Exactly Tony. How could he possibly make any money doing this. Let's say he gets in 20 different records and the process takes two hours a record. Well now the 20 customers have to cover those two hours (a weeks worth if labor), cost of capital, overhead, and a profit margin. The key is he is going to be cutting 20 different records not cutting 2,000 of the same record in a pressing plant. Crazy idea.
Your old records rescued. Brand new records made
- Thread starter IanW
- Start date
Exactly Tony. How could he possibly make any money doing this. Let's say he gets in 20 different records and the process takes two hours a record. Well now the 20 customers have to cover those two hours (a weeks worth if labor), cost of capital, overhead, and a profit margin. The key is he is going to be cutting 20 different records not cutting 2,000 of the same record in a pressing plant. Crazy idea.
Julf
Facts are our friends
Would that be testacular?
Julf
Facts are our friends
Or is it just that we are used to the analog distortion and coloration. Didn't someone recently refer to research showing kids who grew up with mp3 prefer mp3's over lossless formats?
Unfortunately most people don't have that level of understanding, and the way the popular media (and manufacturers such as Sony) still keep using the erroneous "staircase" pictures and metaphors, who can blame them?
Whaleblue
Southbound
The "how many times" answer, is simply at least twice as frequently as the highest frequency required. This being above the limits of human hearing, or well above that, depending on redbook CD or "hi res".
And if the argument is that 22.05khz (or 44khz or 88khz or more) isn't enough, then just bear in mind the limitations for the whole recording and playback chain mean that very little diminishing, quickly, to nothing is getting through above 20khz whatever recording media and recording/playback equipment are used.
With that all said I love my vinyl. However, I accept it's not because it's technically superior to CD etc.
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
I understand that digital is sampled and is ergo a sample of analogue, end of....next!
I love my record player and my CD player. I have designed record players. I have made many recordings, both using microphones and other transducers. I have made them on tape and digitally.
In the case of microphones I am able to listen to the mike feed and the output of the recorder in A/B comparison.
I have -never- used an analogue recorder where the output of the recorder is completely indistinguishable from the input. This is using headphones plugged into the recorder, so any additional inaccuracy in amps and speakers is not included.
If one spends the appropriate amount of time calibrating the recorder it can be pretty close. Nothing unpleasant is added as long as you know what you are doing setting levels. But the effect of the additions and subtractions due to the analogue recording process is audible.
Using digital recorders the difference between the mike feed and the output on A/B comparison is indistinguishable to me on my headphones. It may be that my headphones and/or ears are not good enough, though of course I can and do hear the change created by the analogue recorder.
These were recordings of my wife's performances by a tape recorder enthusiast (me).
On other data than music I have been recording engineering parameters. Depending on the environment of the recording the digital methods also have been more useful. Measurements on warships (frigates and destroyers) on a 1" Ampex FM recorder of both sound and direct vibration could be done to useable levels of accuracy, as long as the machine was re-calibrated for each reel of tape (we did not always have time:-( ). The machine was a 2 man lift and the size of a big suitcase.
On a Formula 1 car analogue recorders are only suitable for the crudest guide, not actual accurate data. The vibration and size dictate that any analogue recording is all but un-useably inaccurate. Only the crudest and simple parameters are OK on analogue recorders. The -only- thing I successfully estimated using an analogue recorder on a F1 car was throttle opening and the 2 halfshaft output speeds for diff evaluation. And that was using a custom recorder built by a genius.
Using digital methods the area over which the recording is accurate, and where it is not, are known mathematically. Using analogue methods it is -never- accurate. Knowing the region over which the accuracy -may- be acceptable for use requires considerable knowledge and experience. And often disappoints.
These were data recordings done by an enthusiastic, professional and pioneering engineer (me, I was the first engineer to fit a digital recorder to a Formula 1 car).
I have recorded CDs onto tape and know people who prefer the tape playback to the original. I can hear why.
I am quite sure based on this experience that any preference for tape over digital is between incredibly likely and definitely to be a preference for the added colour of the tape record/replay process.
LP playback is nowhere near as good as tape. The known-about-for-decades combinations of the losses inherent in the manufacturing process, the additions by the turntable, arm and cartridge guarantee this.
