The State Of Analog

[FrantzM]

Hi

The digital to analog debate will never cease to elicit passions like those displayed here in this forum .. If there is no commercial impetus to advance digital, what could be said about analog? Who else aside from the few audiophiles? Who by the way are moving toward digital . I would dare say that all of us , are Audiophiles...I would like to conduct a poll and see if most of us don't listen to more digital than to analog ...some almost exclusively to digital .. There are a few who don't listen at all to digital , maybe 5 in this forum and I don't think their numbers will increase dramatically .. High End Audio is moving toward fully digital and the advances I hope will come fro small companies: Meridian pushed the SOTA with not much success, Pacific Microsonics did push it although I would not qualify them as exclusively High End Audio companies but I remember the people from Spectral appeared to be quite involved in HDCD and now we have Berkeley Audio Designs pushing the envelope and EMM Labs and Weiss and .. a very long list of companies making Digital better.
i can understand the nostalgia and for people like Mike with such a vast Library in Analog and such superlative Analog gear there is no fear of ever running out of Music but I am immensely interested in new music as well as what was done .. so for me it is Digital, again I am saying for me .. I am not alone that much I know ...
I don't love everything digital, only that I have come to the realization that it is there, continuously improving and in some mediua, on a par or superior to analog. Progress is inevitable.

A final note: I am not proselytizing, simply stating my opinions in a way I hope will not offend anyone in this forum ... I am passionate about Music and its reproduction in the Home, that much I hope you knew that, I will all present my opinions very forcefully but I hope it is clear that it is with deep respect and intellectual honesty.

I will rest on that ..

Frantz

 

[Mike Lavigne]

the question here is at what point will digital fully equal or pass the best analog in reproduction performance.

the points i am making are not anti-digital. more like socio-ecomomic predictions based on recent history and observation of media marketing and the consumer electronics industry.

yes; we did start the process on this 'State of Analog' thread by making inaccurate (in my experience) representations of digital's superiority....which i challenged. then maybe we might agree that analog is better but just wait, digital is coming on strong.

which is what my latest posts have responded to......and that is.....digital is certainly not coming on strong. i agree that 'someday' it is inevitable that it will fulfill it's promise. but not now, not next year, and i see no eveidence that 'the promise of digital superiority' will occur within 20 years.

Steve and Mark say they disagree; but they offer no response as to what evidence they see that digital performance is improving. good reason for that of course; there is no such evidence. i agree it's logical that digital should improve, but beyond that general feeling, there is nothing.

let's look at the facts. in the mid-90's you had cutting edge formats of DSD/SACD and hi-rez PCM DVD-Audio 192/24. now; 15 years later you have.......exactly the same thing. nothing has changed in digital audio in terms of resolution. and nothing is planned.

if you guys know of something beyond this that is even hinted at for music reproduction then out with it. otherwise, inferring we live in a digital world is no answer to my point.

show me something!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Frantz,

please don't take my passion in the above post as being in any way negative toward the legitimate enjoyment of digital music including current digitally mastered music. digital can do a great job of recording music and having a high end system based on digital files or discs is totally valid in my mind. analog is a huge commitment and if one does not already have a large analog software collection i could not blame anyone for not going that way.

personally i am very actively pursueing hi-rez digital files and enjoying them along with my 4000 CD's and have no plans to slow down. it is about the music and lots of it is not analog.

added note; there are a good amount of current recordings that are analog recorded, and that trend is on the increase. a high percetage of new music is on vinyl. so saying you want new music so you want to stick with digital is a bit weak. if you are focusing on new classical then i'd say that's mostly digital; however the music was likely composed 100 or more years ago and lps of the music are cheap.

 

[MylesBAstor]

the question here is at what point will digital fully equal or pass the best analog in reproduction performance.

What's interesting is that the best analog stereo recordings arguably come from the dawn of the stereo era; it's taken us 30 years for digital to become listenable. Something wrong with this picture?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi Guys...

