Too Late For Analog?

[microstrip]

(...)
i have maybe 6 or 7 visits a month from many different audiophiles, over a number of years. many arrive with pro-digital biases. and they get wow'd by my digital. then we do Lps, and maybe a tape or two. there is then no more talk about digital.

but i have no proof of anything. i don't worry about proof.

A similar thing happened with my system some months ago. I borrowed a very expensive CD player (the Metronome Kalista) from the distributor, and after a few days he came to collect it. We had a listening session with a few friends, the Kalista was really good, but suddenly someone asked to listen to the Forsell turntable. After a few tracks he just asked - why are we listening to CDs?

I must say that the LP in question is one of those that sounds much better than the CD version - Pink Floyd "The Final Cut".

Coming back to the original subject of the thread, I would like to add a new aspect - not all the turntables are created equal, and some of them are much easier and friendly to operate. Some turntables need permanent maintenance, small adjustments, and are not easy to operate. Others are almost like CD players. I have been hosting an SME20/2 with the SMEV tonearm. It is so much easier to operate than the Forsell with its air compressors and dental floss belt , that I am listening to more vinyl on it, although IMHO the Forsell sounds better.

 

[RogerD]

I have 2 turntables and about 100 records. At some point I might revisit vinyl,but why? Unless somebody wills their pristine 10K record collection to me,that was a option ten years ago but didn't happen, I am more than happy with digital and R2R.

Besides I have broken new ground with my system in clarity and reproduced sound realism that, I think digital will surpass all other mediums very shortly. It's not that digital needs to improve from here,it is that our understanding of our systems and what makes them perform at a high level that needs to catch up.

 

[mep]

Mark, I understand you are pleased with two channel stereo. I differ. In fact, two channel stereo is seriously flawed and everyone here agrees that it does not emulate a live performance.....and therefore....that is one of the reasons that folks are on the merry go round.

Tom-I’m not on your merry go round. I have never bought a piece of gear because I knew it was not linear and I was looking forward to the distortion it would bring to my system. I don’t own any jigger-pookey devices like expanders, compressors, aural exciters, or any other sonic devices designed to change the two channel signal and distort it into something else. I don’t need to keep a single-ended amp around the house for those days when I pine for a good dose of second harmonic distortion.

Responding to your question about starting a binaural place on this forum, yes, this forum has a 3D, processing, etc section!!!

I’m sure it’s a hot bed of activity.

I would bet you that if I played the same song on your stereo, one with slight processing and one without, the processing one would sound more "analog.."even if it were digital source. I don't know what you think your tape deck is doing to the signal to make it sound better, but I don't know why you can not see in particular that adding distortions makes plain old stereo sound better, whether you do that with a particular mike or mastering effects, or tape or LP or processing, its all part of trying to coax more out of plain old stereo.

I’m really not interested in adding any processing to my source material. I don’t think my tape deck is adding anything to the signal to make it sound better. I think a two-track tape deck playing back tapes at 15 ips does a great job of taking you a level closer to the sound of the master tape.

I have put forth my theory about why analog , whether it be via tape or the convuluted process up to your cartridge of choice, makes stereo sound better, and I would like to hear what your theory is.

I am just going to try and keep this simple and say that overall, I just think analog sounds more real to me than digital. I don’t feel the need to have a theory as to why this is so. Specially one that is built on the construct of analog having so many flaws and distortions that when you pile them all up, great sound pops out of the speakers.

Also, if you had a mono button on a well designed pre-amp, and you listen to mono for a few days then switch to stereo, IME it will sound just a bit weird and over processed.

I do have a mono button on my Counterpoint SA-5.1 (actually, it’s a switch). I use it when I play mono records.

Because if you say analog is more accurate to the source, then all the devices used to design and test audio gear are in error but work for all other electronic fields.

Why are you equating test gear with audio equipment? I think this is a bit of a stretch. Who is saying that test gear should be analog?? Because many people feel that really good analog sounds more like live music now we need our test gear to be analog? I’m not buying the connection that you are trying to draw. You just come across sounding like you are frustrated and angry with the sound of two channel music and you want everyone else to hate stereo as much as you do. I just don’t feel like you do and I doubt the majority of the people on this forum share your feelings.