I do not doubt many enthusiast's preference for their record player. I like mine, and have spent plenty of dosh thereon.
However I am 99.99% sure it is because of the well known and documented colourations inherent in the medium and process rather than some other as-yet-to-be-discovered-by-man reason.
Having written all this, the difference in recording quality produced by recording engineers is much bigger than the difference between LP and CD anyway, so a well recorded LP sounds better tha a badly recorded CD and vice versa.
I almost exclusively listen to classical music and so am unaffected by the recent "loudness wars", but have probably got far more good recordings on CD than on LP.
In the case of microphones I am able to listen to the mike feed and the output of the recorder in A/B comparison.
I have -never- used an analogue recorder where the output of the recorder is completely indistinguishable from the input. This is using headphones plugged into the recorder, so any additional inaccuracy in amps and speakers is not included.
If one spends the appropriate amount of time calibrating the recorder it can be pretty close. Nothing unpleasant is added as long as you know what you are doing setting levels. But the effect of the additions and subtractions due to the analogue recording process is audible.
Using digital recorders the difference between the mike feed and the output on A/B comparison is indistinguishable to me on my headphones. It may be that my headphones and/or ears are not good enough, though of course I can and do hear the change created by the analogue recorder.
These were recordings of my wife's performances by a tape recorder enthusiast (me).
On other data than music I have been recording engineering parameters. Depending on the environment of the recording the digital methods also have been more useful. Measurements on warships (frigates and destroyers) on a 1" Ampex FM recorder of both sound and direct vibration could be done to useable levels of accuracy, as long as the machine was re-calibrated for each reel of tape (we did not always have time:-( ). The machine was a 2 man lift and the size of a big suitcase.
On a Formula 1 car analogue recorders are only suitable for the crudest guide, not actual accurate data. The vibration and size dictate that any analogue recording is all but un-useably inaccurate. Only the crudest and simple parameters are OK on analogue recorders. The -only- thing I successfully estimated using an analogue recorder on a F1 car was throttle opening and the 2 halfshaft output speeds for diff evaluation. And that was using a custom recorder built by a genius.
Using digital methods the area over which the recording is accurate, and where it is not, are known mathematically. Using analogue methods it is -never- accurate. Knowing the region over which the accuracy -may- be acceptable for use requires considerable knowledge and experience. And often disappoints.
These were data recordings done by an enthusiastic, professional and pioneering engineer (me, I was the first engineer to fit a digital recorder to a Formula 1 car).
I have recorded CDs onto tape and know people who prefer the tape playback to the original. I can hear why.
I am quite sure based on this experience that any preference for tape over digital is between incredibly likely and definitely to be a preference for the added colour of the tape record/replay process.
LP playback is nowhere near as good as tape. The known-about-for-decades combinations of the losses inherent in the manufacturing process, the additions by the turntable, arm and cartridge guarantee this.
I do not doubt many enthusiast's preference for their record player. I like mine, and have spent plenty of dosh thereon.
However I am 99.99% sure it is because of the well known and documented colourations inherent in the medium and process rather than some other as-yet-to-be-discovered-by-man reason.
Having written all this, the difference in recording quality produced by recording engineers is much bigger than the difference between LP and CD anyway, so a well recorded LP sounds better tha a badly recorded CD and vice versa.
I almost exclusively listen to classical music and so am unaffected by the recent "loudness wars", but have probably got far more good recordings on CD than on LP.
Try "The Art of Digital Audio" by John Watkinson. If you are technically minded it will help you understand better than that
The first paragraph in my edition reads:
"It is over 10 years since I wrote the first edition of this book and it seems that today everything about the subject has changed except the laws of physics. As a result there are many things in this edition which have changed beyond recognition, contrasting with some basics which have not changed at all"
No, let me fix this for you:
The recordings using the Studer sounded audibly better to me and about 20 other people who all heard the same recording. Add to this the recording engineer himself who also admitted the recording from the Studer was better. There are many reasons why this is the case. Some are down to the technology (red book etc) and some are down to the design of the converters and their inherent complexity.
Funny that so many top record labels like ORG, Tacet etc choose to use no digital in their mastering process.