Replying to the opsts here ..
First Myles..

I would agree with you if you were to talk about he performances. Our current audiophile labels do not usually have access to the First rates conductors, Orchestras and halls RCA, EMI, Mercury and others have. Even Lyrita arguably a formidable label in term of quality recording could not have access to the uber star of Classical music. In term of pure quality of Recordings, that is pure sonics, fidelity, Dynamic Range, sense of Scale, Hall and Orchestra is the Uber-Class... You will not find in their catalog any definitive readings of much ... We could also say that relatively recent labels such as propius, BIS, Lyrita, Water Lily had it nailed an in a way that the old Mercury did not ... I am in awe withthe works of Bob Fine and Kenneth Wilkinson but if one listen carefully, one will hear several instances of taped saturation of overdriven microphones or electronics, etc when the tapes saturates in many of these recordings .. That is not the case for most if not none of the Reference Recording recordings (I could not resist) or of the best Lyritas, Cheskys, Water Lily, Harmonia Mundi, BIS or Proprius... Plus these guys, learned from thebest and it can be argued they have done a better job in more than one instances .. So "best" would be in term of performances here not in sonics .

Now MikeL
That there is a rebirth of anlaog, maybe, some audiophiles are buying and once in a while there are a few analog productions (20 ? 100?) for the millions that come out every day in digital ... And who are the Artists who issue in analog? You spoke about the socio-economic factors.. they all swell toward digital.. Two great microphones or more( with tubes pre-amps if you like) a good ADC ( Analog to Digital Converter), a Laptop and this is your recording gear.. Fully capable of way above decent performance .. Can you do match the cost effectiveness and ubiquity in analog? .. The very economics of recording favor digital .. Be it in video or Audio .. Need a new take? no Pro' bro'.. Re-record one track only and piece PRECISELY to the song .. most any laptop from the better side of a netbook is fully capable of doing so ... erase and re-record .. heck I recently bought a 1.5 TB HDD for 69.95 here in Miami Fl, at Tigers Direct ... So mot new music and arguably what I find interesting is likely to come from Digital.
I know there are several works from small outfits to large that are currently being conducted on Digital .. There couldbe some that are being done on analog but the economic imperative point toward researching digital not anlog .. What is in analog has been there for the pat 100 years .. Yo mention what was done 15 years ago then remember the Pentium Pro was the king of the Hill at 200 MHz and 4 GB was almost too much for the largest servers... Now any laptop over $500 is sold with 4 GB and a 320 GB HDD .. Current DSPs are several order of magnitudes than those of hose years and smaller and consume less and cost less and they are probably being obsolete as I write this ... for another jump in performance.
I understand your challenges, I stand by my prior assertion. The best I have heard in the reproduction of a Classical piece is from an HRx recording. Now I have not heard the Master of any Ref Recdns... but I compared the HRx Arnold Overtures (RR-48) to LP .. The HRx was mind-blowing .. I would however quickly admit this was the only one comparison I made .. but I found the HRx superior , to my surprise .. My position could revert if I were to listen to the Master Tapes, LP and HRx .. This is an experience I would like to conduct very soon , in the here and now .. HRx has blown me when I heard it... I would like such tests to be conducted in a more controlled fashion, a serious protocol.
As I have repeated don't ever bet against technology...


Frantz

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hi Guys...

Replying to the opsts here ..
First Myles..