 

[microstrip]

At the risk of sounding off the wall again,

I offer that plain old stereo, ie two speakers, is such a weak representation of the actual event as far as reproduction (everything you hear between the speakers happens in your head processor...there needs to be a third center channel IMO, at the least),

You can call it a weak representation, but it works for most of us, after we get the proper systems. And some systems are better than others. But as you correctly say the brain has to fill the gaps.

that the distortions added by the LP process (less seperation, groove modulation and room pressurization effect and other things such as excessive dynamic swings and oscillating recoveries etc), including beloved tape (distortions there easily 2% and odd order for "bite and clarity") can and IMO do make it "sound differnent but not always better". Complex orchestral pieces go to pieces on an LP IMO, but digital holds together better IMO.

Analog does this. Digital does something different but not necessarily this IMO. So, not too late for analog or any other distortion generating device that can make the "sound" better or more exciting.

Tom

Here we disagree. First, the "complex orchestral pieces go to pieces" much more frequently on CD than on the LP. Complex orchestral pieces, such as some XX century classical music, are particularly sensitive to this aspect.

It would be very nice if the digital experts could find what "analog or any other distortion generating device" do to "make the "sound" better or more exciting" . Then they could implement the algorithms in our CD decoders and we could have "better or more exciting" sound on digital and forget the LPs. .

Or even make my Sony X77 sound exactly as Mike Lavigne the Beat!

 

[fas42]

Besides I have broken new ground with my system in clarity and reproduced sound realism that, I think digital will surpass all other mediums very shortly. It's not that digital needs to improve from here,it is that our understanding of our systems and what makes them perform at a high level that needs to catch up.

Hear, hear!!

Frank

 

[fas42]

He said the CD sounded more like the master tape but the LP sounded more life like and he went on to make a device to help CD sound "better"..

Translation:

CD has less obviously audible distortion, but more low level disturbing distortion;
LP has more obviously audible distortion, but less low level disturbing distortion.
Solution, try and reduce low level disturbing distortion in CD reproduction ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Translation:

CD has less obviously audible distortion, but more low level disturbing distortion;
LP has more obviously audible distortion, but less low level disturbing distortion.
Solution, try and reduce low level disturbing distortion in CD reproduction ...

Frank

Which of your system tweaks is most effective in reducing the low-level distortions encoded into CDs?

Tim

 

[mep]

This came off all wrong, I simply meant that if one believes that test gear we have can measure the stuff we design, (not that it is analog test gear), and we understand that there are many percent of distortions in the LP system, then we must accept that a distorted signal sounds better than a non distorted signal in regards to LP playback sounding "better" in plain old stereo. Now, you feel tape gets you closer to the master tape sound, and I have no idea as I never have had that kind of real life test situation. However, you did say it gets you closer to the master tape sound, but, you did not say sounds more musical or more lifelike...

I am curious about how you have come to your conclusion...did you actually attend such an event where you compared the master and the 15ips tape copy, in real life?

Tom-Isn’t it logical to conclude that if I have 15 ips 2 track tapes that were made from a dub from the master tape that my tapes will be *close* to the sound of the master tape? Do they sound more musical and lifelike than an LP or CD? They sure do. If they didn’t, I wouldn’t bother with the format.

And no, I haven’t yet attended a session where I was hearing the master tape as a dub was being made from it and I could listen to them back to back. I would certainly love to do that by the way and report back on how much was lost on the transfer. But guess what, 15 ips 2 track dubs sound real damn good. Certainly better than any other source material I own.

Maybe just maybe if you could hear a pro deck playing back a 15 ips 2 track recording made from a dub from the master you just might ease up on how bad two channel stereo sounds to you. You keep talking about wanting at least a center channel. The sound that appears to come from between my speakers has so much power it will knock you down. The illusion works at my house. No jigger-pookey devices are needed.

 

[RogerD]

Which of your system tweaks is most effective in reducing the low-level distortions encoded into CDs?