Here is Bernie Grundman's Updated Mastering System:
New customized dual mono power supplies
New tape pre-amplifier: an upgraded hybrid design with single-ended in-out that is specifically triode on the input for the gain and EQ and feeds into a discreet solid state circuit that drives the output
Brand new tape heads for the Studer playback tape machine including a complete hardwire with Cardas cables
The power supplies on tube cutter amps have been updated and rewired with Cardas cable on the head leads and feedback
The Studer in Bernie's cutting room is essentially transport only i.e. it is used for the superb stability of its mechanical parts. All the electronics (from the tape heads through to the cutting head on the lathe) have now been totally customized and hard-wired point to point
The tube cutting amps used for the ORG LP reissues have just been re-tubed with ex-US military grade tubes from Sylvania
Why go to all this trouble if digital was better...
Werner
pfm Member
Why go to all this trouble if digital was better...
Because the best digital convertors are of no use when the task at hand is the replay of a given analogue tape?
I have said this before, but will repeat once more ... (please take not that every word counts):
1) the concept of stereophonic recording for reproduction over two speakers in a domestic environment is fundamentally and deeply flawed. Generally speaking, the listening won't consistently be moved to the recording venue. Nor will the musicians consistently appear in the living room. The notion of 'fidelity' and 'transparency' is, ultimately, bollox. As such, some deviations from a notional transparency in the chain result in making the replayed sound more palatable to many listeners.
2) should one be able to totally and utterly perfect the turntable/arm/cartridge system (and Frank can imagine what would go into this), then I predict that most vinyl adepts would hate its sound.
3) should one be able to totally and utterly perfect digital then the result would sound totally unlike what most consider 'analogue' sound.
Correct if the mastering engineer wants to preserve an analogue recording through the mastering process. Most commercial mastering would involve converting the analogue sound from the tape and put it in the digital domain as soon as possible so the mastering can be done digitally. This is all about time, convenience and cost. The discussion in this post is about whether or not the AtoD and DtoA process was completely transparent to the listener. This process is not completely transparent for a number of technical reasons and this can be heard through a good system.
Whether your notion of "fidelity and 'transparency is, ultimately, bollox" is just your opinion. For others "fidelity and transparency" is very real and what many strive for in their system in order to achieve the "illusion of live music".
This is my last post on the subject.
Julf
Facts are our friends
And the desire to avoid the further distortion and colouring that staying in the analog domain would entail.
Werner
pfm Member
A plausible illusion is not the same as fidelity.
Julf
Facts are our friends
For some it is, and I guess that is their choice/preference.
Ohh this is like that episode of Star Trek when Mr Spock sends the crippled body of Christopher pike back to the bumheads so he can live a happy illusory life with his beautiful equally crippled lady in an illusory timeshare occasionally emptying his pond...
Mescalito
pfm Member
The analog recording process and record pressing process introduces far, far more compromises, noise & distortion than a digital recording system. And that is before you factor in the distortions introduced by the analog replay system. An analog recording of the LSO at the festival hall is much further removed from the original than a similarly mastered digital one.
I'm sorry, but the above is simply irrefutable.
Now, you may prefer the distorted results of an analog recording/replay chain, and that is your prerogative. Others are glad to be free of the constraints imposed by a badly flawed and limited system of reproducing music.
Chris
Mescalito
pfm Member
Had you stated "in my opinion", I would hane no problem with that statement. As it is, I do.
Chris
I think it is that some mistake a plausible illusion for fidelity, and convince themselves that it is the illusion that convinces them that is "right" and don't acknowledge all the bits of manipulation, deliberate and incidental, that exist to create that illusion.
It is not really a problem if you are just seeking a sound you like and leave it at that.
People don't always and there is a load of self-perpetuating bollox on forums. All it needs is a group of like minded people to spout the bollox and each of them can be self-justified in that their opinion is shared by many others. It is a completely circular thing.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Then you do not understand anything to do with the digital recording/replay chain. Next!
Chris
Julf
Facts are our friends
Well stated.
As ever with these things do they sound nice "because of" the additions of "despite" them?
Given the magnitude of the distortion, particularly of cartridges, it is hard to believe that they are inaudible so the reasonable conclusion is "because" not "despite", in my opinion of course.