I would agree with you if you were to talk about he performances. Our current audiophile labels do not usually have access to the First rates conductors, Orchestras and halls RCA, EMI, Mercury and others have. Even Lyrita arguably a formidable label in term of quality recording could not have access to the uber star of Classical music. In term of pure quality of Recordings, that is pure sonics, fidelity, Dynamic Range, sense of Scale, Hall and Orchestra is the Uber-Class... You will not find in their catalog any definitive readings of much ... We could also say that relatively recent labels such as propius, BIS, Lyrita, Water Lily had it nailed an in a way that the old Mercury did not ... I am in awe withthe works of Bob Fine and Kenneth Wilkinson but if one listen carefully, one will hear several instances of taped saturation of overdriven microphones or electronics, etc when the tapes saturates in many of these recordings .. That is not the case for most if not none of the Reference Recording recordings (I could not resist) or of the best Lyritas, Cheskys, Water Lily, Harmonia Mundi, BIS or Proprius... Plus these guys, learned from thebest and it can be argued they have done a better job in more than one instances .. So "best" would be in term of performances here not in sonics .


Frantz

Frantz,

All the recording labels you're referring to are still basically analog recordings. (Lyrita, HM, WL). I'm also not so sure that it always tape saturation that you're complaining about or compression. On Reiner's Pines of Rome (I'm talking here about the full blown 1S -- or the slightly lesser 5S pressings only--since RCA compressed every pressing after that because the cartridges of the day couldn't track the record's grooves), there clearly is tape saturation.

Now I'm not a huge Bis fan. I find their recordings thin and bright-even the Paniagua that adorns HP's list. The HM as a group are a little on the thin side too. Mercs have their problems with the strings and a somewhat closer up sound but the hall and low end extension is exemplary. RCA has a more natural orchestral perspective and great string sound but don't have the bass extension (in fact, on some is relatively lacking) of the Mercs. Deccas orchestral on the whole are the most sonically satisfying, principally with Wilkie; Decca opera recordings are to die for.

Kavi's WL recordings puzzle me-it's seem to me that his recordings have gotten better with time and obviously experimenting with miking technique and equipment. (and I really didn't like, despite the raves of many critics, the sound of his Russian orchestral SACDs). But the WL out of all the labels you listed, are done in SUPER analog eg. a special de Paravicini modded Studer C37with 1" tape heads. In fact the specs on the modded C37 would make any engineer sit up and take notice: a FR of 7 Hz to 35 kHz, +/- 1 dB, with a S/N of 90 dB! And Chad's 45 rpm release of Meeting by River really shows off what Kavi talents.


I also think you are either listening to the LP or the CD of say the great Deccas. Were you to hear the 15 ips tape project tapes, you'd maybe form a different opinion about these recordings. I've had the same experience with the sound of the Ref. Rec. LPs vs the tape project tapes. I never cared for the sound of most of the RR LPs; the tapes are a whole different game.

But I just haven't heard a whole lot of PURE digital orchestral recordings that I can listen to. And it is my feeling, that digital can not do anything that is more complex than a trio.

And totally agree about the conductors!

 

[audioguy]

I'm with Mike on this one. SIGNIFICANT digital improvements will come from significant investments and there is NO reason to make that investment. The masses could care less about improvements. They just want more memory for their iPods to load more music.

I'm not suggesting that there will not be improvements but if so, they will be incremental. As can be witnessed by the serious lack of interest in things like SACD, we, as a listening public, just don't care (in enough volume to drive new technology)

 

[FrantzM]

Myles

II really would love to debate with you the quality of some of the recording you are referring to ... The 1812 Tchaikovsky on Mercury has some clear compression showing up IMO … I find the work of Kavi fascinating including the SACD you mention. The Mahler 5 by the St Petersbourg Orchestra is an extraordinary recording on the right system (Mahler symphonies likes big Full range systems, lot of dynamics and headroom) The performance is goodbut not to my liking ( John Barbirolli and the new Philaharmonia ’s on EMI Clasics is my favorite and by far ) and that it what drives me in Classical Music . The performance, unless the recording is really, but reaaally bad, I 'll take a good performance anytime over a good recording, thus the several Deutsche Gramophon, Philips, etc I have in my collection, ... My point was that the best recording I know of were not as "old" as you implied in your prior post. I would say that the work of present recording geniuses is as good or better than that of the old … That it be analog or not ( Kavi’s Russian SCAD are direct to SACD IIRC)

