Mike Fremer and an interesting observation

**mep** · 07-28-2012, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk

Different strokes. But high frequencies = high frequencies, not harshness, and an awful lot of them disappeared on the vinyl. Why did the vocal seem to come forward? No mystery there -- more midrange. Less high frequency information.

Tim

I think you're dead wrong. Somebody mucked with the mix. If you think that analog has less high frequency info than digital, I don't know what to say. Analog has no brick wall filter at 20 kHz.

**amirm** · 07-28-2012, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by mep

I think you're dead wrong. Somebody mucked with the mix. If you think that analog has less high frequency info than digital, I don't know what to say. Analog has no brick wall filter at 20 kHz.

He is saying in that clip that is the case. He is right. All the sharp strings disappeared in the LP version.

**Phelonious Ponk** · 07-28-2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by mep

Tim-let's see if you are in the minority or the majority. I think his voice sounds 1000x better on the vinyl copy. Amir heard what I heard down to describing how the guitar was shoved down in the mix on the vinyl and his voice was brought up. I don't understand how the mix is so dramatically different, but it is. The bottom line is that his voice sounds way better on the vinyl than it does on the digital.

I don't expect to be in the majority in this crowd, Mark. But I am a guy sitting in a room playing guitar and singing, I've been doing that for almost 50 years, and prefer what you like but I'm here to tell you, the only way that particular vinyl is more real than that particular CD is if the strings on that guitar were stone dead. In which case I'll have to wonder how that CD manufactured such authentic-sounding string sound that wasn't there.

it does demonstrate that LP subjectively has a transfer function that appeals to certain part of the population.

....and drowns a lot of high frequency information. One thing is for sure: there's the dividing line. Impossible to miss, even on a YouTube video. You guys can stop telling me what I haven't heard now. I've heard it. I just don't like it.

Tim

**Phelonious Ponk** · 07-28-2012, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by mep

I think you're dead wrong. Somebody mucked with the mix. If you think that analog has less high frequency info than digital, I don't know what to say. Analog has no brick wall filter at 20 kHz.

Did you watch the video Mark? The guy who produced the thing was there. He described the process. There was no re-mix.There was no EQ. And the "filter" on that vinyl was a hell of a lot lower than 20kHz, by the way.

What I think, is not that analog has less high frequency info that redbook, but that vinyl adds enough midrange to drown it. That's not just what I think, it's what I hear. Particularly in this example.

Tim

**Phelonious Ponk** · 07-28-2012, 06:32 PM

By the way, did they say the name of that album was Dirt Floor? I'd like to acquire it.

Tim

**mep** · 07-28-2012, 06:40 PM

And it appeals because it sounds more real. Last night during my listening session I jotted down the following on my notepad:

Digital is soulless next to analog and if you don't understand that, you never will.

And it really does help to understand the differences if you get to hear both analog and digital on a regular basis in your room and on your system.

**mep** · 07-28-2012, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk

Did you watch the video Mark? The guy who produced the thing was there. He described the process. There was no re-mix.There was no EQ. And the "filter" on that vinyl was a hell of a lot lower than 20kHz, by the way.

What I think, is not that analog has less high frequency info that redbook, but that vinyl adds enough midrange to drown it. That's not just what I think, it's what I hear. Particularly in this example.

Tim

Tim- He desribed how it was recorded which I understand. He didn't describe what happened along the way to make the CD version or the LP version. Somebody mucked with it. Actually, the sound of the YouTube video is pretty horrid and even on the CD version I don't think his guitar sounds good. Yes, it's more prominent in the mix, but it still sounds like crap to me. Even though the recording on YouTube is terrible, you can still tell his voice sounds much better than the CD version.

The bottom line is we know very well how the tape was recorded. What we don't know is what happened during the mastering to vinyl and the CD mastering. They are not the same mix and I would bet money on that.

**mep** · 07-28-2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk

I don't expect to be in the majority in this crowd, Mark. But I am a guy sitting in a room playing guitar and singing, I've been doing that for almost 50 years, and prefer what you like but I'm here to tell you, the only way that particular vinyl is more real than that particular CD is if the strings on that guitar were stone dead. In which case I'll have to wonder how that CD manufactured such authentic-sounding string sound that wasn't there.

What you fail to understand is that analog didn’t make the strings of his guitar sound they way they do. The way it was mastered made it sound that way. And let’s not forget the horrid recording of this event on YouTube. And I wouldn’t be hanging my hat on how ‘good’ his guitar sounded over the CD version. It still sucked.

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk

....and drowns a lot of high frequency information. One thing is for sure: there's the dividing line. Impossible to miss, even on a YouTube video. You guys can stop telling me what I haven't heard now. I've heard it. I just don't like it. Tim

All you heard was a guitar sounding louder, not necessarily ‘better.’ And even through this crappy sounding video, his voice still sounded a 1000x times better via analog. Even a deaf man could hear the difference. Jeez, my recording of Sonny Rollins that I posted on WBF sounds like a million dollars compared to this video.

**Phelonious Ponk** · 07-28-2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by mep

Tim- He desribed how it was recorded which I understand. He didn't describe what happened along the way to make the CD version or the LP version. Somebody mucked with it. Actually, the sound of the YouTube video is pretty horrid and even on the CD version I don't think his guitar sounds good. Yes, it's more prominent in the mix, but it still sounds like crap to me. Even though the recording on YouTube is terrible, you can still tell his voice sounds much better than the CD version.

The bottom line is we know very well how the tape was recorded. What we don't know is what happened during the mastering to vinyl and the CD mastering. They are not the same mix and I would bet money on that.

How much you got? Make it worth my while and I'll go back through that video find the spot wher he describes the process, quote it for you here, and give you the minute/second markers to confirm it for yourself.

Tim

**mep** · 07-28-2012, 06:57 PM

Okay, I just checked in at the 1:00 hour mark. If he described the difference before that, I missed it. But I don't care because if he captured it on the tape, it would have transferred to vinyl if it was mastered correctly. Did he say who mastered the vinyl? Does anyone besides you really want to claim that digital captures high frequencies better than analog?