Tim

Tim not to step over frank,but here goes my experience. Just like a system that plays the LP format,the parts are the sum of the sound reproduced. My CD playback system is a tubed DAC and a transport, digital cable and of course the software. The software is the deciding factor,the best my gear can play is sampled at 48 hz. The difference between the 44.1 and the higher level is night and day,which shouldn't surprise anyone. I have found the 1.5 meter cable to be as important as the cartridge on a TT setup. I have also replaced the coupling caps in my DAC. Reduced the overall level of RFI/EMI interference and done so with my overall system.

The cable can reproduce ambient detail that in my system can bring me closer to the illusion that I ever thought possible.

Is analog better?? In my system that is splitting hairs.

 

[mep]

Which of your system tweaks is most effective in reducing the low-level distortions encoded into CDs?

Tim

Wait a minute here. I thought that Frank said there are no bad digital recordings, just bad distortion lurking in our playback gear that keeps you from realizing how great every recording really sounds. But apparently you never really permanently get rid of the distortions in your system. You just beat them into submission temporarily and your system becomes “on song.” Turn your back on it for one second, and the distortion will creep back in like a bad spirit you can’t remove from a haunted house.

Seriously, if the distortion is actually encoded in the recording, you can’t remove it.

 

[RogerD]

Wait a minute here. I thought that Frank said there are no bad digital recordings, just bad distortion lurking in our playback gear that keeps you from realizing how great every recording really sounds. But apparently you never really permanently get rid of the distortions in your system. You just beat them into submission temporarily and your system becomes “on song.” Turn your back on it for one second, and the distortion will creep back in like a bad spirit you can’t remove from a haunted house.

Seriously, if the distortion is actually encoded in the recording, you can’t remove it.

That is a problem that can only be altered on a remaster and then like an old vintage car that has been altered it is no longer original.

 

[fas42]

That is a problem that can only be altered on a remaster and then like an old vintage car that has been altered it is no longer original.

Thanks for your contributions, Roger!

Just to rephrase it, of course there are "bad" recordings, I have never said other. What I have said is that a system working well allows your ear/brain to hear past these deficiencies and for the musical message to get through! As a somewhat extreme example of this, a reasonable PA system does a bloody good job of getting across the musical grunt of a rock concert! The acoustics are appalling, the speakers are pretty ho hum in terms of audiophile qualities, same for the pro amps; but, by gum, most people are getting a hell of a lot of the event energy happening for them.

So what's that system doing right? Most important of all, it is able to go LOUD without falling into a heap, which is where a lot of more refined systems start coming unstuck. Plenty of audiophile type distortion from the PA, but it doesn't matter, because it is doing right what needs to be done right! A bit extreme as an example, but illustrating that if the right things are done right, then the ears are very forgiving ...

Frank

 

[mep]

Just to rephrase it, of course there are "bad" recordings, I have never said other.Frank

Yes, you have stated that there are no bad recordings many, many times Frank. I'm not going to waste the time to sift through all of your posts to cut and paste all of the times you have made that exact statement. I even goofed on you before by saying you were analgous to Evelyn Woodhead with her "No bad dogs" theory.

 

[fas42]

I will just add that I am still trying to get a recording of Art Noxon's MATT test made on my system. My ability to record audio is very primitive, I only seem to have extremely insensitive, rubbishy mic's but I will try to get something happening ...

Of interest, as I have said many times about my low quality drivers needing to be hammered to get them in shape, when I last tried the MATT with the system dead cold, there was a nasty resonance coming through at one point. But running the test for quarter of an hour at a bit back from maximum sorted that out, the spurious distortion disappeared as the drivers warmed up. So definitely with cheap stuff, a bit of conditioning every time you start goes a long way ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thanks for your contributions, Roger!

Just to rephrase it, of course there are "bad" recordings, I have never said other. What I have said is that a system working well allows your ear/brain to hear past these deficiencies and for the musical message to get through! As a somewhat extreme example of this, a reasonable PA system does a bloody good job of getting across the musical grunt of a rock concert! The acoustics are appalling, the speakers are pretty ho hum in terms of audiophile qualities, same for the pro amps; but, by gum, most people are getting a hell of a lot of the event energy happening for them.