I have not heard anything from the Tape Project. By all accounts they are spectacular. I would like however to see the same mastering transferred to the best digital. Then conduct a careful and controlled comparison with serious audiophiles , then gather their impressions and opinions. I am sure there would be some surprises.
As for your assertion that digital cannot go beyond a trio well …

90dB o n the Studer is spectacular .. No Dolby involved? Wow ... that can't be tubes? Is it? Link to the specs please ?
Frantz

 

[Steve Williams]

Frantz, I am fairly certain I played some TP tapes for you when you visited several months ago.

 

[FrantzM]

Ob

You got your Studer ONE month after I left ... I think you did it on purpose ...

Frantz

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles

The 1812 Tchaikovsky on Mercury has some clear compression showing up IMO …My point was that the best recording I know of were not as "old" as you implied in your prior post. I would say that the work of present recording geniuses is as good or better than that of the old … That it be analog or not ( Kavi’s Russian SCAD are direct to SACD IIRC)

I have not heard anything from the Tape Project. By all accounts they are spectacular. I would like however to see the same mastering transferred to the best digital. Then conduct a careful and controlled comparison with serious audiophiles , then gather their impressions and opinions. I am sure there would be some surprises.
As for your assertion that digital cannot go beyond a trio well …

90dB o n the Studer is spectacular .. No Dolby involved? Wow ... that can't be tubes? Is it? Link to the specs please ?
Frantz

Well OK, the majority was early eg. Mercury, RCA, Decca, EMI, Prestige, Contemporary, Impulse, Blue Note, Fantasy, Pablo, Roulette, etc. the best of which came in the '60s and early '70s.

You know I don't consider the Mercury 1812 one of their particularly good recordings; spectacular yes, good sound not really. And clearly there's saturation, and I haven't played it in years so am relying on memory, on the canon shots.

As far as the Deccas go, Winston Ma has released many on his FIM label using the K2 and newer digital technology. That's actually how the TP got the Decca masters; Winston had the masters in for digital transfer.

I gave the link to the interview with Tim that contained that statement. I'm not sure if Tim has published the Studer's spec but I'm sure someone like Paul Stubblebine out in SF--or Kavi, can certainly corroborate the FR. I can also email Tim and see if he has those measurements anywhere.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

regarding building an analog Lp classical collection; it's cheap and easy. no doubt if you are really picky and try to stick with the very best performances and pressings it can be tedious and quite expensive.

but....

it's easy to find and buy classical Lps that are just below that 'elite' level and they will 'destroy' any digital version of the same music and and pretty much any digital recording. yes; you need a good vinyl set-up but again, for 'Playback Designs' money one can do that.

this morning i purchased 8 'nice' DGG and Philips european pressings on ebay for $15.00 including shipping. they were purchased from individual auctions from one seller and i saved on shipping by combining them. there are thousands of them on sale all the time.

there is truely no excuse to not get into Lps if you like classical. for pop it does get more complicated....but much of it is also cheap and sounds great. Jazz can be more difficult but there are lots of bargains.

when we have a thread about 'the State of Analog' cheap Lps must be one of the main topics.

 

[MylesBAstor]

there is truely no excuse to not get into Lps if you like classical. for pop it does get more complicated....but much of it is also cheap and sounds great. Jazz can be more difficult but there are lots of bargains.

when we have a thread about 'the State of Analog' cheap Lps must be one of the main topics.

