question at the 'test measurement' stage. Which is before anything is 'heard' .
Click to expand...
I think I had that covered under human perception, which requires both a sense organ (which is imperfect) and a virtual reality–creating software system between them.

Joe
 
Mike,

I think PCM encoding changes the sound. Clearly most people don't care.
Click to expand...
I was listening to an album* some months ago, recorded several years before digital, and was dumbfounded how good it sounded. Real, tactile, genuine.

Then I read in the liner notes that the original analogue tapes had been transferred to hi-res digital files before making their way into the grooves pressed into the piece of plastic I was listening to. Then it hit me: I don't know nuttin'.

Still a great-sounding analogue recording, even though it went through a PCM stage.

Joe

* Neil Young's Live At Massey Hall 1971 on Classic Records.
 
paskinn said:
''Flawed ears''...?we humans have ears, neither 'flawed' or 'perfect'...just ears. They aren't test equipment: instruments don't have ears and thus can't 'hear' anything at all. That's the central problem with the objectivists, they cease to question at the 'test measurement' stage. Which is before anything is 'heard' .
How measurements relate to what we hear is the interesting question, and that involves investigating human beings not gauges and oscilloscopes. In that sense, questions about accuracy become very tricky indeed. 'Accurate' to what?
Click to expand...
Accuracy is straightforward to define, f1eng touched on it on your confused isolation/absorption thread. I suggest a review.

Paul
 
There are some loops that can sometimes be broken
Everyone has perception, an impression
A thought at inception, a form of deception
A tic to trick the mind's ear
So we are sold: "[product] changes the sound"
An effect is heard, (that's how we humans work)
It's how we always are sold an idea:
Involuntary/evolutionary/divine intervention [delete where applicable]
We sense a thing
We pattern match and process
And what is left is interpretation
Or interpolation, or dogmatic religion
We are sold the next great massive invention
That changes everything
But when we are not swayed
it's Not because nobody cares
But because nobody was convinced
By the sales pitch and the backstory
Or the wobbly science
So inception not planted, an idea not sown
And the cycle is broken, a deception not grown.
 
Most people I know in the recording industry do Paul. I consider that fortunate as it means some are really trying to improve the quality of the product we buy.
 
Joe P said:
Mike,


I was listening to an album* some months ago, recorded several years before digital, and was dumbfounded how good it sounded. Real, tactile, genuine.

Then I read in the liner notes that the original analogue tapes had been transferred to hi-res digital files before making their way into the grooves pressed into the piece of plastic I was listening to. Then it hit me: I don't know nuttin'.

Still a great-sounding analogue recording, even though it went through a PCM stage.

Joe

* Neil Young's Live At Massey Hall 1971 on Classic Records.
Click to expand...

Joe

That album would have been converted using a Pacific Microsonics Model 2 A/D - probably the best converter ever made.

It was also the last true PCM converter that I know of - and the only one to offer 20/176 as well as HDCD encoding.

Unfortunately, not only are these converters discontinued, but they were also ridiculously complex and expensive to buy - so very few studios could actually employ them.

Just a bit of background anyway. My favourite CD player was always a true multibit machine so maybe the potential was there but we are being let down in the interests of cost?
 
Mike,

That's interesting. Do you have the Classic Records pressing?

It's worth tracking down, but now that it's out of print prices have slipped into stupid territory.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top