I do recall you saying this, Frank, and I wish I had your suspension of disbelief. I can enjoy a live rock concert because of the excitement of the performance and the visual support, but I confess, when the room acoustics suck, or the PA quality sucks, it just sucks. My ear/brain does not get past it.

So what's that system doing right? Most important of all, it is able to go LOUD without falling into a heap

Yes, sound reinforcement professionals do seem to understand, in a way that evades many audiophiles, the critical importance of headroom. Like money, it's hard to have too much of it but so painful when there isn't enough to go around. That's not what we were talking about, though. I was asking about this...

CD

has less obviously audible distortion, but more low level disturbing distortion;
LP has more obviously audible distortion, but less low level disturbing distortion.
Solution, try and reduce low level disturbing distortion in CD reproduction ...

If, as in the example above, you're comparing the distortions inherent in two media, how does reducing distortion in the signal chain beyond that media make them any more equal. Don't get me wrong, I think reduction of distortion is always a good thing, but I just don't see how you're going to improve the distortion on the recording by soldering your mains cable to the wall.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Yes, you have stated that there are no bad recordings many, many times Frank. I'm not going to waste the time to sift through all of your posts to cut and paste all of the times you have made that exact statement. I even goofed on you before by saying you were analgous to Evelyn Woodhead with her "No bad dogs" theory.

That's why I put the quotes around the word "bad", in the sense that people usually call them such, because they don't sound good on their systems. A better term is difficult recordings because that's what they are for most systems to get "right", that is, allow the ear/brain to get the musical message. I did actually say in my list of points at one stage "there is no such thing as a bad recording" or something close to that, to emphasise the need to get away from the headspace of dividing recordings into good versus bad, because following this way of thinking can frequently get you a frame of mind for developing a system that more and more emphasises this very belief. So, recordings may be difficult, "bad", but not bad! Does that make sense?

To get right away from my system territory, the friend tweaking his analogue setup now has a couple of "bad" LP's ready to spin each time he makes changes. If he goes in the wrong direction, they are flat or excrutiating to listen to; the right direction: ah, lovely; settle down in the comfy chair and soak up the sound. It is chalk and cheese ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

If, as in the example above, you're comparing the distortions inherent in two media, how does reducing distortion in the signal chain beyond that media make them any more equal. Don't get me wrong, I think reduction of distortion is always a good thing, but I just don't see how you're going to improve the distortion on the recording by soldering your mains cable to the wall.

Tim

It is not the distortions inherent in the media, it is the distortions generated at the precise moment of playback that are the problem! You have given me a beautiful cue, the latest copy of HiFiCritic has an article with a comment about Peter McGarth from Wilson Audio, who has done a lot of recording of acoustic music. To quote, "He has found that the final CD never sounds as good as the sound captured at the event, which will come as no surprise. What has surprised him is that ripping those CDs onto a Mac, then playing them via the Firewire output through a Weiss DAC, results in sound quality as good as the original ..."

In other words, there is no problem with the encoding, it's all about, as the article says, "the way (the data is) usually extracted and reproduced".

Frank

 

[Steve Williams]

Can we stay on topic please and get away from Frank's proverbial distortion in every thread

 

[tony ky ma]

never too late

My prediction 7" 2 tracks pre-recorded tape in 7.5/ips will come up again, re production tape much cheaper than reissue vinyl in cost , 10" 15/ips only for high end because tape already cost too much, 4 tracks or 3.75/ips will not overcome vinyl or digital, so only 2 tracks in 7.5 speed will more common to mid-high class and can beat vinyl depend on the quality of the machine. of cause production cost of tape deck will much more than a DVD player but at the same time retail price of DVD player only $20 and look at those price of high end TT !
tony ma

 

[RBFC]

On the positive side, there are many new remasters coming out on vinyl. Here's "Groovetown Vinyl", offering both vinyl and high-res FLAC files, some even in "bundles" together:

http://www.groovetownvinyl.com/

Lee