Mike:

Though some consider them pricey, the new 45 rpms jazz reissues from Chad, Ying and Joe and Ron are sensational. In fact, the ORG are downright spectacular. Chad's got over a 100 releases (of course some are out of print), and MMJ and ORG are just getting under way reissuing BN, Impulse, Verve, etc. And for instance, Roy Haynes Out on the Afternoon is too darn close to my 15 ips tape copy that I use as a tape reference. The LP just gives up a little bit of many things but is in no means embarrassed by the tape.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike:

Though some consider them pricey, the new 45 rpms jazz reissues from Chad, Ying and Joe and Ron are sensational. In fact, the ORG are downright spectacular. Chad's got over a 100 releases (of course some are out of print), and MMJ and ORG are just getting under way reissuing BN, Impulse, Verve, etc. And for instance, Roy Haynes Out on the Afternoon is too darn close to my 15 ips tape copy that I use as a tape reference. The LP just gives up a little bit of many things but is in no means embarrassed by the tape.

Myles,

i could not agree with you more.

i own every 45 rpm issued (that i know of) since 1994 (over 1000 (individual discs, not titles)) and am a huge fan of all of them. they are my most played Lps. and some 45's on the Rockport (slightly) better Tape Project tapes on the Studer. maybe when the Cello/King is in house it will swing the balance, we'll see.

in any case; these are the 'cherry on top' of the Lp heap. what's great is that any vinyl lover can blindly purchase these and know they are going to sound amazing.

 

[FrantzM]

B y the way Walter Lily Acoustics Mahler 5 by Water Lily ACoustics is an EXTRAORDINARY well recorded record.. We audiophiles revere in hyperbole, not so, While I have some reservations which I voiced earlier on the performance, the recording is close to non-pareil ... A gem .. People like Kavi Alexander should be supported by acquiring this recording on SACD or CD ( I don't think there is an LP version) you would get an education on how well an orchestra can be recorded by a Master. A reference. No doubt and the performance is not bad a t all simply that the Barbiroli on EMI classics is so good, it'll spoils you ..

Frantz

 

[MylesBAstor]

the question here is at what point will digital fully equal or pass the best analog in reproduction performance.

the points i am making are not anti-digital. more like socio-ecomomic predictions based on recent history and observation of media marketing and the consumer electronics industry.

yes; we did start the process on this 'State of Analog' thread by making inaccurate (in my experience) representations of digital's superiority....which i challenged. then maybe we might agree that analog is better but just wait, digital is coming on strong.

which is what my latest posts have responded to......and that is.....digital is certainly not coming on strong. i agree that 'someday' it is inevitable that it will fulfill it's promise. but not now, not next year, and i see no eveidence that 'the promise of digital superiority' will occur within 20 years.

Steve and Mark say they disagree; but they offer no response as to what evidence they see that digital performance is improving. good reason for that of course; there is no such evidence. i agree it's logical that digital should improve, but beyond that general feeling, there is nothing.

let's look at the facts. in the mid-90's you had cutting edge formats of DSD/SACD and hi-rez PCM DVD-Audio 192/24. now; 15 years later you have.......exactly the same thing. nothing has changed in digital audio in terms of resolution. and nothing is planned.

if you guys know of something beyond this that is even hinted at for music reproduction then out with it. otherwise, inferring we live in a digital world is no answer to my point.

show me something!

I think sometimes we end up chasing our tail--or rediscovering the wheel. Take for instance the often heard complaint that audiophiles/public don't listen to live music. Go back and read Edward Vilchur's book written in the '50s and one can read the same criticism!

So with that in mind, check out the link from JGH written in 1982:

http://www.stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/the_revolution_that_never_was/

 

[mep]

Mike-I find myself on the wrong side of this argument since I am an analog guy, but you don't think that D/A converters have gotten better over the years and will continue to do so? I didn't mean to imply that digital will create new standards for audio anytime in the near future, just that D/A converters will continue to evolve. I guess the biggest change in digital has been the hi-rez software available as downloads primarily where you can actually obtain 24 bit files at high sampling rates. I for one just don't think digital will ever sound as real as analog in the current forms of digital as we know it. Digitial by its very nature means zeros and ones-on or off. It's a switch that can turn off and on very fast, but a switch nonetheless. Are some of us more sensitive to music being chopped up to bits instead of being recorded and played back as analog waveforms? I think the answer is yes given that we are split into two camps-those that love analog and those that love digital. In the spirit of Rodney King-ism (can't we all just get along) instead of "my father can beat up your father," we should just all agree to disagree. If we can't do that, then I say analog smokes digital and my father can beat up your father.

Mark

 

[MylesBAstor]

Mike-I find myself on the wrong side of this argument since I am an analog guy, but you don't think that D/A converters have gotten better over the years and will continue to do so? I didn't mean to imply that digital will create new standards for audio anytime in the near future, just that D/A converters will continue to evolve. I guess the biggest change in digital has been the hi-rez software available as downloads primarily where you can actually obtain 24 bit files at high sampling rates. I for one just don't think digital will ever sound as real as analog in the current forms of digital as we know it. Digitial by its very nature means zeros and ones-on or off. It's a switch that can turn off and on very fast, but a switch nonetheless. Are some of us more sensitive to music being chopped up to bits instead of being recorded and played back as analog waveforms? I think the answer is yes given that we are split into two camps-those that love analog and those that love digital. In the spirit of Rodney King-ism (can't we all just get along) instead of "my father can beat up your father," we should just all agree to disagree. If we can't do that, then I say analog smokes digital and my father can beat up your father.

Mark

Mark:

I think the audio cynic can say the music market is driven by the ability to mass produce the product. To wit, LPs could be more easily produced in large quantities than tape. Then CDs could be made in larger quantities than LPs. Then downloads have become the latest thing since they can reach even more of the market than CDs.

 

[FrantzM]

mep

There are a lot of misconception about digital due to the necessity to simplify for the sake of clarity of explanation.Let'e take an example. A siine wave at 200 Hz, let us suppose we want to sample it .. We already know that 400 Hz ids enough, right? but if we were to sample it at say 800 Hz, we would be certain we have a better representation fo the signal .. and if we were to sample it at 400 KHz and even better reproduction of the signal? Right? Well .. Wrong!! Once you sample a signal at twice the frequency of its highest harmonics ( a sine wave has no harmonics by the way , just to be clear) .. You can perfectly reconstruct the signal .. That is what is very bizarre and almost counter-intuitive about this Nyquist theorem ... Of course things become more complicated when you have to take into account quantization error to the value of these samples .. That is another story ...
.. We audiophiles, are very passionate about our hobby ... It is very hard for us to acknowledge our biases ... Even harder to tone down our misconceptions .. Back in the days when CD first came, most analog this side of the 8-Track thoroughly trounced CD .. Right now .. It is almost down to preferences ... IT is a dangerous game to play but I have seen audiophiles fooled in thinking they were listening to Analog when in fact it was a CD recording of an LP ... I will go further , you will be surprised under certain conditions how good a 320 Khz mp3 sounds .. many will call heresy here ... I will ask them to try with an open mind ... By the way that is not mean to say that mp3 is indistinguishable from CD or analog simply that it is more difficult than most realize on unknown material... Once you have heard the differences ON a given material, it is relatively easy to know which is which .. on unknown material all bets are off...

Frantz

 

[mep]

Myles-I couldn't agree more. However, I do believe that record labels would provide any medium that would provide high volumes of sales and and high profit margins regardless of the time involved to reproduce them. For example, I believe that if the major labels could be assured that they could sell 100,000 copies of a given title on 15 ips 2 track tape, they would open a factory tomorrow to start up the production line. If they knew they could sell out 100,000 copies of the first ten titles they made, they could buy their tape in bulk and get to work. Can you imagine the price drop in a reel of 10 1/2" tape if you dropped an order for 2,000,000 reels? It wouldn't be $50 any more I can assure you. The major labels could band together and set up a reproduction facility to handle making tapes for all of them in order to further reduce costs and speed up production (remember the record clubs anyone?). Problem is, we that love tape are on the fringe and we couldn't show those type of numbers to record companies (sigh).

Mark